[Senate Hearing 107-317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-317
STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NEEDS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE STATES IN CONSERVING THE NATION'S
WILDLIFE
__________
APRIL 10, 2001--RENO, NV
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-068 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 10, 2001--RENO, NV
OPENING STATEMENT
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 1
WITNESSES
Abbey, Bob, director, Nevada Bureau of Land Management........... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Collard, Leta, Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Elko, NV... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Crawforth, Terry, administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife..... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Denio, Karen, acting state executive director, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture......................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Dupree, Elsie, president, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Reno, NV... 16
Article, NWF Works on Sage Grouse Booklet.................... 66
Letter, Nevada Wildlife Federation........................... 64
Memorandum, Elsie Dupree..................................... 67
Graham, Gary, division director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Service 22
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Henley, Don, Caddo Lake Institute, Karmack, TX................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Johnson, Larry, president, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, Reno,
Nevada......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Murphy, Dennis D., Ph.D., Biodiversity Initiative, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Pearson, Nick, State conservationist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture................ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Sandlin, Hon. Max, U.S. Representative from the State of Texas... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Wallace, A. Brian, chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California..................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Williams, Robert D., field supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office......................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 77
(iii)
STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NEEDS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Reno, NV.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. at the
Bartley Ranch, Reno, NV, Hon. Harry Reid (acting chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Reid.
Also present: Representative Sandlin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. The U.S. Senate committee is called to order.
I'm very happy to convene this hearing. I'm fortunate that
during my entire time in the U.S. Senate that I've been able to
serve on this committee. I'm fortunate for 17 days this year
that I was the chairman of the committee. Now I have a great
working relationship with the chairman of the committee, Bob
Smith, from New Hampshire.
The wildlife conservation successes that we have had in
Nevada are, in a great deal, owed to a number of people in this
room. I have worked with many of you on the Truckee, Walker
Lake, Lake Tahoe, and Lake Mead. We have also worked together
to restore several Lahontan Trout, desert Tortoise, and
Nevada's other sensitive wildlife.
I'm very grateful today to have with us a Member of
Congress, Congressman Sandlin, from eastern Texas. He is a
fourth-term Member of Congress. He is a friend of Don Henley.
Don Henley graces us with his presence today. I've told him
personally, and I'll say to him publicly, it's very good for
our country and it speaks well of him that he would lend his
prestige, his notoriety and his fame to something like the
environment. I'm very grateful to him for being here.
This hearing in Nevada is being held here rather than in
Washington, DC, not just because it would be more convenient
for the people that I want to hear from today, but it's being
held here because I think it's symbolic of how we need to work
on our wildlife conservation efforts. We need to come to the
people doing the work on the ground to find out what works for
them. Without the support of our sportsmen and women, local
conservationists and university scientists, State agency
people, and the local officials of our Federal agencies,
conservation efforts would never get off the ground.
So your input is critical because this year Congress will
consider at least two conservation initiatives that could
benefit State of Nevada if we work together.
The first Act is what we refer to as CARA, Conservation and
Reinvestment Act. Most of you worked hard last year to see that
CARA was enacted. We're going to take another try at it this
year. The House recently reintroduced CARA, and soon I will
introduce the parts of that bill that are in this committee's
jurisdiction.
The bill will provide funding for State wildlife
conservation, education and recreation initiatives. It will
also provide funding for endangered species conservation, and
also conservation efforts that are designed to remove the need
to list species. I know that many of you are involved in the
effort to protect the sage grouse so that we don't need to list
the sage grouse. I think we should be supporting proactive
conservation efforts like that. It's my hope that between the
efforts in the House and in the Senate, we will be able to pass
a CARA bill this year.
Another conservation initiative Congress will take up this
year is the Farm bill. While some people overlook it, the Farm
bill brings about $2 billion in annual conservation spending
into play. Nevada doesn't see much of that money, and I'd like
that to change. This is spending that must take place. This
isn't discretionary. This is mandatory spending. Nevada doesn't
see much of that money, but that's going to change. I'm happy
to see that Karen Denio and Nick Pearson are here today, and
they will talk with us about those programs.
It's my hope that I will have all of your help as we move
forward in those two conservation initiatives to craft programs
and policies that work for us.
Again, I thank each of you for being here today. We have
staff from my Washington, DC committee that are here with me
and local staff. We will prepare a report. We will circulate it
to the other members of the committee. There are other hearings
taking place around the country. We will assimilate,
coordinate, and correlate all this information, hopefully in
the process of bringing more legislation to Washington that is
better than what we have done in the past.
We have, as I have indicated, a number of good witnesses.
We chose this very scenic place to do this hearing rather than
some building in downtown Reno for the obvious reasons. It's
nice to be here and see what can be at a State park, to show
off a little bit of what we have is outside.
We're going to first hear from Congressman Max Sandlin from
Texas. We're happy to hear from him. He resides in Marshal, TX.
We will hear next from Don Henley who, as we know, is a noted
singer. His initial fame came with the historic Eagles group,
and he has gone out on his own and has done well. He is
representing the Caddo Lake Institute of Karnack, TX.
We will then hear from Leta Collord from Northeastern
Nevada Stewardship Group in Elko. We will hear from Larry
Johnson who has a great story to tell, and then we will hear
from Nevada Wildlife Federation through its representative,
Elsie Dupree.
Congressman Sandlin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX SANDLIN,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Sandlin. Thank you, Senator, for your invitation to be
here today and for the hospitality of your office and staff.
You have been very kind to us while we have been here. It's a
pleasure to be here in beautiful Nevada--``Nevada'' as you say.
Excuse me.
Senator Reid. Let met interrupt and tell you that people
are very conscious about how we pronounce ``Nevada.'' But I'm
always reminded of a lawyer in Nevada that has made more money
than any other lawyer probably is a lawyer by the name of Neil
Gallats. Neil Gallats is from New York, and he still pronounces
Nevada as ``Nevada,'' but it hasn't bothered the jury since
then.
Mr. Sandlin. You say ``tomato'' and I say ``tomato.''
It's a pleasure being in Nevada. Both Nevada and Texas
share an interest in the environment and the outdoors and
wildlife. I am proud to be speaking to the men and women who
are working to introduce Federal legislation in order to
sustain our State and local wildlife conservation efforts
across the Nation. We appreciate your help, Senator, in that
area and other areas in that Senate.
Last October, I had the pleasure of participating in the
dedication of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge in
Karnack, TX. This was just one step in an ongoing effort to
create an educational and environmental legacy out of a former
army ammunition plant. The Caddo Lake Institute is a most
unusual success story formed from a public-private partnership
and the tireless labor of the local community.
The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant formerly employed over
3,000 people. This plant manufactured explosives and was a
self-contained city. For over 50 years, LAAP supplied
explosives to our Nation's armed forces across the globe. First
opened in World War II, LAAP shipped flares, rockets and shells
to armed conflicts in Vietnam, Korea and Operation Desert
Storm. At the end of the cold war, the plant became responsible
for the destruction of the nuclear missile engines it once
built. Soviet inspectors watched on as over 700 Pershing
missile engines were fastened into concrete cages and fired as
their hulls were crushed.
When the U.S. Army and Monsanto Chemical officials first
made their way to Caddo Lake in the early 1940's, they
undoubtedly noticed it's beauty. It's virtually impossible to
overlook the pristine natural habitat complete with tall pines
and exotic cypress trees draped in Spanish moss. We have a
picture over here for people to see. Those are the cypress
trees and Spanish moss that looks much like you think of
Florida and Louisiana. It's just a beautiful pristine part of
Texas.
What those officials did not realize is that this place,
soon to be known as Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, sat on a
wetland of international importance with a national treasure of
native plant and wildlife species.
While the ammunition plant successfully met its
manufacturing demands, it left behind a legacy of pollution and
contamination. Longhorns' doors have been closed for many
years, but its byproducts continue to pollute the soil and
water of Caddo Lake. Further, asbestos is prominent in the
standing buildings of the now defunct ammunition plant. I grew
up hunting and fishing on that lake. There are many, many sorts
of species of fish, animals and plants, white bass, black bass,
perch, crappie. Many mornings as you're cruising you will see
the alligators and snapping turtles sunning in the breaks there
in the cypress, and Bald Eagles are prevalent there. Every sort
of water fowl that you ever seen and some you may not have seen
are there.
Early in the morning it's much like the beginning of time
when you're there, just a very pristine national treasure. When
the Army ammunition plant made its manufacturing demands it
left behind a legacy of pollution as you might imagine. Doors
have been closed there for several years but they have a
byproduct of pollution as a result of manufacturing explosives.
Further, the asbestos is an important product of the
buildings that are there. Less than 15 percent of the total
land appears to be affected, and now it's undergoing management
clean-up by the U.S. Army. We look forward to working with them
in a positive way.
Things in that area would probably have continued to
deteriorate if it weren't for local citizens, pleas from
several colleges and universities and the presence of the Caddo
Lake Institute. The Caddo Lake Institute was established by Mr.
Don Henley and we are honored to have him with us today.
As early as 1993 we had several local schools, such as
Wiley College, which is the oldest historically black college
west of the Mississippi in that county. Wiley College, Stephen
F. Austin State University and East Baptist University actively
lobbied for Federal and international recognition for the
refuge as well as funding for an educational institute.
By 1996 Caddo Lake was designated a ``Ramsar Wetland of
International Importance'' and was officially recognized as an
ecosystem essential for maintaining biodiversity. Caddo Lake
was also given Resource Category 1 status by the Fish and
Wildlife Service, it's highest classification of wetlands.
Dwight Shellman, president of the Caddo Lake Institute,
conceived and implemented the plan for local involvement. Robin
and Betty Holder who live in Karnack, TX, and own the local
grocery store, went with Mr. Shellman, who is also here today,
to look at other wildlife refuges and examine plans for
environmentally sound reuse of abandoned war industry land.
Both Robin and Betty agree that any other use of the plant
would be a waste and are excited about its future. Dwight
Shellman wanted to be here but he had a family emergency. He
has been the organizer and the person who has done the leg work
to implement Mr. Henley's vision in this area. Mr. Holder and
others in the community I have spoken with feel it would be a
waste if we didn't do something to preserve this site.
Currently, land has been privately leased for the Caddo
Lake Institute campus. We envision a collaborative atmosphere
created by our community leaders for visiting research
scientists, graduate students and echo-tourists. This
atmosphere will contribute to the creation and evolution of the
first U.S. Regional Ramsar Wetland Science Center, which will
honor international wetland standards. The higher education
facility will conduct research on better forestry and wetland
practices. This research will not only advance agricultural
practices but also improve wetland preservation and
conservation throughout the Nation. It is important that we
facilitate the implementation of this plan with Federal funding
to help build the research center.
The creation of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
provides a rare opportunity to coordinate echo-tourism,
scientific research and economic growth. Our conservation
initiatives are in place and our local interest is sustained.
The Wildlife Conservation bill would support our conservation
plan and strategy at Caddo Lake. I am pleased to be a part of
this effort and will continue to work to make this plan a
reality. So after almost a decade of an exceptional effort
represented here today and by Mr. Henley's vision, we seek your
help and guidance, Senator, in completing the third part of the
original local vision, which is the appropriation of the
Department of Interior funding or our Ramsar Science and
Education Center in Longhorn, TX.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to be with you,
Senator, and Mr. Henley. If there's nothing further, then I'll
turn it over to our local favorite, Mr. Don Henley.
[The prepared statement of Representative Max Sandlin
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Sandlin, U.S. Representative from the
State of Texas
It is a pleasure to testify before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee at this Wildlife Conservation Hearing. I am
proud to be speaking to the men and women who are working to introduce
Federal legislation in order to sustain our State and local wildlife
conservation efforts across the Nation.
Last October, I had the pleasure of participating in the dedication
of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Uncertain, Texas. This
was just one step in an ongoing effort to create an educational and
environmental legacy out of a former army ammunition plant. The Caddo
Lake Institute is a most unusual success story formed from a public-
private partnership and the tireless labor of the local community.
The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) formerly employed over
3,000 people. This plant manufactured explosives and was a self-
contained city. For over 50 years, LAAP supplied explosives to our
Nation's armed forces across the globe. First opened in World War II,
LAAP shipped flares, rockets and shells to armed conflicts in Vietnam,
Korea and Operation Desert Storm. At the end of the cold war, the plant
became responsible for the destruction of the nuclear missile engines
it once built. Soviet inspectors watched on as over 700 Pershing
missile engines were fastened into concrete cages and fired as their
hulls were crushed.
When the U.S. Army and Monsanto Chemical officials first made their
way to the banks of Caddo Lake in the early 1940's, they undoubtedly
noticed its beauty. It is virtually impossible to overlook the pristine
natural habitat complete with tall pines and exotic cypress trees
draped in Spanish moss (picture). What these officials did not realize
is that this place, soon to be known as Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant,
sat on a wetland of international importance with a national treasure
of native plant and wildlife species.
While the ammunition plant successfully met its manufacturing
demands, it left behind a legacy of pollution and contamination.
Longhorns' doors have been closed for many years, but its by-products
continue to pollute the soil and water of Caddo Lake. Further, asbestos
is prominent in the standing buildings of the now defunct ammunition
plant.
Things would probably have continued to deteriorate had it not been
for the efforts of local citizens, pleas from several colleges and
universities and the presence of the Caddo Lake Institute. The Caddo
Lake Institute was established by Mr. Don Henley and we are honored to
have him with us today.
As early as 1993, local schools such as Wiley College, Stephen F.
Austin State University and East Baptist University actively lobbied
for Federal and international recognition for the refuge as well as
funding for an educational institute.
In 1996, Caddo Lake was designated a ``Ramsar Wetland of
International Importance'' and was officially recognized as an
ecosystem essential for maintaining biodiversity. Caddo Lake was also
given Resource Category 1 status by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)--its highest classification of wetlands.
Dwight Shellman, President of the Caddo Lake Institute, conceived
and implemented the plan for local involvement. Robin and Betty Holder,
who live in Uncertain and own the local grocery store, went with Mr.
Shellman, who is also here today, to look at other wildlife refuges and
examine plans for environmentally sound reuse of abandoned war industry
land. Both Robin and Betty agree that any other use of the plant would
be a waste and are excited about its future.
Currently, land has been privately leased for the Caddo Lake
Institute campus. We envision a collaborative atmosphere created by our
community leaders for visiting research scientists, graduate students
and echo-tourists. This atmosphere will contribute to the creation and
evolution of the first U.S. Regional Ramsar Wetland Science Center,
which will honor international wetland standards. The higher education
facility will conduct research on better forestry and wetland
practices. This research will not only advance agricultural practices
but also improve wetland preservation and conservation throughout the
Nation. It is important that we facilitate the implementation of this
plan with Federal funding to help build the research center.
The creation of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge provides a
rare opportunity to coordinate echo-tourism, scientific research and
economic growth. Our conservation initiatives are in place and our
local interest is sustained. The Wildlife Conservation bill would
support our conservation plan and strategy at Caddo Lake. I am pleased
to be a part of this effort and will continue to work to make this plan
a reality.
Senator Reid. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DON HENLEY, CADDO LAKE INSTITUTE, KARMACK, TX
Mr. Henley. Thank you for allowing me to address the
committee today. First, I want to thank Congressman Sandlin for
his positive efforts on behalf of this local initiative. His
introduction and his photograph provide an excellent overview
of our vision. I also thank the committee members for hearing
our concerns about a possible need for oversight and support
for community-based initiatives that fulfill important Federal
conservation commitments.
My remarks will address, not just the local, but also the
national and global conservation benefits that could result
from congressional support for The Caddo Lake Ramsar Wetlands
Science Center Program.
However, my comments about our Caddo Lake program may apply
equally well to other community initiatives that are also
fulfilling important Federal conservation commitments. One
example is the Elko habitat restoration program in your State
of Nevada, Senator Reid. My conclusion will note some features
and needs which both programs seem to share.
We have provided the committee with a pamphlet about our
Caddo Lake initiative. The front cover contains the Caddo Lake
scene Congressman Sandlin showed you, prefaced by the phrase,
``A Woods Hole for Wetlands.'' That phrase was coined in a
local editorial several years ago, referring to the famous
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. This
editorial is in the pamphlet. Together the picture and the
phrase show the reason for, and the essence of, this local
vision. This booklet also contains schematic plans for the
Center's campus, the office building for our Research
Coordination Network, interpretive and accessory support
buildings. A possible hemispheric mission is noted in the
letter from John Rogers, Fish and Wildlife Service. Finally,
the pamphlet contains the 1999 Costa Rica Conference Resolution
of the Ramsar Nations, which endorses powerful guidance to
maximize the involvement of local communities in management of
Ramsar wetland sites. The resolution notes that the approved
guidance was co-
authored by the Caddo Lake Institute, among others. Thus, this
rural Texas initiative has already influenced both the local
and international practice wetland conservation.
The Caddo Lake Ramsar Science Center is a proposed public/
private partnership between the institute as the local facility
manager and the program coordinator, and two Department of
Interior agencies which have special expertise.
These Federal agencies are: The U.S. Geological Survey's
National Wetlands Research Center of Lafayette, LA, and the
International Affairs Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Both agencies have been our informal partners
at Caddo Lake since 1993.
The purpose of this Ramsar Center is to institutionalize a
brilliant community achievement that could light the way for
other communities. The center is charged with demonstrating
nothing less than the ``exemplary fulfillment'' of an important
U.S. treaty commitment, specifically the Ramsar Convention on
``Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl
Habitat.'' Our national credibility in keeping this commitment
underpins our ability to ask other nations to manager wisely
the wetlands in their parts of our common flyways. In addition,
the Caddo Lake Ramsar Center fulfills an official pledge by the
U.S. Government and the Caddo Lake Institute to Brisbane,
Australia.
At Brisbane we jointly pledged to establish at Longhorn the
first U.S. Regional Ramsar Center. To assure the availability
of the facility and fulfill the pledge, the Caddo Lake
Institute leased a 1,400-acre old growth forest at Longhorn for
conservation research purposes, as well as a 14-acre campus and
buildings for eventual renovation. We originally pledged
$100,000 to this purpose. We have incurred expenses greatly in
excess of that amount to fill our share of the Brisbane pledge.
The purpose of this requested appropriation is to augment
the Department of Interior's budget for our partner agencies to
underwrite the costs of the center and its programs for
community
members and scientists. Together we will create, operate, and
demonstrate the Caddo Lake Wetland Management Plan, as an
exemplar of the best Ramsar guidance. The renovation plan
contemplates that the facility will be a earning venue. It will
include powerful modeling tools for this wetland and its
watershed. Interpretative and outreach programs will showcase
the practical realities of a community-based wetland management
program, and its watershed science foundation.
Because of its wetland science expertise and proximity to
Lafayette, LA, we think the National Wetlands Research Center
or NWRC, is the logical agency to receive a budget augmentation
to fund and provide oversight for the Caddo Lake Ramsar Center
program. Although we know it to be an excellent science agency,
we believe NWRC is ``fiscally underappreciated'' within the
Federal budget. It deserves both the funding and the credit it
will earn by congressional augmentation to provide its
expertise to local Ramsar communities, a task we know that NWRC
does well. FWS International Affairs, which executes our
government's Ramsar obligations, would be reimbursed for its
cost of providing Ramsar oversight and U.S. policy
coordination. We understand that FWS may also wish to use some
Center resources to assist other Ramsar sites whose requests
for help are currently underfunded. This new assistance
capacity might include training at Caddo Lake and support for
their delegations of our citizens and scientists who visit
other wetland communities in response to their requests for
advice or assistance.
We use the term ``budget augmentation'' purposefully. It
would be counterproductive to compromise the historic missions
of NWRC or FWS International Affairs by reallocating to our
program any of their shrinking resources. NWRC would reimburse
itself and other Federal agencies from this budget augmentation
for direct Federal agency costs as at Caddo Lake. The Caddo
Lake communities have made a solid beginning in showing that
rural communities have the potential to manage an
internationally significant wetland conservation program. Last
summer we facilitated a ``Lake Residents Working Group'' to
master and make local presentations of lake management science
information. Many Working Group participants, like our grocer
and guide, Robin Holder, are also members of key local
businesses, community groups, and the local navigation
district. Our initiative formalized the practice of regular
consultation with our colleagues of Texas Parks and Wildlife
Fisheries and Waterfowl Divisions, as well as their personnel
managing their Caddo Lake wildlife management area, the
original 1993 Ramsar site. Together they represent the nucleus
of the Ramsar-like structure that joins community groups with
science experts, a structure which this appropriation would
enable us to formalize to manage the Caddo Lake Camero Ramsar
wetlands.
To assure that there will always be a sound science
foundation for this ambitious program, we have expanded our
historic academic monitoring program. It has become a much
broader research coordination network, RCN. The RCN's mission
is to provide scientific information to our communities for
exemplary implementation of Ramsar guidance, not just for Caddo
Lake, but also as a model and encouragement to other wetland
communities. Today RCN is composed of scientists from Texas
A&M, Stephen F. Austin State University, East Texas Baptist
University, Wiley College, Panola College, and Louisiana State
University, Shreveport. Anticipating that some committee
members may be alumni of other Texas universities, I hasten to
note that both University of Texas and Texas Tech University,
among others, have been invited to participate. This network
includes agency scientists from Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National
Wetlands Research Center. Next week the RCN meets in Jefferson,
TX, to review Ramsar guidance and to create interpretative
materials about ``what we know'' and to define research
projects about ``what we need to find out to manage better.''
These conference products will become part of the annual
research action agenda for the Center. The Center's
interpretative program will routinely showcase the findings of
this applied research and how such research informs the
management of ``critical issues'' in the Caddo Lake Basin.
These critical issues include, by way of example, how to
maximize and measure the effectiveness of community management
itself, how to deal with invasive species, how to maintain
hydrological integrity, and how to assess and monitor risks to
ecological character. Examples of risks already calling for
sound science are: Measurement of the effects of acids and
nutrients and trace metals from airborne and point sources,
including levels of mercury and other pollutants found in the
fish and wildlife throughout the basin.
Community members of the Lake Management Working Group will
attend the annual RCN conferences as full participants as a
part of their ongoing wetland science orientation. Therefore,
much of the funding will be passed through to implement or
showcase the research action agenda that the RCN will produce
annually with the community management entity. As a result, we
expect that the Center will become a model of an advanced
research and educational facility for our participants as well
as natural science visitors.
Congressman Sandlin perceptively stated a belief we all
share at Caddo Lake: Like politics, all conservation is
``local'' conservation--at least the best kind is. That has
been true in our case. Contrary to popular characterizations of
rural southeasterners as being alarmed by local Federal
conservation activities, our communities are proud of the
Ramsar designation, understand its value, and use the
designation as a tool for stewardship.
During our preparation for this hearing we noticed that
similar local initiatives were happening with the sage grouse
habitat initiative by rural people in Elko, NV. Both programs
even share the feature of local people recruiting two willing
Federal agencies. We suspect that these may be two examples,
perhaps of many similar situations, where extremely important
Federal conservation commitments are actually being fulfilled
by local initiatives--just because local people decided it was
the right thing to do.
But the community-based initiatives, especially those
pursuing Federal conservation commitments, are very vulnerable.
The local effort required to create them is potentially
exhausting. If they are not institutionalized and incorporated
into local cultural pride, they can rapidly deteriorate. They
may be undermined by the death, illness, aging, and the
personal and family needs of key participants. Local efforts
can also be demoralized by indifference or by ``turf wars'' or
manipulation by the agencies whose missions they are
furthering. They may die simply for want of an appropriate
institutional vessel to carry them on. Often these local
efforts achieve a critical mass--and their greatest promise and
vulnerability--just when their need for costly
institutionalization is also critical.
Survival of model community conservation initiatives like
survival of model conservation bureaucracies, requires funding
to pay for the expertise and institutional structures which
foster continuity of programs and personnel, as well as the
means to retrieve essential information to plan, to manage,
train, and recruit successors. We believe that helping to
institutionalize model community programs, which fulfill
Federal commitment, is justified, especially where they are
funded to support other local efforts.
So we suggest that, as we examine how we accomplish the
conservation in this country, we should make a note of and
accommodate the flashes of community brilliance that occur to
illuminate and fulfill a Federal conservation commitment. I
believe one such situation is occurring in our Caddo Lake
Ramsar communities. This significant conservation effort can be
continued as a model for our Nation and the world, especially
if the vessel for institutionalization is the local vision,
like our vision, of ``A Woods Hole for Wetlands,'' the Caddo
Lake Wetlands Science Center.
Thank you.
Senator Reid. Thank you, very much. If you and the
Congressman would be patient, we will have a number of other
witnesses. And I have a couple questions that I'd like to ask.
Leta, we are very happy to have you here. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LETA COLLORD, NORTHEASTERN NEVADA STEWARDSHIP
GROUP, ELKO, NV
Ms. Collord. Thank you so much for your efforts and thank
you to the Lake folks for supporting and upholding the
principles that we feel are certainly part and parcel of
improving conservation across the Nation starting at the local
level.
My name is Leta Collord and I have lived in northern Nevada
since 1974 and no contest owe county for the past 15 years.
Jim, my husband, and I have certainly been aided by many, many
other people that took a train that was offered by the Bureau
of Land Management called the ``Partnership Series''
specifically community-based efforts for helping the various
communities, and that was held in 1998. So I have to share that
opportunity starting with many, many other people in our
community.
But I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the members of the
Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, and thank you for the
interest that you have in finding improved and workable ways to
restore functioning habitats for species diversification.
The plight of sage grouse is symptomatic. It is an
indication that the ecosystems on which sage grouse depend are
not functioning properly. Therefore, on the grand scale the
task is to return functionality to the ecosystems. The overall
objective of our plan is to create a mosaic of a herb
community. The various age classes and vegetation cover
condition represent the various seasonal habitats required by
sage grouse for a different phases of their life cycle.
That's a statement from the introduction to the draft form
of the Elko County Sage Brush Ecosystem Conservation Plan that
is being developed by our stewardship group out in the Elko
area. As I discussed the organizational principles of the
stewardship group and the scientific aspects of the
conservation plan, I hope to demonstrate the fit between our
efforts and your proposed funding sources. Our stewardship
group offers two distinct and effective components for
improving the success of conservation planning that we feel are
very important to consider.
First, we are working to mend human relations within our
communities. By building working relationships that nurture
trust and mutual respect, the scene is set to walk the land and
identify and solve problems.
Second, our stewardship group stresses the importance of
pursuing dynamic science-based information that is objective
and thoughtful. We see man stewarding nature through thoughtful
pursuits. To serious students, a public land conflict, the fact
has become clear that in order to enhance the wholeness of our
ecosystems, we must address the political side of public land
conflict as we actively educate people through sound natural
resource science. These components are expressed in our mission
statement and remain unique to community-based planning. We
acknowledge that man is an essential component of the ecosystem
and the natural landscape will be healed as relationship
building goes forward.
These are the principles that are expressed in the Bureau
of Land Management's training that they shared with us in
October 1998. They are contained in the partnership series
entitled ``Community-based Partnerships and Ecosystems for a
Healthy Environment.'' The designers of that more structured
program deserve a great deal of thanks for their wisdom. I
think it has been a wonderful introduction into the Bureau's
training.
Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group is a nonprofit
organization. We have an active core membership of
approximately 60 people, and the citizen membership reflects
the general diversity of communities, and we include all of the
judicial State and Federal agencies for participating there as
well as the university and U.S. Geologica Survey and some
others that you don't normally think of being in a community
situation.
One principle expressed in the partnership series approach
that is important is the ability to recognize troubled areas or
emerging issues in time to nip them in the bud. By doing this
you keep them local and contained. Additionally as the skills
and awareness develops, the credibility and general capacities
increase. Respect for all voices is important. By using the
knowledge available, most structured and cultural, that exists
in the community membership a healthy exchange of information
takes place. Enduring decisions are a byproduct of
participating with a learning attitude and including all voices
at that--the initial stage of planning.
Let's talk a little bit about our conservation plan. I'm
amending my remarks dramatically, and I hope you will have the
time to read my full paper.
After many meetings and discussions the group settled on
the emerging issue of the sage grouse. One thing that is
important to interject at this point is that our group was
initiated through a need to find a better avenue of addressing
public lands in general in Elko County. It was initiated by a
great deal of angst over the amount of money that is being
spent on litigation and conflict and having improved relations
and improved sense of habitat and all those associated things
in our area.
So it was out of a general sense of frustration that we
decided to enter into a process, and it wasn't until after we
had been in that process for a period of time that the emerging
issue of sage grouse is actually what the membership decided
they would get involved in.
We reasoned that if we could keep the sage grouse off the
endangered species list, that our users of public land in our
region would be benefited. Additionally we, at this time, were
led to see that unless we did a multi-species approach plan on
a watershed scale level, that we would really not be very
effective in furthering our concerns.
So as a group we identified 11 different areas that would
have potential to affect the sage grouse, and for 6 months
those different topics were addressed in biweekly discussions.
Each one of those topics were flushed out fully with a full
participation of representative membership involved in that.
In the fall of 2000 until February 2001, we gathered
research data and put it together and started the writing of
the draft plan. In March our draft plan was presented to the
membership, and it's going to be circulated throughout our
county. It'll start in the conservation districts and then to
all interested groups and folks within the community.
As a citizen participant in this process, it has become
just a strong, strong message to me that relationship building
and closeness to the landscape is basic to solving natural
resource problems. You have to retain a system that has
transparency and openness to build the trust that has sorely
been absent for so many years. Working efficiently throughout
the time and process, by sharing information and building
knowledge base together, our hopes are of alleviating the rush
to litigation and confusion and conflict.
These combined will build a successful long-term regime of
respect for land and conservation of the natural environment.
The growing reality of the financial implication for landscape
restoration led directly to the need for long-term funding.
Ongoing funding concepts will be needed to accommodate the
judicious implementation of the ecosystem restoration. There
are already concerns within the participating agencies as to
how the full implementation of monitoring of such plans will be
paid for. It'll take full cooperation and creative thinking, as
well as adequate funding on all of our parts to see these
ambitious plans launched.
I believe that community-based planning efforts such as
ours hold the hope for optimum investment of our Nation's
conservation dollars and should qualify under the titles you
are considering.
In closing I'd like to reiterate that our group is working
and talking together, incorporating the principles that we feel
are principles that the Western Governors Association developed
a few years, that you need to attack problems at the base
closest to the ground with a broad base of input and emphasis
on science is absolutely essential.
There is a history of flawed success across our Nation in
general for furthering some of these conservation plans in the
field that--considering this is a new community-based effort,
it's essential to turning that into more successful history.
Watershed planning is the scale that is appropriate and will be
very specific to having our success.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity to speak
with you and we have been honored to be included.
Senator Reid. Your full statement will be made part of the
record.
Ms. Collord. Thank you.
Senator Reid. We will hear from Larry Johnson, president of
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. Twenty years ago it was founded and
we will learn why. It's a great story in and of itself. It's an
impressive organization, and it introduced bighorn sheep to
over 40 mountains in Nevada, and as per our conversation with
Don Henley today, even into Texas.
The organization, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited engages in
critical reseeding efforts to help prevent the spread of
cheatgrass and guzzlers. We will learn more about guzzlers
today. We will learn they have sponsored research projects and
a multitude of education and scholarship programs. It's a great
organization. I'm very impressed with it.
Larry, I have a statement from you that I have read in its
entirety. I need you to condense that. If you would do that. I
can't tell you how grateful I am that you're here. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF LARRY JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NEVADA BIGHORNS
UNLIMITED, RENO, NV
Mr. Johnson. Thank you for inviting me this afternoon.
Again, I want to, probably, summarize our goals, our
accomplishments and our mission.
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited is a private sportsmen
conservation group. We are approximately 20 years old. We were
formed to raise money for our State division of wildlife for
the reintroduction of bighorn sheep. That was our primary goal
in the beginning. Since then it's become a separate business on
the side almost. We have----
Senator Reid. You're an engineer. Is that right?
Mr. Johnson. I'm an engineering geologist. I have a
consulting geotechnical and construction management firm that
we work around and across the State.
Senator Reid. That's your part-time job.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, as my wife says.
But Nevada Bighorns grew and has had such tremendous
success over the years that our programs have enabled us and
dictate to us, really, that we branch out merely from funding
the Division of Wildlife's sheep transplant program to all
wildlife and habitat and education and research programs around
the State.
We have formed very successful partnerships with State and
Federal agencies, primarily our State Division of Wildlife,
Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, to accomplish these goals. I
probably should mention a couple of universities in there too.
We have successfully transplanted bighorn sheep to more
than 50 mountain ranges in the State of Nevada. It's a super
success story in that bighorn sheep were once the most numerous
big game animal in Nevada, but almost completely were extinct
in the State. By the turn of the century we had lost all of our
Rocky Mountain bighorns and California Bighorns in the
Northwest and the great majority throughout the remainder of
the State. Only small herds remained in the very southern
desert mountains.
Other States and provinces really have been so incredibly
generous to us and allowed us to capture and release stock back
into our mountain ranges. We have gotten California Bighorns
primarily from British Columbia and Rocky Mountain Bighorn
sheep from Colorado, Wyoming, and Alberta and we have used our
own seed populations of desert sheep in the south to spread
sheep across the State.
Now we're in a position, as I was telling the gentleman
from Texas, that our State Division of Wildlife has allowed
export of desert and California sheep back into Oregon, Idaho,
Utah, Texas, as well, again, a widely successful program.
We're also involved in a little bit of everything, wildlife
from elk, antelope, deer, sage grouse, you name it. We're
pretty much wildlife oriented. Our habitat programs that we
have been intimately involved with over the years are in both
funding and providing volunteer labor reseeding projects.
We have lost in excess of 2 million acres of wildlife
habitat to range fires just in the last 2 years. In fact, the
majority--our biggest budget expenditures in the last 2 years
have been the BLM and Division of Wildlife, the purchase of
seed for reseeding purposes. It is one of those areas that
there's not enough money to go around. We are woefully short of
the needs there.
Water developments. Oftentimes the viable habitat for
wildlife is limited by water, and in Nevada we are, by far, the
driest State in the Union. We, along with our sister groups
such as the fraternity of the desert bighorn in conjunction
with BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service and Division of
Wildlife have constructed and provided volunteer man hours for
design, construction, and clearance of water developments
across the State. Division of Wildlife has constructed over
1,000 small game, small wildlife water developments. We are
probably in the neighborhood of a few hundred large game water
developments across the State. It's very costly, very labor
intensive, but extremely successful.
We take only the mountain ranges that will only carry a few
dozen, for instance, Desert bighorn sheep. In the case of the
Muddy Mountains, turn that mountain range into habitat that
will support many hundreds of bighorn sheep.
Senator Reid. Are those guzzlers?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. They collect rainwater, snow melt, and
collect those into underground tanks.
Senator Reid. To our friends from Texas, you should explain
what a guzzler is.
Mr. Johnson. There's a circle of forums of them. We
actually, in some areas, collect water just from big rock
surfaces. We use those as collection services, big bedrock
slabs, and build a little dam and a ravine and run a pipeline
down to those underground tanks that will sustain wildlife all
year round. In areas where we don't have big--and those are
called ``slick rock collectors.'' In areas where we don't have
large bedrock exposure, we build synthetic collection aprons.
In some areas we build corrugated metal collection aprons,
again, wildly successful.
I primarily address game animals, but, quite frankly,
everything from bats to field mice to coyotes to eagles.
Everything utilizes and benefits from this program.
We're heavily involved in the Eastern Nevada Landscape
Restoration Project with the Bureau of Land Management and very
similar to what is happening in Elko County. That program is
just getting off the ground and, again, it has funding needs
that will last for decades.
Our education projects, we recognize the need to train good
scientists and wildlife managers. For that reason we offer four
college scholarships to Nevada high school graduates who are
majoring in big game management. We are also involved in a
partnership with the Division of Wildlife and Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation in publishing a magazine that targets fourth
graders. It's call ``Wild Outdoor World'' magazine. Our goal is
to hit every fourth grader with this publication five times a
year. Again, we do have budget shortfalls there. We are
currently reaching over two-thirds of the fourth graders
statewide.
We have Nevada range camp that takes high school kids
primarily from urban areas and exposes them to range management
training in central Nevada. We fund their fees. In fact, we go
over and give them a slide show and a talk when I barbecue a
few steaks and show them the role of sportsmen in wildlife
management.
We're involved in a number of research programs. One of the
biggest problems with bighorn sheep populations is their
susceptibility to a bacteria that's carried by healthy domestic
sheep, and which does not make the sheep ranger a bad guy at
all. We are firm believers in multiple use. The rangers belong
there every bit as much as we do. But we're funding several
university studies trying to find out the answer to the
problem. Our animals are presently at risk, and we're trying to
find scientific solutions to that.
We fund research programs with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, sage grouse. In fact, a number of our directors were
just up on the Sheldon Antelope Refuge capturing and
reimplanting them within the past 2 weeks. We will be back up
there after they hatch on the First of June doing the same
thing with the newborn chicks. Again, it's an incredibly
intriguing research program.
In summary, we receive funding requests for a wide variety
of wildlife and habitat and education research projects from a
variety of schools, universities, State and Federal agencies,
and we're continually involved in the programs of big game
fishery, game bird reintroduction, green stripping, which is
protection of existing habitat around the margins of existing
range fires, noxious weed controls, habitat restoration, wild
horse management, water developments in desert habitats,
education and research programs.
Many of the badly needed projects simply can't be
implemented due to funding shortfalls. We put somewhere around
$200,000 of donated private money back into Nevada on the
ground every year. We have, in our history, donated millions of
dollars that have gone back into Nevada.
Couple that with tens of thousands of volunteer man hours
that have gone into these programs. Our efforts are intense.
But, quite frankly, our efforts are insufficient to meet the
needs. Additional and continual sources of funding would
greatly assist our goals, and that's enhancement of the
wildlife resources across the State.
Senator Reid. Congressman Sandlin talked about his obvious
pleasure in hunting and fishing. I want to read a sentence in
your statement which would be made part of the record, your
entire statement. This is a quote from Larry Johnson: ``Nevada
Bighorns Unlimited's actions prove that true sportsmen are the
consummate conservationists.'' That's a very powerful
statement. Elsie, we would like to hear you from you now.
STATEMENT OF ELSIE DUPREE, PRESIDENT, NEVADA WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, RENO, NV
Ms. Dupree. Thank you, and welcome home. I'm president of
the Nevada Wildlife Federation. Nevada Wildlife Federation was
founded over 50 years ago by dedicated sportsmen that wanted to
work on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our membership consists
of affiliate clubs and members. We have nearly 10,000 members.
The public domain lands in Nevada are habitat to many unique
plants and animals. We are very concerned about this habitat. I
asked for comments from affiliates and members for this
testimony.
The general concern of all was the lack of funding to take
care of the land. Nevada could use funding to help with long-
term projects to include: Flood protection along our few rivers
to protect habitat, water quality needs improvement as we
remove mercury, arsenic, and other pollutants.
Water issues are a concern on the Stillwater Refuge, and
Lahontan Valley wetlands here in the north. There is a severe
shortage of water to maintain the wetlands. Invasions of
noxious weeds in the riparian areas are stealing valuable
water. In the southern part of the State the Multi-species
Conservation Plan, MSCP, will need funding to continue the
goals of recovery efforts for fish species such as the bonytail
chub and the razorback sucker.
Walker Lake is a unique situation where the water coming to
the lake is allocated at 130 percent for irrigation. There is a
need for money for willing sellers to give water rights to the
lake. Right now our Division of Wildlife owns a small amount of
water rights that in dry years does not even reach the lake.
This desert lake will die and the waters where migratory birds
rest will not support them with food.
The Great Basin Initiative is a good start for noxious weed
control. There needs to be many educational seminars to educate
the public on the weeds and how to control them. Our State
needs to be fully involved in this problem with funding.
Several affiliates commented on the lack of funding for
control of the wild horses in our State. The herd populations
are high and there is little to no money to bring the herds to
set limits of control. We see damage to the habitat from
overgrazing in wildlife areas. Now that we are in a dry year
there is even more damage. We do not have the manpower to do
the monitoring and repair work. Some of the range workers in
our Federal agencies cover more land in a year than what is in
some States in the East. It is impossible to do a good job with
this much territory. Our Federal agencies need budgets
increased to meet this problem. State agencies need funding for
wildlife habitat improvements. There needs to be grants for
conservation groups to help out on projects.
Other affiliates are concerned with the lack of funding to
do the proper studies. We need best science to take the lead in
wildlife issues. There needs to be monitoring, research, and
studies to show that the program will work or has worked. Often
funds dry up before this is done.
Education is vital. The NvWF is using time and money to
work with our Northwest Sage Grouse Working Group for this
purpose. We have members from all walks of life making a slide
show and pamphlet to educate the public and the agriculture
industry on just what a sage grouse needs to survive and stop
the declining trends. Our Governor has a statewide committee
working on the conservation plans to help stop the decline of
sage grouse in our State, and we fully support his efforts.
Other educational programs by NvWF include our annual
Wildlife Poster Contest for school age children and Backyard
Habitats for those wanting to help provide habitat for wildlife
close to home. Our affiliate, the Truckee River Flyfishers,
started a Trout in the Classroom program where grade school
children raise trout fry in the classroom and then put them in
the river. Ann Privrasky got this program established so well
that our Division of Wildlife is going to try and get this
program in every grade school in the State.
Education can be as simple as having our city, county,
State, and Federal offices remember that we live in a desert
State, and they should landscape their areas with desert
landscaping instead of green lawns and other high water usage
plants. This would educate the public also. In summary, our
State needs guaranteed funding so we can do long-term planning
and repair the damage to the land.
The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson Funds were so
successful in funding State agencies to administrate wildlife
programs that some States and other local governments have
never developed other funding sources to manage wildlife
programs. A guaranteed CARA-type fund would greatly enhance
these programs.
I thank you for your time and the chance to share some
information about Nevada. I will gladly try to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Reid. Thank you, very much. Let me also say here to
my friends and our guests from Texas, that that is an
interesting statement. People don't realize that we are the
most mountainous State in the Union except for Alaska. We have
314 mountain ranges, we have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet
high. Because people come to see the bright lights of Reno and
Las Vegas, they tend not to realize that we have this very,
very unique State. We're the most urban State in America, more
than Texas, Ohio, California, and New York, because 90 percent
of our people live in Reno and Las Vegas. And so it's a great
State with a lot of diversity.
I am struck by you, Don. It appears that this love affair
that you have for this Caddo Lake--am I saying it right?
Mr. Henley. Yes.
Senator Reid. It started when you were a boy. Is that true?
Mr. Henley. Yes. I grew up near the lake. My father took me
there when I was a kid. I caught my first fish there. It was a
bass. I remember the lure that I used. There's so much history
in this lake. It's not only an ecological treasure but it has
remained one because this is a non-industrial part of the
country. There's a lot of history in this lake. This lake is
where Howard Hughes went to experiment with underwater oil
drilling. So there's still abandoned wells under the lake that
have been capped and they need to be looked at. That would be a
subject of study, how to deal with the abandoned oil wells
under water.
There was steamboat traffic on the lake, the Caddo Indians
were quite a civilized Native American tribe with a highly
developed system of tools and tribal government.
It's a wonderful place. You have to see it. I can't really
describe it. Pictures help, but it really requires a visit. I
hope you will come there some day and visit.
Senator Reid. I would love to do that.
It's my understanding that the education has gone so far
that kids at high school there use a frequently flooded
football field to study wetlands. Is that true?
Mr. Henley. That's right. We made a wetland in a football
field, which is hard to do in Texas. But it was frequently
flooded, and we did that.
Senator Reid. If you left no other message to us here in
Nevada than projects work best--in fact, the only way they work
is if local people are involved. If we had come from Washington
and said, ``Caddo Lake, we are going to do this'', it probably
wouldn't have worked very well, would it?
Mr. Henley. No. The people have lived on that lake all
their lives. A lot of elderly people know that lake backward
and forwards. It's filled with swampy backwaters and there are
some people who have gone out and have never come back.
We revere and value the knowledge of the local elders
because they know how the lake works. They have seen it in many
different conditions. We welcome their involvement to teach our
younger people. We have instituted science programs in the
public school system which had no environmental science
programs before. There's a wonderful awakening going on in that
part of the country. As they watch other parts of the country
become developed and despoiled, they realize the treasure they
have in their backyard. It's like the saying, ``Brighten the
corner where you live and you will light the world.''
Senator Reid. Congressman Sandlin, I want to publicly
express my appreciation for you coming. It's through efforts
like yours that we're going to be able to accomplish something
in Washington, because it's gonna take Senators and House
Members to get some of this done.
By your being here I think you send a very strong message
to me as a Senator, who helps run one of these major meeting
and does a lot of stuff on the Senate floor. We need to work
together. There's no reason Texas and Nevada--we have so many
similarities in what you're trying to do and what we're trying
to do. We even share Howard Hughes with you.
So I want you to know I appreciate your being here, and I
look forward to this continued relationship in Washington. We
will work together. We hope, for your constituents and mine, a
year from now we can come back and tell them what we have done,
not what we want to do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sandlin. Thank you.
Senator Reid. Leta, you exemplify what Don Henley has said.
You may not be the notorious person that he is--and I say that
as a compliment--but you----
Ms. Collord. Well, we have a history that I was raised in
Santa Monica and Mr. Henley is--are you residing in the Santa
Monica area now?
Mr. Henley. Occasionally.
Ms. Collord. It's occasional. But I--it's interesting each
time I participate in an event that is trying to share
information like this, we hear of new examples of this effort.
It has evolved to the fact that when communities and historic
culture get together good things perpetuate.
Senator Reid. What you're doing in Elko County is the same
thing that he is doing in Texas. They are a little ahead of us.
You have heard him describe with awe how beautiful this place
that he was raised in Texas is. We can tell him how beautiful
Elko County is.
I can remember--and we have an opportunity--it's the only
place in Nevada where we have mountain goats, and I can
remember as if it were yesterday. I was a young lieutenant
Governor and driving with my entourage--which included me--and
there was no one else in the car. I was driving from Elko to
Wells. It was one of those winter days when those clouds were
over the Ruby Mountains. It was just about as beautiful as
nature could be. So we look forward to working with you. I
congratulate you on your projects.
Mr. Henley. I think it's important to remember--and I know
you know this--that Mother Nature doesn't recognize State or
national boundaries. I wish some of our leaders would remember
that and that we are all in this together.
Senator Reid. Louisiana, Texas, Lake Tahoe, California, and
Nevada is a great example. The only time we have been able to
make progress at Lake Tahoe is when we set aside our partisan
and regional differences and say we have to do something to
help the lake. You're right. Mother Nature never had in its
mind a division between California and Nevada when it was
formed.
Larry, you're certainly a great example. You have been
leading this organization for 15 years. I said with some jest
that it was your part-time job, that is your engineering work.
But I say that in sincerity. It takes people like you to
accomplish what has been accomplished here.
I grew up in southern Nevada, and I'm sorry to say I never
saw a bighorn sheep. They were out there someplace, but they
were so sparse. It was a rare, rare occasion for anyone to see
a bighorn sheep.
Now you can go to Boulder City and they are in the park.
They are grazing in the park. They are literally all over, this
beautiful animal. It's because of you and your organization
that these beauties of nature have now--are now where they
should be. So I appreciate your being here and, I repeat,
especially the great example that you have set for all of us.
Elsie, you and I have worked together on different things
over these years. We have not always agreed on things, but you
have always expressed your feelings so well and so adequately.
You're another example of how our State is a better place
because of your involvement. I want to thank all of you very
much for being here today.
STATEMENT OF TERRY CRAWFORTH, ADMINISTRATOR, NEVADA DIVISION OF
WILDLIFE
Mr. Crawforth. Good afternoon. I am Terry Crawforth,
administrator of the Nevada Division of Wildlife. I would like
to thank the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
for conducting these investigations into wildlife conservation
needs and inviting me to share our perspectives on wildlife
conservation and management in Nevada.
As the seventh largest State in land mass, Nevada's
extensive wild lands support a broad and diverse assemblage of
plant and animal communities. This diversity of wildlife and
habitats is amplified by the geographic and climatic character
of the Great Basin in the north and Mohave Desert in the south.
Also, because Nevada is the driest State, water is even more
critical to wildlife distribution and abundance. A wide variety
of topographic features from low river valleys to 13,000-foot
alpine peaks offers a habitat to Nevada's wildlife, resulting
in an astounding ecological diversity.
Managing this broadly diverse assemblage of animals and
plants presents many unique and formidable challenges. While
some species such as mule dear and rainbow trout have broad
distributions across Nevada, other species such as the Palmers
chipmunk and the Amargosa toad exist only in very localized
landscapes. All are worthy of attention, though, and therein
lies the management challenge to the Division. As the smallest
wildlife agency in the Nation, the Nevada Division of Wildlife
is constantly faced with the difficult task of allocating
limited resources to the preservation, protection, management,
and restoration of all elements in this vast and diverse
wildlife resource.
The prioritization of management activities by the Division
has historically been largely a function of economics. The
wildlife receiving primary emphasis in division management
programs are those species for which there is a consistent and
adequate funding resource. For years hunters and fishermen
support the Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the
Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act by paying excise
taxes on hunting and fishing equipment have paid for the
majority of wildlife management programs in Nevada. In
addition, the matching funds required to capture these trust
funds are provided by the same sportsmen in the form of license
and tag fees, hence, the wildlife species that have for years
received priority funding are those that are hunted and fished.
These extensive management programs funded by Nevada's
sportsmen can boost significant success in the conservation of
wildlife in the State. The Big Game Management Program in
Nevada is second to none. Trapping and transplant projects for
species such as bighorn sheep antelope and elk have resulted in
record animal numbers and distributions throughout the State.
The variety and abundance of fish species available to anglers
is impressive. Upland game species including exotics such as
the chucker partridge are pervasive. Nevada is renowned in the
West as a high quality hunting and fishing destination. It is
obvious that consistently funded collaborative programs can
represent Nevada wildlife well.
It is important to note, however, that though management
efforts have been concentrated on sport wildlife, these species
typically not hunted or fished have not been summarily ignored.
Good habitat management fostered by successful game and sport
fish programs ultimately benefit all wildlife species. In
addition, consistent, albeit small, non-sportsmen funded annual
appropriations are dedicated to non-hunted or fished species.
But we have been aware for some time that those species
which do not receive program emphasis because they lack
dedicated funding deserve more than they are getting from
project ``spin-off'' or residual funding. While our history of
successful management of game wildlife and protection of
habitat provides a good model for the conservation of Nevada's
other wildlife, these species that are not sought for sport or
recreational purposes deserve more. Reliance on recreation
areas are often last-ditch tools as the Endangered Species Act
is not productive. We see a profound need to be proactive in
the management of all Nevada wildlife.
What is essential for Nevada's wildlife diversity is
sustained funding to apply to already proven management
techniques. Some recent congressional appropriations will help
when they eventually reach us, but we need long-term
legislation that provides an uninterrupted flow of funds for
Nevada's other wildlife. We came close to this goal with the
near passage of title 3 of the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of the 106th Congress, which would have provided consistent
and sustained funding for non-game wildlife conservation.
Nevada's other wildlife deserve this degree of attention.
Senator Reid, I have always appreciated your dedication to
the wildlife resources of our beautiful State. I applaud your
present efforts to make a consistent and adequate funding
source for Nevada's other wildlife a reality. I pledge my
agency's support in this endeavor. Securing a reliable funding
source for Nevada's other wildlife when combined with the
Pitman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux funds that exist for game
wildlife and sport fish would put a third leg on the
conservation stool and would better balance Nevada's wildlife
conservation effort.
Thank you.
Senator Reid. Terry, while it's on my mind--and this is
democratic and republican Governors who are responsible for
this--why is it that we have such an underfunded, understaffed
entity to take care of this huge State?
Mr. Crawforth. I think, probably, as in many States, the
sportsmen stepped up to the plate and volunteered to tax
themselves, if you will, for wildlife conservation for hunting
and fishing recognizing that those would benefit other wildlife
species.
But we have always had struggles with people to recognize
the need to fund the total picture, if you will. I think we all
learned a lesson in Nevada concerning the desert tortoise. We
spoke for a number of years about the tortoise, but until it
impacted people at home, then funding was an emphasis.
Senator Reid. You know, Terry, we have to have a better
communication system. I was a lieutenant Governor, served in
various capacities. I was stunned when I got a call from the
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the desert tortoise. I
never knew there was a problem with the desert tortoise. There
had been a problem for years, and we didn't know about it.
Somehow we have to do a better job here in Nevada and I
think we are doing better. But I can't put my finger on it
right now. We are just--maybe it's because the Federal
Government has such a predominant role because they control so
much of the land. I don't know the reason. But that's something
I will meet with Governor Guinn on this trip home, and we will
have a serious talk about it.
Mr. Crawforth. I would concur with you. I think we're doing
better. Some of the cries concerning the desert tortoise was a
voice in the wilderness, if you will, and it was a wake-up call
and has given us the opportunity to collaboratively focus on
projects for the betterment of the Amargosa toad, sage grouse,
but there needs to be a better and more consistent message.
Senator Reid. Gary, I need you to shorten your statement a
little bit. So if you would do that, and I want to tell you how
much I appreciate you being here. As I indicated to Congressman
Sandlin, it's through efforts of you and your State that the
whole country will be made a better place. We need to exchange
ideas and find out where you haven't done so well and vice
versa. Your being here and developing a relationship with your
counterparts is letting me know that it's important that you
traveled all this way. It's a big help. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GARY GRAHAM, DIVISION DIRECTOR, TEXAS PARKS AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Graham. I'm pleased to and privileged to be here today
to speak with you on behalf of the State in support of Federal
legislation supporting wildlife conservation efforts. There are
five things that I hope you remember from my presentation.
Texas is a very diverse and big State. Our unmet wildlife
conservation needs are also big to the tune of $30 million a
year. Recreation generated about 6.7 billion dollars for the
Texas economy during 1996. Keeping common species common keeps
them off the Federal endangered species list. Finally, the
solution to meeting our unmet needs is predictable and adequate
funding, such as what would be provided to the State when the
Conservation Reinvestment Act is passed.
Texas is so big that 15 Eastern States could fit within our
borders, and one of our borders is shared with Mexico which is
very subtropical in nature.
We have 91 peaks that are a mile high or higher and about
80,000 miles of rivers and streams. Our population reached 20
million last April, and we have more species of wildlife, about
1,200, which is more than any other State, except perhaps
California.
Unlike California and Nevada, 97 percent of Texas is
privately owned. Conservation in a private land State like ours
provides unique opportunities and challenges. The key to our
successes lie in----
Senator Reid. Excuse me, Gary. You mean 3 percent of the
State is owned by either the Federal or State government?
Mr. Graham. That's it.
Senator Reid. Wow.
Mr. Graham. It creates new challenges. In fact,
opportunities, as hopefully you will gather from my
presentation.
The key to our success lies in offering technical
assistance and useful information to landowners. We have 20
full-time technical staff who are principally responsible for
the fact that last year 12.6 million acres of habitat land were
managed under our wildlife management plans.
In addition, Texas has had a great deal of success in
developing cooperative agreements with private landowners
precluding the need to list a number of species under the
Endangered Species Act. One of our greatest current challenges
in conservation concerns black-tailed prairie dog that, if not
handled well, could lead to the biggest train wreck
conservation has seen. We aim to preclude that by working with
other States in the West in implementing conservation
agreements between States to conserve this controversial
species.
We have one of the largest wildlife diversity programs in
the United States and have led the country with several
conservation initiatives. We aggressively use nature tourism
projects as incentives for conservation through economic
development. We established and marketed the Great Texas
Coastal Burning Trail in cooperation with over 100 communities.
We are taking the nature tourism a step further by developing a
new complex of visitor and conservation facilities called the
World Birding Center in the lower Rio Grande Valley among those
subtropical habitats. This is one of the most biologically rich
areas of the Nation, but it's also one of the most economically
challenged parts of the country.
This project is expected to generate an additional $12 to
$15 million a year in new revenue for the region. One of our
greatest success stories is our Landowner Incentive Program,
LIP, one of the first efforts in the country to offer financial
assistance to landowners who wish to manage rare and endangered
species. Over the past 4 years using over $1 million, this
voluntary incentive program has addressed the conservation
needs of 26 species over 46,000 acres.
Equally important is the fact that the program has changed
the attitude of many rural landowners from almost antagonistic
to cautiously cooperative. Overall Texas Parks & Wildlife
spends about $10 million a year on the conservation of our
wildlife diversity, those species not listed as game species.
But with a State as big and diverse as ours, even this is not
enough. We estimate that 30 million new dollars a year is
needed to conserve a lot of the resources that Texans treasure
and that would sustain the nature-based economy throughout the
State. Just as important as the amount is the fact that funds
need to be available predictably from year to year, just like
the Federal aid funds would be currently used for game species.
It took 20 years of predictable funding to successfully
reestablish eastern wild turkey back into its native Texas
range. It would not have happened if we were not able to invest
in the recovery year after year. The same could be said about
bighorn sheep. We have had success because we have had funds
available year after year.
Federal funds such as those that would be provided through
title 3 of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act would address
these needs. The funds will allow us an ability to invest in
people and natural resources predictably and adequately.
We will use Conservation and Reinvestment Act funds to grow
our already existing technical assistance, financial
assistance, and nature tourism efforts. Each year we would
spend up to an additional $6 million for landowner incentives,
$4 million for technical assistance, $3 million to increase
recreational opportunity, $4 million for habitat conservation
and restoration, and $5 million for education and outreach like
the community-based efforts at Caddo Lake, $3 million for
research and monitoring, and $5 million for the purchase of
development rights, land leases, conservation uses, and
acquisitions.
In Texas the public owns about 3 percent of the land and we
are ranked 27th in the State park acres per capita. We firmly
believe that access to affordable recreation is important to
grow the future customers for our private land recreation
partners. Thus, we are in complete support of the President's
proposal which is title 2 of CARA.
Finally, the economic development that has led to a high
quality of life for Texans also has severely damaged the entire
coastal ecosystem. The damage to the hydrology along the coast
is causing the loss and erosion of a great deal of shallow gulf
waters habitat and adjacent marshes that are essential as
nursery grounds for saltwater fishes and much of our wildlife.
The good news is that much of this is reversible, but it's
also very expensive. Consequently, we are very supportive of
fully funding title 9 of CARA.
And with that, thank you for this opportunity. I've very
much enjoyed hearing the testimony.
Senator Reid. The last point that you made, we have trouble
understanding that. But with two Senators from Louisiana, this
was the No. 1 issue as far as they were concerned with CARA,
that there were huge pieces of land each year being washed into
the ocean in Louisiana. They believe we have to do something
quick or it'll become irreversible. Would you agree?
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Senator Reid. Bob, would you proceed. Again, I'm going to
have to ask you to condense your statement. Your whole
statement, I will make that part of the record.
STATEMENT OF BOB ABBEY, DIRECTOR, NEVADA BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Abbey. It's a pleasure to see you home in Nevada and
your staff.
It's certainly an honor to share the podium with some
distinguished panel members, and I'll keep my remarks brief. No
one knows more than me that the management of public lands is
not always an easy task. It requires coordination and
partnerships with a variety of interest groups and individuals.
The BLM in Nevada is fortunate to have many fine partners
in this work, including the State of Nevada and its Division of
Wildlife as well as a number of tribal governments and private
organizations, such as the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and Nevada
Wildlife Federation, which you heard from in the first panel.
In recent years we initiated efforts to deal with some very
highly visible issues relative to critical wildlife concerns.
These include efforts to recover the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout,
management guidelines for sage grouse and the sagebrush
ecosystems that are their habitat, and the desert tortoise.
These species serve as a red flag for the overall health of
our environment. The sage grouse is suffering from a decline in
habitat, a concern to the BLM and many of the organizations and
entities here today. Under the leadership of Terry Crawforth,
administrator for the Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in cooperation with
the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, have
initiated a major effort to develop conservation plans for sage
grouse in eight Western States. In Nevada, Governor Guinn has
taken a personal role in establishing a State sage grouse
committee to develop strategies to conserve this game species.
The BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, as
well as State, local, and tribal representatives, have formed
an interagency sage brush habitat steering committee to
coordinate habitat assessment, mapping, evaluation, and
restoration for species at risk within sage brush ecosystems in
10 States, and to coordinate ecosystem and species conservation
planning in order to provide consistency across agencies in
addressing sage brush ecosystem-related issues.
Through the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, the BLM in
Nevada is cooperating with State and local agencies to stop the
spread of invasive weeds and other vegetation and to restore
the appropriate plant communities on the range lands.
After major wildfires in 1999 and 2000, the demand for sage
brush seeds and the seeds of other native plant species has
increased considerably in the Great Basin. Through issuance of
permits for harvesting of sagebrush and other native species
seeds, the BLM is tracking harvest activities to ensure that
sufficient seed is available for rehabilitation efforts that
are currently underway in the areas hardest hit by the
wildfires. The BLM is working with the Plant Conservation
Alliance, private seed growers, State and Federal nurseries and
seed storage facilities to increase significantly the supply of
native seeds available for rehabilitation and restoration work
while reducing the cost of producing native seed in large
quantities.
The BLM's Ely field office has taken a leadership role
under the auspices of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative to
restore and maintain the biological conditions of the Great
Basin landscape in eastern Nevada through partnerships with the
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Nevada Division of Wildlife, and
dozens of other groups. Approximately $10 million acres of
public land are in the project area, including 4 million acres
of pinion-juniper woodlands, 2 million acres of pinion-juniper/
sagebrush, 2.5 million acres of sagebrush, $1.5 million acres
of valley bottoms and mixed forest conifer, 158 miles of stream
riparian habitat, and 7,800 acres of meadows, springs, seeps
and wetlands.
The BLM field offices in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have
continued reintroduction and habitat improvement programs for
bighorn sheep populations. Nevada contains some of the premier
bighorn sheep habitats in the United States. Approximately 2.5
million acres of BLM-managed lands in Nevada provide habitat
for three subspecies of bighorn sheep: The California, Rocky
Mountain, and Desert Bighorns. Cooperative efforts with the
Nevada Division of Wildlife and partners such as Nevada
Bighorns Unlimited have successfully restored bighorns on many
historic habitats throughout the State. We estimate that there
are an additional 1 million acres of suitable but unoccupied
bighorn sheep habitat on BLM-managed land in the State.
Federal, State, and private partnerships have substantially
enhanced successful wildlife habitat management on BLM-managed
land. The BLM works closely with a variety of groups to restore
habitats for native wildlife species on BLM-managed lands. Over
the past 10 years, the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Nevada Division of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited, and local
ranchers and sportsmen have made substantial investments to
restore Lahontan cutthroat trout to 128 miles of the Mary's
River system, a premier trout stream in northeastern Nevada.
The BLM's Challenge Cost Share Program, established by Congress
in 1985, has matched millions of dollars of private
contributions with Federal appropriations through successful
partnership efforts that have delivered conservation and
restoration projects throughout the West.
The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, a new Federal/private
partnership in Clark County, is restoring native plant
communities in the Mohave Desert, including removal of the
invasive tamarisk from riparian areas and replanting native
willows and grasses to benefit the desert tortoises, desert
fish species, and a wide range of native birds, mammals, and
amphibians.
Following the disastrous, widespread wildland fires of
1999, the BLM extensively examined the effects of fire on
habitat and ecosystem processes. We found that a fire cycle had
developed, referred to in recent science reports as the
``Cheatgrass-Wildfire Cycle.'' This problem is acute in Nevada,
where the cycle of fire disturbance has spurred the invasive
cheatgrass to alter range and wildlife habitats. Cheatgrass has
been on our landscape for many years quietly spreading its
water-stealing roots to ever increasing areas.
Cheatgrass sprouts quickly as winter moisture arrives on
burned or disturbed lands. Its root mass quickly draws up all
available moisture, denying it to sagebrush seed. Left
unmanaged, sagebrush benchlands instead become fields of
cheatgrass. These fields dry out in the summer sun, and lay in
wait for the summer lightning.
There was a time when people thought that getting rid of
sagebrush was a good thing. However, we now know that sagebrush
is vital to the health of Great Basin wildlands. Sagebrush
provides cover for sage grouse, mice, and other rodents,
smaller song birds, ground squirrels--over 170 species which
are inhabitants of the open land. It provides shelter from the
summer sun and from raptors overhead. In winter, dry cheatgrass
is buried under snow. Sagebrush rises above the snow providing
forage for deer, antelope, and sage grouse.
We look forward to working with our partners here in Nevada
to address the cheatgrass problem, along with other efforts at
wildlife habitat and species restoration in a manner that
balances the interests of stakeholders and addresses wildlife
habitat needs. This effort is massive, across the millions of
acres of the Great Basin. Change will require labor intensive
effort and significant amounts of native seed. Each landscape
will call for its own prescription. In some areas we may need
to plant sagebrush seedlings and sow native seed by hand. The
entire spectrum of plant and landscape management must be
brought into play if we are to begin a true Great Basin
restoration program.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that members of the committee may have.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much. I'll say that the work
that has been done in recent years with you and the U.S.
attorney in developing better relations with the county
governments throughout the State has been remarkable. It's been
a good job, and you're to be congratulated.
Mr. Abbey. I met with the U.S. Attorney this morning, and
complimented the leadership that Katherine has shown to all of
us relative to setting the standards, and we will continue to
carry on that manner of doing business even after Katherine
departs from her job.
Senator Reid. Chairman Wallace.
STATEMENT OF A. BRIAN WALLACE, CHAIRMAN, WASHOE TRIBE OF NEVADA
AND CALIFORNIA
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Senator.
(Washoe greeting.)
Why I introduced myself in Washoe is to make a point that
our language is directly a component of the environment and
it's this perspective that we bring to this opportunity that I
want to share with you. I use English as a tool to survive
today, but my children speak Washoe so the they can survive
forever.
Senator Reid. That's something relatively new, the
language. I know with the Paiutes, that language out in Pyramid
was almost lost until some of the elders were able to teach the
children.
Mr. Wallace. It's critical to maintain our native
languages. It's the only medium we have to translate our
understanding of the underlying order of the natural world to
our children.
Senator Reid. Isn't it true that they have been in distress
over the last 40, 50 years?
Mr. Wallace. Very much in decline and, in large part,
because of efforts with your colleagues there is Federal effort
helping to recover that now.
Senator Reid. Sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Wallace. Thank you. First, I want to take the time on
behalf of the members of the Washoe Tribe, and more
particularly, on behalf of people that only exist in my heart
now, to thank you for your historic efforts and courage in
supporting the tribe's unfinished dream to return to the Tahoe
Basin. I just want to take the time to publicly recognize the
courage that you have demonstrated in sharing that dream with
us.
More than any other group in last year's discussion related
to the Conservation Reinvestment Act, and despite our best
efforts, tribes were the only ones that were significantly and
completely omitted from the authorization of last year's
discussion.
Senator Reid. The reason we have you here is to try and
change that.
Mr. Wallace. I think I anticipated that. I would like to
also request respectfully that our remarks and the testimony be
entered into the record.
Senator Reid. We will make sure that your prepared
statement will be part of the record.
Mr. Wallace. It'll help me be quick. We definitely
appreciate your assistance to resuscitate some national and
public benefit to CARA. We're here also to support all of the
previous witnesses because we really believe in a stronger
sense of hope because of what we have heard here today that
friends are finally approaching these issues for us.
Senator Reid, like States, Indian tribes have governmental
responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources, and the regulation of hunting and fishing and
gathering on their lands. Native Americans who fish, hunt, and
gather on Indian lands pay excise taxes on ammunition, fishing
gear, guns, and boat fuel, just like other Americans. It is
critical that any wildlife conservation title of CARA, or a
stand-alone bill, include an equitable distribution of Federal
funds to Indian tribes for conservation and regulations so that
we can receive, and count on receiving, Federal moneys for
these woefully underfunded areas for which States have been
receiving money for many years.
Indian tribes play a unique and crucial role in four
purposes identified under this title: (1) wildlife and habitat
conservation, (2) development of comprehensive wildlife
conservation and restoration plans, (3) cooperative planning
and implementation of wildlife conservation plans, and (4)
wildlife education and public involvement. Having lived in our
homelands for thousands of years, Indian tribes have developed
a unique understanding of the ecosystem. Through our
traditional and customary practices we have developed a
traditional knowledge of science that enhances the scope of
conventional science. Additionally, because tribal members have
significantly more direct contact with the habitat and wildlife
and because we rely upon the natural resources of our
homelands, we are exposed to a greater degree of risk when the
wildlife and habitat is impacted. An unhealthy ecosystem will
directly impact the lives of Indian people.
Although there is little BIA funding and no EPA funding
available for tribes to conserve and restore wildlife, the
Washoe Tribe has pursued a commitment to habitat restoration
and conservation, not just on tribal lands, but within our
entire ancestral homelands. On tribal lands we have used clean
water funding to restore stream banks and improve wildlife and
aquatic habitat along the riparian corridor of the Carson
River. In addition, our conservation and restoration efforts
have maintained a reach of Clear Creek that university students
and local school groups visit to study. As part of our
cooperative agreement with the Forest Service at Lake Tahoe,
the Washoe Tribe is preparing a Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Plan for the Meeks Creek Meadows and the Taylor/
Baldwin wetlands. The tribe will implement the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Plan in cooperation with the
Forest Service. However, because of the lack of funding, these
efforts are isolated and we are not able to achieve the full
benefits of comprehensive habitat planning.
The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Title of the
pending house legislation, H.R. 71, and last year's Senate
bills S. 2123 and S. 2567, clearly identifies the need for a
comprehensive Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Plan, but
the Washoe Tribe has no funding available for development of
such a plan. While we have been able to implement and develop
plans for isolated wetland areas through the clean water
funding, we have not been able to develop a comprehensive
conservation and restoration plan or even collect data on
wildlife populations. The need for such plans increases as
commercial and residential development continues to creep in on
tribal lands and the pressure on wildlife habitat increases.
Furthermore, the tribal lands are often intermixed with lands
under Federal and State jurisdiction, requiring a coordinated
planning approach. In our case, the Washoe Tribe has
jurisdiction over more than 60,000 acres of Indian allotment
lands in the Pine Nut Mountains, which are located in a
checkerboard pattern with BLM lands and private lands.
Currently the BLM and State agencies are engaged in a planning
process for their portions of the Pine Nut Mountains, and the
tribe is a critical partner. However, the tribe's efforts are
clearly hampered by our lack of funding for wildlife and
habitat planning. Similarly, conservation planning funds would
enhance our efforts to work with our State and Federal partners
on the conservation and restoration of habitats in the Lake
Tahoe Basin and along the Carson and Truckee Rivers.
The pending House legislation, H.R. 701, includes language
that would provide Indian tribes with direct access to the
Pitman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act funding. The allocation
mechanism proposed in this year's House version of CARA
allocates up to 2.25 percent of total dollars to be divided
among all 550 Indian tribes based on relative land area and
population. The 2.25 percent is based on the acres of Indian
trust land relative to the total acreage in the United States.
In fact, the 2.25 percent actually represents less than the
full equitable share. For an example, the Washoe Tribe has done
work on USFS lands with the Forest Service to conserve and
restore wetlands on lands at Lake Tahoe. Indian tribes will
continue to work on conserving wildlife and critical ecosystems
within ceded treaty lands and other ancestral homelands, which
are no longer held in trust. Finally, it's important to note
that current proposals of this nature do not reduce existing
allocations to States and territories under the Dingell-Johnson
or Pitman-
Robertson Acts, but rather involve only new allocations never
before raised and distributed.
The Senate CARA bills from last year omitted critical
allocation to Indian tribes and would have continued to exclude
tribes from these funds. I strongly urge you to use the
language from title 3 of this year's Senate legislation.
As to your proposals under the category of Sensitive,
Threatened, and Endangered Species Incentives, we applaud your
efforts to extend funding to conservation plans to preserve
species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act, but that are species of
concern. Hopefully, by focusing efforts on these species prior
to their being listed, we can avoid the need to list them.
Additionally, we encourage you to move beyond the language as
contained in CARA title 7, and recognize the impacts of the
conservation of these species on Indian tribes. Sensitive,
threatened, and endangered species are a concern of Indian
people everywhere, for they are a part of our cultural heritage
and a consideration in our land management activities.
A classic example of this is the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
of the river basins of Nevada. Native and non-native peoples
alike share a desire for the recovery of these amazing fish.
Habitat recovery efforts are underway by all stakeholders, and
help from the Federal Government would be most welcome. Indian
lands are integral to these efforts, and the inclusion of
Indian tribes as potential recipients of Federal funds for the
development of conservation plans and recovery agreements would
be appropriate. The State-Federal-tribal recovery LTC effort on
the Truckee River is a specific example where the ability of
tribes to engage the other partners is limited by our lack of
funding. Again, in order for Indian tribes to play a proper
role in these conservation efforts, it is necessary that tribes
have the ability to access these funds directly.
I would like to briefly deviate from the two primary topics
of your proposed legislation to talk about a couple of other
aspects of the big CARA package that are important to tribes
and that we were stripped of from last year's bill at the 11th
hour.
The first is title 2, Land and Water Conservation Fund
Revitalization, which would allocate Federal moneys from oil
and gas revenues to various Federal agencies and State and
tribal governments for the acquisition of land for conservation
purposes. Tribes would be entitled to one State's worth of
funding under current house bill language. This too was
stripped from last year's ``CARA-Lite,'' and I encourage you to
support the effort to include tribes in any land and water
conservation fund distribution in 2002 and beyond. Although the
tribe has no funding for conservation land acquisition, the
Washoe Tribe has been successfully partnered with Federal
agencies and private parties to acquire sensitive environmental
and cultural lands for conservation purposes. Indian tribes
bring a unique element to the conservation effort, and with
funding we will be able to achieve more win-win situations.
Again, looking at the Pine Nut Mountains, to improve land
management, Federal and State agencies and governments support
Washoe tribal acquisition of private land holdings which are
surrounded by Indian allotment lands, and the private landowner
is interested in selling the land to the tribe, but there are
no land acquisition funds available.
The final provision of note is the National Park and Indian
Lands Restoration, currently title 6 of last year's Senate
bill. The title would provide up to $25 million annually for a
coordinated program on Indian lands to restore degraded lands,
protect resources that are threatened with degradation, and
protect public health and safety.
The $25 million allocated to tribes under this title is
modest when you consider that it must be spread among more than
550 tribal governments and 56 million acres of Indian trust
land. However, it does represent a critically important source
of funds, and I strongly urge you to ensure that the Senate
version of CARA title 6 or its equivalent is kept intact in any
CARA legislation that emerges from the 107th Congress.
Senator Reid, once again I thank you for your leadership on
this and so many other issues important to the Washoe Tribe and
Indian people across the United States.
I sit here representing our tribe in its unfinished dreams
and concentrate our efforts and my life, before God and all
these witnesses, to the biological and cultural repatriation of
where we call home and love so much.
We sit here on behalf of the children that speak Washoe
that want to live forever and to join your efforts to help lift
this great Nation to a higher and better place, and to also
give us the ability to possibly make a responsible contribution
in raising a generation to match these mountains. On behalf of
the members of the Tribe, thank you for your public service and
being our voice in the Senate.
Senator Reid. Terry, we provided $50 million to fund the
Wildlife Conservation Project in last year's appropriation
process. The State can access that money if it submits a
conservation plan to the Interior Department.
Are you in the process of doing that? What type of projects
would you like to see funded with some of this money? Would you
reiterate that?
Mr. Crawforth. We will be submitting our signed eligibility
documents later this week. The official agency of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife has formed a
team to review those to make sure those eligibilities are
there.
Nevada would be eligible for about three-quarters of $1
million of that. Our efforts will be to implement our migratory
bird plan. We definitely need to work on a very important group
of species, reptiles.
Senator Reid. On what?
Mr. Crawforth. Reptiles. It's very important that we gain
some more knowledge about reptiles of Nevada, and we also need
to do work on several of the amphibian species. Once we get a
plan for sage grouse, we will be able to get the money on the
ground through the local groups that we're establishing. Those
would be the general areas.
It has been, and I know we're working through those rules,
but the process of getting eligibility for those moneys has
become a little cumbersome. I think that's improving. I see
Gary nodding his head, and I think we're making some progress
there.
But I would certainly encourage, and we certainly
understand the need to, as you mentioned, make people aware of
wildlife and the needs that we have for wildlife conservation.
But to get that money to the ground, the process can't be too
cumbersome.
Senator Reid. Gary, has the State of Texas provided funding
for the effort at Caddo Lake?
Mr. Graham. Not directly for the Institute. Over the past
10 years we have bought a 7,000-acre wildlife management area
that's part of the 20,000 acres that Mr. Henley referred to. We
assisted Dwight Shellman in developing some of his conservation
efforts, but we have not actually contributed financially to
it.
Senator Reid. Bob, one of the things that concerns me about
the existing conservation program is that they are targeted
toward private lands. It doesn't work well here in Nevada.
Would you comment on ways we might structure incentives to
benefit public lands?
Mr. Abbey. Again, I think the biggest incentive we have is
for people to take ownership of the issue and to participate in
the decision process.
Senator Reid. That's what Don Henley and the Congressman
said.
Mr. Abbey. That's right. Again, the biggest obstacle and
challenge is the people's lack of trust in their government
agencies, and that's at the Federal, State or local
governments.
We need to overcome that challenge, and the best way to do
that is to make sure the people have an opportunity to
participate in their government. We are spending a lot of
effort to offer that to the public, to give them that
opportunity.
Senator Reid. I thought it was very enlightening what we
heard here in one of the blocks of testimony from Leta. It was
as a result of a public program by BLM.
Mr. Abbey. We realize the significant challenges we have
throughout the western United States in managing these public
lands for multiple uses. We will have to bring people into that
effort, and we're seeing a great deal of success. I think as we
achieve successes, we need to communicate those successes to
others so that they can see the opportunities that are really
there for them to participate and help out.
Senator Reid. Bob, one of the things I have heard on a
couple of occasions today before the hearing started, and even
yesterday evening, is that there's a program being anticipated
to allow ranchers to reduce the number of cattle in exchange
for a hunting tag or tags that they can sell to sportsmen.
Have you heard about that, Bob?
Mr. Abbey. No.
Senator Reid. Would you take a look into that.
Mr. Abbey. I'd be happy too.
Senator Reid. Terry, do you know anything about that?
Mr. Crawforth. We have a couple of programs in Nevada, but
they are largely for compensation for damage to private lands
where landowners can get tags. We also have a program for elk
and deer, which we call an incentive-type program where private
landowners and people who are grazing on public lands can get
their share, if you will, of expanding elk or deer populations.
Senator Reid. I'd like to know more about it.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony today.
Senator Reid. We're going to hear first from Robert
Williams, Field Manager. Bob has been an integral part of what
has happened here in Nevada. He has received a lot of accolades
in the process. I appreciate very much the good work you have
done.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. WILLIAMS, FIELD SUPERVISOR, NEVADA FISH
AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
Mr. Williams. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some
information on what actions the Fish and Wildlife Service is
participating in here in Nevada. The service understands the
importance of working cooperatively with the State tribes and
the private sectors on species conservation. That's why the
Service has developed and continued to explore conservation
efforts at a local level.
You requested that I comment on current conservation
initiatives, what conservation plans have been successful, what
initiatives have been planned but not implemented, what are the
obstacles to engaging people in conservation efforts, and what
can we do to encourage more participation in conservation
planning.
It is crucial that the Service work cooperatively with our
State, tribal, and private partners on species conservation.
Recognizing this, the Service has developed and is implementing
many approaches which enable cooperative conservation efforts.
These approaches are flexible so as to encourage locally-based
solutions to complex and sometimes contentious conservation
challenges. The initiatives and agreements I will discuss here
are a result of these approaches. We need to continue seeking
and indeed expand opportunities for local and private
landowners to share in the development of conservation
solutions.
Let me start by providing you with a review of current
activities in Nevada. Last year we and several partners signed
two major conservation efforts, the Clark County Multispecies
Habitat Conservation Plan, MSHCP, and the Amargosa Toad
Conservation Agreement.
The Clark County MSHCP covers 78 species, only two of which
are listed under the Endangered Species Act. This plan will
allow for a permit to be issued under section 10 of the ESA for
an incidental take of the listed species due to development in
southern Nevada. The MSHCP covers over 145,000 acres that are
subject to development over the next 30 years.
The goal of the MSHCP is to conserve healthy ecosystems and
the species that are supported by them while allowing for
development. A $550-per acre fee is paid to the county with the
issuance of development permits. The proceeds from the fees
fund desert tortoise conservation and recovery activities, as
well as other actions needed to protect the 78 species covered
under the plan. The plan provides certainty for Clark County
developers while ensuring a conservation measure that will help
recover the listed species and prevent the other species from
being listed.
The establishment of the MSHCP was successful because of
the cooperation between Clark County, State and Federal
agencies, the University of Nevada, Reno, environmental groups,
recreational interest, and resource users.
The second major conservation action that was solidified
last year was a conservation agreement for Amargosa toad that
resides in the Oasis Valley. This agreement brought together
Nye County, the city of Beatty, private landowners, the State
of Nevada, several Federal agencies, environmental groups, and
the Nature Conservancy. The premise of the agreement provides
the Nature Conservancy with the ability to purchase valuable
habitat for the toad from a priority landowner. On October 14,
2000, the agreement was signed with the parties, and they are
currently working together to manage the land and other
resources for the protection of the toad and the other species
that depend on the riparian wetland habitat.
Both of these plans depend upon private and public dollars
for their success. Private funding supports mitigation efforts
and conservation actions to protect the species listed in the
agreements.
We are currently working on several other conservation
actions. I will list them here and then discuss some of them in
greater detail. Current initiatives include the following:
Tahoe yellow cress conservation agreement, Coyote Springs
Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, Lahontan cutthroat trout
restoration, to the Truckee River, Sage grouse conservation
agreement, Spotted frog conservation agreement, Lincoln County
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, and Nye County
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan.
A planning team has been formed to develop a conservation
agreement for the Tahoe yellow cress, a plant that is found on
the shores of Lake Tahoe. Some of the habitat occurs on private
lands, so involving associations like the Lake Tahoe Lakefront
Homeowners Association will be a key element to the success of
finalizing such an agreement. One important measure to protect
the Tahoe yellow cress is simply to build fences around the
plant. Should a private landowner agree to fence an area to
protect habitat, funds may be available through Candidate
Conservation Agreement grants for the costs of the fencing or
other conservation activities the landowner may desire to make.
We are also working closely with a developer in southern
Nevada on the Coyote Springs Valley Habitat Conservation Plan.
Coyote Springs Valley is a critical habitat for the desert
tortoise. Coyote Springs Limited Liability Corporation has
indicated a willingness to work by signing a memorandum of
agreement with the Service and the BLM to create a plan
encompassing more than 40,000 acres of private and leased lands
within the valley that would conserve desert tortoise habitat
while providing opportunities for residential and commercial
development. This plan is envisioned to also address the long-
term water needs of the developers, as well as the listed
fishes in the nearby Muddy River, which could be affected by
long-term groundwater use. This type of proactive, early
involvement with landowners is acknowledged by the Service as
one of the most important objectives in our efforts to reduce
conflicts and foster general acceptance of species
conservation.
In our efforts to recover Nevada's State fish, the Lahontan
cutthroat trout, we have received funding to conduct habitat
restoration work on non-Federal lands along the Truckee and
Walker
Rivers. We are working with the Nature Conservancy to conduct
habitat restoration work on the Truckee River that will benefit
the river, the riparian corridor, and all the fishes that live
in the river. Our next step will be to develop Safe Harbor
Agreements with private landowners to compliment our LCT
recovery efforts.
We're working with the State on the conservation of the
sage grouse. We appreciate the State of Nevada's leadership by
heading up this coordination effort, with the establishment of
the Governor's Sage Grouse working group. The working group is
bringing together private landowners, counties, environmental
groups, and Federal agencies to develop a conservation
agreement.
For private landowners with suitable sage grouse habitat,
and who are willing to protect it, there are a variety of
funding options and incentives from the Service. Congress
authorized funding beginning in the fiscal year 1999 for the
ESA Landowner Incentive Program to provide financial assistance
and incentives to private property owners to conserve listed,
proposed, and candidate species. I will discuss these and other
funding sources below.
As you are aware under section 6 of the ESA, funds are
provided to the States for the species and habitat recovery
actions on non-Federal lands.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $105 million for
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The
service will use these dollars for Safe Harbor grants, Habitat
Conservation Planning grants, Species Recovery Land Acquisition
grants, and Candidate Conservation Agreement grants. Each of
these grant programs requires States to provide at least 25
percent of the project costs in order to receive funds from
these grants. Additionally, some of the funds will be used for
habitat conservation land acquisition by States.
The Nevada office of the Service recently worked with a
number of non-Federal partners on proposals for grants under
the Service's Partners in Fish and Wildlife program. Of the six
proposals submitted, five grants were awarded through the
partners program. Last fiscal year, we worked with the Nevada
Division of Wildlife to develop and submit applications for
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund grants, which
led the Service to award $176,000 to the State. Those funds
will benefit 11 projects in Nevada.
In addition to the section 6 moneys, Congress provided $50
million in the fiscal year 2001. Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations to be allocated among the States for wildlife
conservation, with the objective of fulfilling unmet needs of
wildlife within the States. One of the primary means of
accomplishing this goal is to encourage cooperative planning by
State governments, the Federal Government, and the other
interested parties. Another $50 million for competitive
wildlife grants to the States was provided in the Interior
appropriations.
You asked for examples of successful conservation
agreements in Nevada. The Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement
is such an example. It came together after 6 years of meeting
with local officials and private landowners to ensure they were
comfortable with the direction of the program.
This agreement gave Nye County an opportunity to play a
leading role in species conservation and is a good example to
demonstrate that local communities are willing, and able, to be
leaders on species conservation.
The Amargosa toad's total range is limited to a 12-mile
stretch of the Amargosa River in Nye County's Oasis Valley. The
alarm over the toad's status was triggered by a 1994 survey
that found only thirty adult toads, resulting in a petition to
list the toad as an endangered species. Recent surveys
conducted in cooperation with private landowners, however, lead
scientists to estimate that as many as 16,000 adult Amargosa
toads may live in the Oasis valley.
The nature conservancy purchased the Torrance Ranch, an
area that provides habitat for the Amargosa toad, the Oasis
Valley speckled dace, the Oasis Valley Spring snail, and 150
species of birds, including yellow warbler, blue grosbeak,
yellow-billed cuckoo, and Bullock's oriole. The Nature
Conservancy's purchase of the Torrance Ranch was made possible
with funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and
private donations.
The partners will undertake the restoration and monitoring
of the ranch with financial support by the Service, Nevada
Department of Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
the Nature Conservancy, and the University of Nevada, Reno's
Biological Resources Research Center. The land acquisition,
combined with other actions specified in the agreement, will
secure the toad's future.
One of the obstacles that has impeded local people from
getting involved in conservation planning in Nevada in the past
has been a lack of personal communication between employees of
government agencies and landowners. Landowners may not know
what incentives and options are available to them for funding
conservation measures. We, in the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, are committed to doing a
better job of reaching out and communicating with landowners
and informing them on how they can play a bigger role in
species conservation.
One way we are working to support local conservation
efforts is by dedicating a staff person in our office to
identify what grants and incentives are available for
conservation and to reach out to State and county agencies and
private landowners to inform them of how they can take
advantage of these opportunities.
There may be other obstacles, but the Service is working to
identify and resolve them so that States, counties, and private
property owners can and will take more active roles in species
conservation.
There are numerous threats in Nevada that impact ecosystems
and cause species to decline including: Urban growth; invasion
of non-native grasses, such as cheatgrass and white top; fire
damage, conversion of habitat to agricultural lands; and over-
grazing. Involving more people in conservation and protection
of public and non-Federal lands is crucial to preserving the
health of the land and maintaining the biological diversity of
Nevada.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
welcome any questions you may have.
Senator Reid. We will have questions for you in a minute.
We will hear now from Dennis Murphy. We are very fortunate to
have him living in Nevada now. I first met him when he was a
professor at Stanford and he was working on a project at
University of Nevada, Reno and came to me trying to get me to
give him some money to do biodiversity studies.
How many years ago was that?
Mr. Murphy. Six and a half.
Senator Reid. How much money?
Mr. Murphy. Approximately $8 million.
Senator Reid. So it's one of the really outstanding and,
some say, the best true science project, going on in the
country today as it relates to biodiversity. I'm confident that
it is true.
Not only is Dennis responsible for selling this program to
Congress, but he comes with a great resume. Two years ago he
was chosen by his peers to be the, I say the No. 1 scientist.
What was the organization called?
Mr. Murphy. The Society for Conservation Biology.
Senator Reid. He was the person chosen to lead that
organization. There may be somebody in the world--I don't know
who that would be--but Dennis Murphy is probably the world's
leading expert on butterflies. The reason that's so important,
I've learned, is that by simply understanding butterfly
population you understand what the ecology is, the environment,
and what the biodiversity is in that particular area. I'm happy
to have him with us. I'm glad you're now a Nevadan.
Having said that, and the hour is getting late--and knowing
you very well, you will have to cut your testimony down a
little bit.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS D. MURPHY, BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE,
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NV
Mr. Murphy. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with
you initiatives to bring better conservation wildlife, fish,
and non-game species to Nevada and the West.
Many of those concerned with Nevada's natural heritage have
come to recognize that the critical environmental legislation
of the 1970's, including the Clean Water Act, the National
Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act, among
others, has the potential of becoming unfunded mandates unless
the Federal Government can deliver support for much needed
management efforts. Funding for endangered species in
particular has been woefully inadequate. As more species have
been listed and the need for conservation responses grow in
turn, appropriations have limped along. In the middle of the
1990's, the United States spent more money on military bands
than on species at risk. During the same period more money was
spent on Domino's Pizza deliveries inside the beltway than on
imperiled species programs nationwide. The message is
straightforward. The Federal Government must support programs
that are necessary to conserve listed species and must
aggressively pursue prelisting agreements and efforts to
conserve species before they become listed.
Despite a starvation budget for species protection,
conservation successes in Nevada have been many. The threatened
desert tortoise survives across much of the southern State
despite explosive land development and severe drought. Ash
Meadows, described by Harvard University's E.O. Wilson as a
sacred American landmark, ``the equivalent of Independence Hall
or Gettysburg,'' now has protection and work moves forward in
earnest to conserve the many imperiled species that reside
there and to control invasive, weedy species that threaten
their habitat. The Spring Mountains Natural Recreation area
harbors more endemic species than any comparable location in
the country, and nearly all seem to be doing well despite
rapidly increasing recreational visits.
But many challenges still face our land and resource
managers. The sage grouse and its habitats have precipitously
declined across much of the north of the State. No fewer than
15 imperiled butterfly subspecies are known from just a few
dozen wetland acres across the dry middle of Nevada, each one
at more risk of disappearance than any of the currently listed
butterfly species found elsewhere in the Western States. Once
the most abundant amphibian in the State, the relict leopard
frog now exists in just 3 of the more than 100 sites from which
it was historically recorded on museum specimens. Our most
widespread frog may just be a few years away from disappearing
from Nevada.
What these species have in common beyond their imperilment
is that they live on a shared landscape--on both lands public
and private. They live on public lands with a very long history
of resource use and private stewardship. One conservation
reality is apparent; that is, that saving species and the
habitats that support them is a shared responsibility and will
demand in coming years unprecedented cooperation. That
cooperation must include Federal land and resource managers,
State fish & wildlife staff, private stakeholders, and
scientists. Recognizing our long history of landscape
mismanagement and the twin threats from wildfire and invasive
plant species, we have a great opportunity to fail the sage
grouse. Certainly money alone can't save the grouse. Federal
and State managers must coordinate to find a common ground
between the prohibitive policy that comes with listings under
the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the State's management
of fish and wildlife for consumption. Although we all agree
that we must save sage grouse, we ask whether we want to save
them as part of our State's rich natural heritage or so that we
can have a season on them.
Any new funding must look to recipients beyond the Federal
and State families. The shared landscape of the Intermountain
West is not equally shared. Private interests have long
controlled the most limiting resource, water. Although Desert
tortoise and sage grouse conservation challenges in this State
are not solely driven by water allocation conflicts, most other
species challenges are. It is not a coincidence that pupfish,
frogs and toads, spring snails, and butterflies present land
managers with the most immediate species challenges. The
springs, seeps, and riparian areas that support those organisms
have long been exploited and often over used. Where dollars can
buy water for fish and wildlife, and where private interests
have the desire to contribute to saving species, our efforts
will be rewarded. A Federal listing of the 15 butterflies I
mentioned can be obviated with just a small redirection of
waters and some three-strand fencing. It is that simple to save
uniquely Nevada butterflies in Carson Valley, Big Smoky Valley,
Railroad Valley, Steptoe Valley and points in between.
Finally, cooperation must extend to information gathering
and sharing. We have to recognize we know woefully little about
how our wildlands serve both common species and rare ones. Our
best intended land management agencies have often failed to
achieve the desired results and frequently have had adverse
effects on species of concern.
In Nevada we have come a long way toward a remedy. For 7
years the State has benefited from the Nevada Biodiversity
Initiative, a cooperative effort joining Federal and State land
and resource managers with university scientists to meet the
goal of saving biodiversity in the face of human population
growth and
diverse land uses. In continuous communication, managers and
scientists direct funds to species and habitats at greatest
risk, work together to study biological systems that are poorly
understood, and prioritize future conservation actions. The
Biodiversity Initiative cannot take all the credit, but it is
certainly no coincidence that, although Nevada was fourth in
the Nation in candidate species for Federal protection in 1993,
not one new species was listed in the State until forces in
Elko County caused the recent listing of the bull trout. Very
unfortunately, the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative's funding has
been removed by this administration from the Federal budget.
In Nevada we have a unique level of communication,
cooperation, and collegiality on resource issues. That
foundation has fostered the largest habitat conservation plan
in the country, 5\1/2\ million acres in Clark County, covering
nearly 90 species of plants and animals, most not yet listed.
In cooperation with California, Nevada is involved in one of
the Nation's most visible and ambitious restoration efforts to
save the fabled clarity of Lake Tahoe's waters. Now we are
embarking on perhaps the biggest conservation challenge yet, to
sustain and restore the most Nevadan of all habitats, the
sagebrush ecosystem. Neglected, abused, and under incalculable
threats, we frankly have no available technology to reverse the
decline of our sagebrush. But Federal funding of a cooperative
effort involving agencies and stakeholders founded on reliable
experimental science offers our best hope.
Senator Reid, I encourage you and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works to fund cooperative efforts to
bring more effective species conservation to our State and our
neighbors.
Senator Reid. Dennis, how many articles have you published?
Mr. Murphy. Approximately 160.
Senator Reid. So I don't want to boast on your behalf, but
you're really a scientist. Tell me what we would have lost had
we not had the Biodiversity Program for the last 7 years.
Mr. Murphy. The listing process for endangered and
threatened species works in mysterious ways, sort of a
compromise between risk of extinction and economic
considerations and other pressures. But I think it's quite
possible that we would have seen a listing of one or more
species each of the years since the initiative started and
certainly over the last several years.
Senator Reid. You don't mean a listing--you said a listing
in each of the last 7 years?
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator Reid. We have--because I'm responsible for getting
the money, I don't want to sound too assertive, but is there a
program any place in the United States like this program?
Mr. Murphy. There isn't. In many ways it fills the gap that
the National Biological Survey hoped to fill. Secretary Babbitt
at the time wanted to consolidate the research, monitoring, and
modeling capacities within the agencies into a capacity that
could be directed to resolve technical matters related to
species persistence, habitat health and so on.
Senator Reid. He was not able to get that----
Mr. Murphy. Well, he got his survey, but it was slowly
starved through the appropriations process.
Senator Reid. Nothing ever came of it? Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Murphy. That would be unfair to many people who are----
Senator Reid. Not much became of it. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Murphy. Certainly not much came of it. I think the
Biodiversity Initiative has played a wonderful role in filling
that gap in this State. It's a forum for us to solve specific
challenges. It's extremely important in getting folks to sit
down together.
Senator Reid. Also, Dennis, I cringe to think what we would
have done without the expertise that was developed over the
years with our problems at Lake Tahoe. We have been intimately
involved with this. The Walker River system, you have been
involved in that regard.
Of course, even though you came in late, you have been
involved in the problems we had in the Carson/Truckee River
systems. That doesn't take into consideration the vast areas
that you have personally been in and studied dealing with the
butterflies. Tell us, why is it important in the State of
Nevada, the country's leading expert on butterflies? Why are
they important.
Mr. Murphy. The real reason is because I love Nevada. I
think it's one of the great untrammeled landscapes in the world
and has, not only wonderful people with an intimate
relationship with the landscape, but a spectacular biological
diversity that has been shaped over the years by the dramatic
topography that you mentioned. Our 314 mountain ranges and the
increasingly arid environment has isolated organisms in some
small portions of many of the mountain ranges and really gives
us a bit of a----
Senator Reid. Why are butterflies important?
Mr. Murphy. Well, butterflies can give an early warning of
ecosystems in decline. When your butterflies start to go, it
tells you substantial things about the plants that support
them, the species that co-exist with them, and the fate of the
ecosystems in which they survive.
Senator Reid. Bob, you have been involved heavily in all
the many problems we have had in the State of Nevada dealing
with the environment.
How long have you been in Nevada now?
Mr. Williams. Three and a half years.
Senator Reid. During that period of time you have been
involved very publicly, and even when you were not here, you
were aware of the problems going on in Nevada as part of your
job. Is that right?
Mr. Williams. Yes. I was in Utah. I heard about them--about
the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative from my predecessor.
Senator Reid. Even though this is a State program, you and
the Federal Government have relied on the information they
gathered. Is that true?
Mr. Williams. Very much so for the efforts on our
conservation plan for the spotted frog. As Dennis said, there's
several species that, if we were not in a conservation planning
effort right now, they would be considered for listing if not
listed already.
Senator Reid. I'm disappointed that it's not in the budget.
This program became so successful. As you know, we have a
unique form of government. It's not a dictatorship. The
legislative branch of government has equal say. So we will see
what we can do to reestablish those dollars.
We promised everybody that we would be out of this building
by 4 o'clock. Speed on.
STATEMENT OF KAREN DENIO, ACTING STATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FARM
SERVICES AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Denio. Actually, in an effort to conserve time and my
voice, I'm respectfully requesting that my written testimony be
entered into the permanent record.
Senator Reid. Yes.
Ms. Denio. Good afternoon. My name is Karen R. Denio, and
I'm the acting Nevada State executive director for the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency. I
appreciate the opportunity to present information on the
conservation programs administered by the Farm Service Agency,
FSA, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, in
Nevada, the current levels of participation, and the rationale
for producer participation.
FSA and NRCS have several conservation programs available
to farmers and ranchers that provide incentives to encourage
wildlife habitat. Among these programs is the Conservation
Reserve Program, CRP, a voluntary program for agricultural
landowners, offering wildlife and environmental benefits.
Generally, offers for CRP contracts are competitively ranked
according to the environmental benefits index, EBI.
Environmental and cost data are collected for each of the EBI
factors, including: Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from
covers on contract acreage, water quality benefits from reduced
erosion, runoff, and leaching, on-farm benefits of reduced
erosion, likely long-term benefits of reduced erosion, air
quality benefits from reduced wind erosion, benefits of
enrollment in conservation priority areas where enrollment
would contribute to the improvement of identified adverse water
quality, wildlife habitat or air quality, and cost.
Under the CRP, producers receive annual rental payments and
cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource
conserving covers on eligible crop land and marginal pasture
land that improves soil, water, and wildlife resources. To be
eligible to be enrolled in the CRP, cropland must also have
been planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity
2 of the 5 most recent crop years.
Conservation Reserve Program continuous sign-ups provide
management flexibility to farmers and ranchers to implement
certain high-priority conservation practices on eligible land.
To encourage these high-priority practices, continuous sign-up
participants do not go through the normal bidding process and
can enroll non-
competitively. One practice that offers significant wildlife
benefits for farmers and ranchers is the riparian buffer
practice. The land can be marginal pasture which is devoted to
trees either planted or naturally regenerated. This provides
cover for waterfowl and fish along with other wildlife species.
A second wildlife enhancement practice is to develop or
restore shallow water areas that provide a source of water for
wildlife for the majority of the year. Other eligible acreage
devoted to certain special conservation practices, such as
filter strips, grassed waterways, shelter belts, living snow
fences, contour grass strips, and salt tolerant vegetation, may
be enrolled at any time under the CRP continuous sign-up and is
not subject to competitive bidding.
To be eligible under continuous sign-up, land must first
meet the basic CRP eligibility requirements. In addition to the
applicable CRP rental rates, payments up to 50 percent of the
eligible cost of establishing a permanent cover are provided to
producers as cost-shares.
Up to $350 million is available for additional incentives
through fiscal year 2002 to encourage producers to participate
in the CRP continuous sign-up including: An up-front CRP
Signing Incentive Payment of $100 to $150 per acre, a Practice
Incentive Payment paid as a one-time rental payment equal to 40
percent of the eligible installation costs to eligible
participants enrolling in certain practices in addition to the
standard 50 percent CRP cost-share rate, new rental rates that
have been established for certain marginal pasture land to
better reflect the value of such lands to farmers and ranchers.
Through mid-January 2001, over 1.4 million acres nationally
have been enrolled under continuous sign-up practices. With
these incentives, enrollment of filter strips has increased
over 600 percent compared to the historic program (sign-ups 1-
13).
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP, is used
in many States as a vehicle for conservation cooperation. The
two primary objectives of CREP are to coordinate Federal and
non-
Federal resources to address specific conservation objectives
of a State and the Nation in a cost-effective manner and to
improve wildlife habitat, water quality, and erosion control
related to agricultural use in specific geographic areas.
These unique State and Federal partnerships allow producers
to receive incentive payments for installing specific
conservation practices. Through the CREP, farmers can receive
annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish
long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible land. Like
continuous sign-up, CREP participants can enroll non-
competitively and receive the signing and practice incentive
payments.
Under CREP, non-Federal partners provide a significant
commitment, such as 20 percent, toward the overall cost of the
program.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, is
carried out by NRCS. EQIP provides technical, educational, and
financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to
address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on
their lands in an environmental beneficial and cost-effective
manner. The program provides assistance to farmers and ranchers
in complying with Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws
and encourages environmental enhancement.
The purposes of EQIP are intended to be achieved through
the implementation of a conservation plan which include
structural, vegetative, and land management practices on
eligible land. Five- to ten-year contracts are made with
eligible producers. Cost-share payments may be made to
implement one or more of the eligible structural or vegetative
practices, such as animal waste management facilitates,
terraces, filter strips, tree planting, and permanent wildlife
habitat. Incentive payments can be made to implement one or
more land management practices, such as nutrient management,
pest management, and grazing land management. By law,
nationally, 50 percent of the funding available for the program
is targeted at natural resource concerns relating to livestock
production.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, WHIP, is another
Federal wildlife conservation program administered by NRCS.
WHIP is a voluntary program that provides cost-sharing of up to
75 percent for landowners to apply a variety of wildlife
practices to develop habitat that will support upland wildlife,
wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fisheries,
and other types of wildlife. The purpose of the program is to
create a high quality wildlife habitat that support wildlife
populations of local, State, and national significance.
Although these conservation programs are available, it is
often a difficult decision for the producer on whether to
participate. As energy, fertilizer and transportation costs
continue to escalate. It often puts the farmers and ranchers in
the position of choosing between production-based practices to
pay the bills and the conservation practices they wish to carry
out.
Nevada's producer participation in CRP and the CRP
continuous sign-up is limited due to a variety of factors. One
factor is the rental rate assigned to Nevada. Rental rates are
based on the dry land agricultural value because ongoing
irrigation is not required as a condition of enrollment. The
dry land rate for enrolled land in Nevada is about $17 per
acre. Consistent with the statutory obligation prohibiting
haying or grazing, a producer is required to keep cattle off
the CRP land. Therefore, if a producer or a neighbor has cattle
it would be necessary to fence the CRP acreage.
Along with wildlife enhancement benefits, one of the
purposes of CRP is to retire cropland in order to control
erosion and improve water quality. Because much of Nevada's
land base does not have a cropping history due to it's
permanent grass cover or recently being put into production, it
is basically ineligible to be enrolled in the CRP.
In Nevada there are more EQIP requests for participation
than available for funding. For example, in 2000 there were 57
applications for a total of $1,207,197, and with the $992,478
allocation, 43 projects were funded. The 2001 cycle is similar
in that 85 applications totaling $1,769,873 have been received,
but with $1,151,300 allocated, a minimum of 44 projects will be
funded.
Ultimately, participation in conservation programs benefits
all of us. For even as we recognize our farmers and ranchers as
the original conservationists, we each have a responsibility in
preserving our land and natural resources for the following
generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you
or the committee may have.
Senator Reid. Thank you. We will hear now from Nick Pearson
from the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Pearson. I'll try to be brief.
Senator Reid. Thank you for your patience in waiting around
this afternoon. I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF NICK PEARSON, STATE CONSERVATIONIST, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pearson. Mr. Chairman, as you know, farmers across
America are faced with ever increasing pressures to maintain a
productive and profitable business. Prices for many farm
commodities have been the lowest in years, and poor weather and
growing conditions have been issues in many areas. Production
costs have increased due to many factors, including rising
prices of nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas. In addition to
these concerns, farmers face increasing pressures associated
with natural resources. In recent years concern regarding the
health of our soils, water supply, and air have made farming
and ranching increasingly difficult.
We know that farmers want to be good stewards of the land.
They know that stewardship is in the best interest of long-term
productivity of farming operations. By and large, it is also
important to farmers and ranchers who want to leave improved
natural resources and a better environment for future
generations. Our mission is to help farmers and ranchers meet
the challenge of sustaining their natural resources while
maintaining a productive and profitable business.
Today I would like to highlight the many ways our
conservation programs are making a difference around the
countryside. Since the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, NRCS has experienced an
increased national demand for participation in conservation
programs. Farmers are utilizing these programs for a variety of
benefits, including managing nutrients to save on input costs
and protect water quality, restoring and protecting wetlands to
create wildlife habitat, installing grassed waterways to
control erosion, and designing grazing systems to increase
forage production and manage invasive species.
Land users are using conservation to improve the
productivity and sustainability of their operation, while also
improving the asset value of their farm even during times of
such dire economic strain. Our programs are voluntary. In
response to new environmental regulations at many levels, we
are helping farmers and ranchers meet some of the regulatory
pressures they may face. In turn, the public benefits from
conservation programs go well beyond the edge of the farm
field.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the conservation programs
Congress included in the 1996 Act, when coupled with our
historic conservation programs and the State and local delivery
system, are proving winners for the farmer, and the country as
a whole.
The cornerstone of our conservation activities is the NRCS
work force. Everything we accomplish is contingent upon the
talents and technical skills of our field staff around the
country. They are trained professionals with the technical
tools, standards, and specifications who get the job done. NRCS
has operated since its creation through voluntary cooperative
partnerships with individuals, State and local governments, and
other Federal agencies and officials. That partnership may even
be more important today if we are to meet the challenging
conservation problems facing our nation's farmers and ranchers.
While we are accomplishing much through the 1996 Act
programs, it is important not to lose sight of the importance
of our ongoing Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For
more than 60 years the NRCS has used conservation technical
assistance to build a foundation of trust with people who
voluntarily conserve their natural resources. On average, the
agency's conservation assistance leverages more than $1 in
contributions for every Federal dollar invested. In States like
Nevada, NRCS has placed special emphasis on the conservation of
private grazing lands. As part of our efforts in this area,
farmers and ranchers are benefiting from the planned grazing
systems, resulting in better productivity and improved natural
resources. Through the National Cooperative Soil Survey,
approximately 22 million acres have been mapped each year so
that natural resource decisions are based upon sound science
and complete information about the natural resources.
NRCS accomplishes its goals by working with 3,000 local
conservation districts that have been established by State law
and with American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Governments.
We also leverage our resources with the help of more than 348
resource conservation and development RC&D councils. State and
local governments contribute substantially with both people and
funding to complement NRCS technical and financial assistance.
Approximately 7,750 full-time equivalent staff years are
provided annually by NRCS partners and volunteers.
Next I would like to highlight the accomplishments of the
Wetlands Reserve Program. WRP preserves, protects, and restores
valuable wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where
historic wetland functions and values have been either depleted
or substantially diminished. Program delivery is designed to
maximize wetland wildlife benefits to provide for water quality
and flood storage benefits and to provide for general aesthetic
and open space needs. Approximately 70 percent of the WRP
project sites are within areas that are frequently subjected to
flooding, reducing the severity of future flood events. The WRP
is also making a substantial contribution to the restoration of
the Nation's migratory bird habitats, especially for waterfowl.
As directed in the 1996 Act, WRP enrollment is separated
into three components: Permanent easements, 30-year easements,
and cost-share agreements. Pursuant to appropriations act
directives, enrollment is being balanced to respond to the
level of landowner interest in each of these three components.
The 1996 Act authorized a total cumulative enrollment of
975,000 acres in the program. At the conclusion of fiscal year
2000, the program had almost reached maximum enrollment. The
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and related agency appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001
provided an additional 100,000 acres raising the cumulative
enrollment cap up to 1,075,000 acres and allowing 140,000 acres
to enroll in fiscal year 2001.
From inception of the program in 1992 through 2000,
interest in WRP has been exceptional. Historically, there have
been more than five times as many acres offered than the
program could enroll. One benefit of WRP is the amount of
resources we have been able to leverage with other Federal
programs as well as nongovernmental organizations. It is clear
from our experience to date, Mr. Chairman, that the WRP
continues to be very popular with farmers and ranchers and is a
program that clearly has strong support around the countryside.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides up to 75
percent cost-share for implementing wildlife habitat practices
to develop upland wildlife habitat, wetland wildlife habitat,
threatened and endangered species habitat as well as aquatic
habitat. The WHIP also helps landowners best meet their own
needs while supporting wildlife habitat development, and to
develop new partnerships with the State wildlife agencies,
nongovernmental agencies and others.
The program was initially funded at a total of $50 million
in the 1996 Act to be spent over a number of years. As a result
of strong interest, those funds were exhausted at the end of
fiscal year 1999, at which time 1.4 million acres were enrolled
in 8,600 long-term wildlife habitat development agreements. For
fiscal year 2001, $12.5 million will be provided for WHIP from
funding in section 211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection
Act of 2000, as authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. NRCS has made an enormous effort to develop
partnerships with government and private organizations to
develop a practice that targets specific State concerns.
The FPP protects prime or unique farm land, land of State
or local importance and other productive soils from conversion
to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to leverage
funds from States, tribes, or local government entities that
have farmland protection programs. The FPP establishes
partnerships with State, tribes, and local government entities
to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land.
It ensures that valuable farmland is preserved for future
generations and also helps maintain a healthy environment and
sustainable rural economy. The program was initially funded in
the 1996 Act at a level of $35 million to be spent over a
number of years. To date, those funds have been exhausted and
local interest in the program continues to be strong. For
fiscal year 2001, additional funding provided in the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will fund the FPP at
$17.5 million. On January 22, 2001, a request for proposals was
published in the Federal Register. Eligible entities had until
March 8, 2001, to submit their proposals. After the evaluation
process is concluded, successful applicants will be notified in
June 2001.
EQIP provides technical, financial, and educational
assistance to farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to
soil, water, and related natural resources on agricultural and
other land. The 1996 Act authorized $200 million annually for
EQIP, utilizing funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC.
For fiscal year 2001, the final appropriation was $200 million.
In the previous 2 fiscal years Congress appropriated $17.4
million annually. Consistent with the authorizing legislation,
the program is primarily available in priority conservation
areas in order to maximize the benefits of each Federal
conservation dollar. The priority areas consist of watersheds,
regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or
having significant soil, water, or related natural resource
concerns that have been recommended through a locally-led
conservation process. For fiscal year 2000, nearly 85 percent
of the EQIP financial assistance funding was provided within
priority areas.
The program has been extremely successful. We received
nearly 76,168 applications in fiscal year 2000. After NRCS
ranked the applications based on criteria developed at the
local and State level, 16,443 long-term contracts with farmers
and ranchers were approved. Since inception of the program,
EQIP has averaged about six times the number of applications
than could be approved with available funding. Certainly the
demand for the program remains high around the country.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would note that good
conservation doesn't just happen. It takes all of us, including
the Congress, the conservation partners and, most importantly,
the people living on the land working together to make it
happen. As exemplified through the many programs and activities
that we have underway, there is a great deal happening on the
ground. The work is not only helping farmers and ranchers build
more productive economically-viable operations, but also it's
building a better natural resource base for the future. We are
proud of your accomplishments and look forward to working with
you to build on all that we have done thus far.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
again for the opportunity to appear. I would be happy to answer
any questions the committee might have.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Pearson.
Karen, I understand Nevada received only one conservation
reserve program contract last year.
Can you describe to me the reasons why the program doesn't
work well for Nevada and some things we can do in the Farm bill
to change that.
Ms. Denio. Like I mentioned in my testimony, it has
everything to do with the rental rate as one of the factors.
They get $17 an acre to take the crop out of production. In
other States they get much more than that. We get the dry land
rental rate even though we have to irrigate to grow most crops.
Another factor is that they don't have the cropping
history. Because of the fact that we have now the irrigation
techniques that are available, we are just getting cropland
into production, and so they don't have the many years of
producing it, and thus they don't meet that requirement of the
environmental benefits index.
Senator Reid. One idea that my staff is thinking of is
whether we can write a program that would give farmers and
ranchers financial assistance to voluntarily switch from a
relatively water-
intensive crop like hay, which is 40-acre feet of water per
acre per year, of course, to growing native seed, for example,
or something else.
Do you think that farmers might be interested in making the
switch if we did some pilot projects that showed that their
soil was good for growing seed?
Ms. Denio. I think there would be. In order to do that,
obviously, incentives work really well. They would need
different equipment in order to produce the crops. If that were
a part of the incentive, to recover the costs, I think that
would be possible.
Senator Reid. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Pearson. She's right on, couldn't have said it better.
Senator Reid. Dr. Murphy, tell me roughly how the
Biodiversity Initiative both benefits from and supports
students at the university.
Mr. Murphy. The Biodiversity Initiative provides the
funding that allows us in turn to provide infrastructure that
allows a broader experience for the students. We have a
geographic information system mapping capacity in our
biodiversity office within the biology department. We can
provide stipends to support graduate students who have worked
projects ranging from the conservation of bats to looking at
the State's biotic and physical resources on landscape.
One of the great advantages of the Biodiversity Initiative
is that it has provided for cooperative staff sharing with the
agencies. Several students have had experiences with Fish and
Wildlife Service and have gone on to work for the agency.
Senator Reid. This biodiversity program, has it provided a
better graduate student? Has it made a better graduate student?
Mr. Murphy. I certainly believe so. It has funded students
to go to international meetings exchange experiences and see
how conservation is carried out elsewhere. But it has also
allowed for Dr. Richard Tracy, one of the top ecologists in the
United States who, with the assistance of the biodiversity
initiative was brought to UNR where he has continued to do
path-breaking work on the desert tortoise, for instance, and
served on its recovery team which has played such a substantial
role in saving the species.
Senator Reid. With you and Dr. Tracy, Dr. Broussard, and
others, how has the UNR's conservation and biology department--
what kind of stead does it have around the country?
Mr. Murphy. We are certainly in the top three in terms of
the performance of the faculty, the number of graduate students
produced, and the placement of those students in jobs.
Senator Reid. When you say ``in the top three,'' you mean
in all universities around the country?
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator Reid. After your students leave the university
after working as part of the initiative, what do you have to
report about those students?
Mr. Murphy. Certainly their placement within the agencies
working on these issues has been common, and they have been
placed throughout the United States.
But I think quite importantly that graduates in the State
of Nevada are now playing substantial roles in decisionmaking
that has, I dare say, contributed to obviating the need for
future species listing.
Senator Reid. I'm grateful for everyone for having been
here today. When you do a hearing like this it is not nearly as
sexy as one dealing with capital punishment or other issues.
But the fact of the matter is it's a very important
hearing. The wide range of witnesses that we have had, the
Congressman from Texas, we have had people who worked out of
the goodness of their own heart in improving wildlife habitat,
helping sportsmen be able to do the things that they enjoy so
much.
It has shown to me that there's the ability for government
at all levels to work with those on the ground. As we have
heard here from the very first witness, these programs will not
work unless local people support the programs. I look forward
to making sure that what we do in Washington takes that into
consideration, programs that are so essential to the literal
survival of various habitats around the country, no matter what
the case is, that it won't work unless local people support it.
As Larry Johnson in his written testimony said, ``The Nevada
Bighorn Unlimited actions prove that true sportsmen are the
consummate conservationists.''
Having said that, this hearing of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the committee was recessed, to
reconvene on April 12, 2001, in Fallon, NV.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Don Henley, Caddo Lake Institute, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to address the committee,
today. First, let me thank Congressman Sandlin for his positive efforts
on behalf of this local initiative. His introduction and his photograph
provide an excellent overview of our vision. I also thank the committee
members for hearing our concerns about a possible need for oversight
and support for community-based initiatives that fulfill important
Federal conservation commitments.
My remarks today will address not just the local, but also the
national and global conservation benefits that could result from
congressional support for The Caddo Lake Ramsar Wetlands Science Center
Program.
However, my comments about our Caddo Lake program may apply equally
well to other community initiatives that are also fulfilling important
Federal conservation commitments. One example is the Elko habitat
restoration program in your State of Nevada, Senator Reid. My
conclusion will note some features and needs which both programs seem
to share.
We have provided the committee with a pamphlet about our Caddo Lake
initiative. The front cover contains the Caddo Lake scene Congressman
Sandlin showed you, prefaced by the phrase, ``A Woods Hole for
Wetlands.'' That phrase was coined in a local editorial several years
ago, referring to the famous Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in
Massachusetts. This editorial is in the pamphlet. Together the picture
and the phrase show the reason for, and the essence of, this local
vision. This booklet also contains schematic plans for the Center's
campus, the office building for our Research Coordination Network,
interpretive and accessory support buildings. A possible hemispheric
mission is noted in the letter from John Rogers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. Finally, the pamphlet contains the 1999 Costa Rica Conference
Resolution of the Ramsar Nations, which endorses powerful guidance to
maximize the involvement of local communities in management of Ramsar
wetland sites. The resolution notes that the approved guidance was co-
authored by the Caddo Lake Institute, among others. Thus, this rural
Texas initiative has already influenced both the local and
international practice of wetland conservation.
The Caddo Lake Ramsar Science Center is a proposed public/private
partnership between the Institute, as the local facility manager and
program coordinator, and two Department of Interior agencies, which
have special expertise.
These Federal agencies are: the USGS' National Wetlands Research
Center of Lafayette Louisiana and the International Affairs Office of
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Both agencies have
been our informal partners at Caddo Lake since 1993.
The purpose of this Ramsar Center is to institutionalize a
brilliant community achievement that could light the way for other
communities. The Center is charged with demonstrating nothing less than
the ``exemplary fulfillment'' of an important U.S. treaty commitment,
specifically the Ramsar Convention on ``Wetlands of International
Importance, especially as waterfowl habitat.'' Our national credibility
in keeping this commitment underpins our ability to ask other nations
to manage wisely the wetlands in their parts of our common flyways. In
addition, the Caddo Lake Ramsar Center fulfills an official pledge by
the U.S. Government and the Caddo Lake Institute to more than 100
Ramsar nations at their 1996 Conference at Brisbane, Australia.
At Brisbane we jointly pledged to establish at Longhorn the first
U.S. Regional Ramsar Center. To assure the availability of the facility
and fulfill the pledge, the Caddo Lake Institute leased a 1,400-acre
old growth forest at Longhorn for conservation research purposes, as
well as a 14-acre campus and buildings for eventual renovation. We
originally pledged $100,000 to this purpose. We have incurred expenses
greatly in excess of that amount to fulfill our share of the Brisbane
Pledge.
The purpose of the requested appropriation is to augment the
Department of Interior's budget for our partner agencies to underwrite
the costs of the Center and its programs for community members and
scientists. Together we will create operate and demonstrate the Caddo
Lake wetland management plan, as an exemplar of the best Ramsar
guidance. The renovation plan contemplates that the facility will be a
learning venue. It will include powerful modeling tools for this
wetland and its watershed. Interpretive and outreach programs will
showcase the practical realities of a community-based wetland
management program, and its watershed science foundation.
Because of its wetland science expertise and proximity, in
Lafayette Louisiana, we think the National Wetlands Research Center (or
NWRC) is the logical agency to receive a budget augmentation to fund
and provide oversight for the Caddo Lake Ramsar Center program.
Although we know it to be an excellent science agency, we believe NWRC
is ``fiscally under-appreciated'' within the Federal budget. It
deserves both the funding, and the credit it will earn by congressional
augmentation to provide its expertise to local Ramsar communities--a
task we know that NWRC does well. FWS International Affairs, which
executes our government's Ramsar obligations, would be reimbursed for
its costs of provide Ramsar oversight and U.S. policy coordination. We
understand that FWS may also wish to use some Center resources to
assist other Ramsar sites whose requests for help are currently
underfunded. This new assistance capacity might include training at
Caddo Lake, and support for delegations of our citizens and scientists
who visit other wetland communities in response to their requests for
advice or assistance.
We use the term ``budget augmentation'' purposefully. It should be
counterproductive to compromise the historic missions of NWRC or FWS
International Affairs by reallocating to our program any of their
shrinking resources. NWRC would reimburse itself and other Federal
agencies from this budget augmentation for direct Federal agency costs
as well as NWRC's costs of fiscal and wetland science or oversight,
passing through the balance of at lease 80 percent to finance the
locally managed program.
Beyond fulfillment of the Brisbane Pledge, there are compelling
reasons to create a program of this type at Caddo Lake. The Caddo Lake
communities have made a solid beginning in showing that rural
communities have the potential to manage an internationally significant
wetland conservation program. Last summer we facilitated a ``Lake
Residents Working Group'' to master and make local presentations of
lake management science information. Many Working Group participants,
like our grocer and guide Robin Holder, are also members of key local
businesses, community groups and the local navigation district. Our
initiative formalized the practice of regular consultation with our
colleagues of Texas Parks and Wildlife fisheries and waterfowl
divisions, as well as their personnel managing their Caddo Lake
Wildlife Management Area, the original 1993 Ramsar site. Together, they
represent the nucleus of the Ramsar-like structure that joins community
groups with science experts, a structure which this appropriation would
enable us to formalize to manage the Caddo Lake Ramsar wetlands.
To assure that there will always be a sound science foundation for
this ambitious program, we have expanded our historic academic
monitoring program. It has become a much broader Research Coordination
Network (RCN) The RCN's mission is to provide scientific information to
our communities for exemplary implementation of Ramsar guidance, not
just for Caddo Lake but also as a model and encouragement to other
wetland communities. Today the RCN is composed of scientists from Texas
A&M, Stephen F. Austin State University, East Texas Baptist University,
Wiley College, Panola College and Louisiana State University,
Shreveport. Anticipating that some committee members may be alumni of
other Texas universities, I hasten to note that both University of
Texas and Texas Tech University, among others, have been invited to
participate. This network includes agency scientists from Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Wetlands Research Center. Next week the RCN meets in
Jefferson, Texas to review Ramsar guidance and to create interpretive
materials about ``what we know'' and to define research projects about
``what we need to find out to manage better.'' These Conference
products will become part of the annual Research Action Agenda for the
Center. The Center's interpretive program will routinely showcase the
findings of this applied research, and how such research informs the
management of ``critical issues'' in the Caddo Lake Basin. These
critical issues include by way of example: how to maximize and measure
the effectiveness of community management itself, how to deal with
invasive species, how to maintain hydrological integrity, and how to
assess and monitor risks to ecological character. Examples of risks
already calling for sound science are: measurement of the effects of
acids, and nutrients and trace metals from airborne and point sources,
including levels of mercury and other pollutants found in the fish and
wildlife throughout the basin.
Community members of the lake management Working Group will attend
the annual RCN Conferences, as full participants, as a part of their
ongoing wetland science orientation. Therefore, much of the funding
will be passed through to implement or showcase the Research Action
Agenda that the RCN will produce annually with the community management
entity. As a result, we expect that the Center will become a model of
an advanced research and educational facility for our participants as
well as natural science visitors.
Congressman Sandlin perceptively stated a belief we all share at
Caddo Lake: Like politics, all conservation is ``local'' conservation--
at least the best kind is. That has been true in our case. Contrary to
popular characterizations of rural southeasterners as being alarmed by
local Federal conservation activities, our communities are proud of the
Ramsar designation, understand its value and use the designation as a
tool for stewardship.
During our preparation for this hearing we noticed that similar
local initiatives were happening with the sage grouse habitat
initiative by rural people in Elko, Nevada. Both programs even share
the feature of local people recruiting two willing Federal agencies. We
suspect that these may be two examples, perhaps of many similar
situations, where extremely important Federal conservation commitments
are actually being fulfilled by local initiatives--just because local
people decided it was the right thing to do.
But community-based initiatives, especially those pursuing Federal
conservation commitments are very vulnerable. The local effort required
to create them is potentially exhausting. If they are not
institutionalized and incorporated into local cultural pride, they can
rapidly deteriorate. They may be undermined by the death, illness,
aging and the personal and family needs of key participants. Local
efforts can also be demoralized by indifference, or by ``turf wars'' or
manipulation by the agencies whose missions they are furthering. They
may die simply for want of an appropriate institutional vessel to carry
them on. Often these local efforts achieve a critical mass--and their
greatest promise and vulnerability--just when their need for costly
institutionalization is also critical.
Survival of model community conservation initiatives, like survival
of model conservation bureaucracies, requires funding to pay for
expertise and institutional structures which foster continuity of
programs and personnel, as well as the means to retrieve essential
information, to plan, manage, train, and recruit successors. We believe
that helping to institutionalize model community programs, which
fulfill Federal commitments, is justified, especially where they are
funded to support other local efforts.
So we suggest that, as we examine how we accomplish conservation in
this country, we should make note of and accommodate the flashes of
community brilliance that occur to illuminate and fulfill a Federal
conservation commitment. I believe one such situation is occurring in
our Caddo Lake Ramsar Communities. This significant conservation effort
can be continued as a model for our Nation and the world, especially if
the vessel for institutionalization is the local vision; like our
vision of ``a Woods Hole for wetlands,'' the Caddo Lake Wetlands
Science Center.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Leta Collord, Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group,
Elko, NV
For the last 7 years I've been working on the very idea that brings
us together at this meeting; that science needs to be better connected
to, and used by, citizens and communities if its going to have much of
an effect on solving the many challenges we face now and into the
future. Much of my work has been with citizens and communities of place
which, I believe, explains why I was invited to speak here today.
To prepare for this presentation, I called a number of people with
whom I've worked (or have otherwise come to know during those years) to
get their views on this matter. Basically, I wanted to know whether or
not science was being used by people and the community. And, if not,
why? I also asked for their thoughts on what could be done to make
science more widely understood and used by people and communities in
the course of their making choices and decisions.
Let me begin by sharing with you what people feel are the problems.
Armed with that information, perhaps we can better understand how to
proceed in the future. Keep in mind that the following views come from
the West where the public lands play a much larger role in people's
lives. Views from other areas of the country may be different from
these.
The following is a summary of what I heard:
When people hear about science, it's frequently in a
negative context. Many people believe that science will only be used
against them.
Negative stories concerning science often abound in the
local culture (e.g., spending large sums of money studying ``useless''
things, using science and information to take away or diminish what
they view as constitutional rights [private lands, grazing ``rights''],
etc.).
People think that science is politically driven and
nonobjective. There's always a purpose behind it that serves someone
else's agenda, someone who doesn't live in their community.
Because of the polarity over environmental and land use
issues in the last 30 years or so, that agenda is typically suspected
to be an environmental one. Across much of the rural West, science is
viewed as seldom, if ever, serving the well being of the local people.
More often, it represents a threat to them.
There's a sense that all science and information are done
to support authority and regulation, little if anything is done to help
people understand and/or solve problems themselves.
Locals are highly suspicious of government initiated
studies and surveys. They're particularly suspicious of remote sensing.
These activities invigorate and give credibility to the ``black
helicopter and one world government crowd.'' Misinformation flourishes
when people are not well informed. Once it is in place it's very
difficult to overcome.
Most locals see scientists as living in such ``different
worlds'' that they can neither understand nor relate to the needs of
average people.
Scientists tend not to involve people effectively as
scientific findings and information are released. People generally
learn the results from local/regional news services. The information is
often met with suspicion, refuted, and labeled as ``bad science.''
Scientists come across as elitists. They're not in touch
with the local people; they don't involve the locals; and they don't
listen to their concerns or input.
People don't like to feel that scientists are there to
educate them.
People don't see the different agencies of government
working together. It's widely held that the BLM and FS don't use the
same information, procedures, or policies for their science. Now,
people don't see how the USGS fits into the picture, particularly
concerning the ``biological sciences.''.
More and more, people go to sources other than government
agencies for their science and information.
I could go on, but I think this feedback paints a very clear
picture of why ``they'' don't use ``our'' information? But the news
isn't all bad. I also got some very encouraging feedback. Here are some
examples:
I talked to a county commissioner in Idaho who thought
that the Columbia River Ecosystem Management Project had been a failure
because it was not a ``community-based project.'' However, when I asked
him if he thought there was any good that came from that project his
response was, ``Yes, the science. But for it to be applied it needs to
be brought down to the community level and adapted to the local
situation.''
A person in Elko, Nevada answered my question about
science essentially this way, ``When people in a community are pulled
together and empowered to solve natural resource problems they
naturally begin to look for sources of expertise and information. If
they think the information is objective and useful, they will use it.''
This feedback tells me that under the right circumstance people
view science as important and will make an effort to put it to use. So
the question before us today perhaps should be thought of a little
differently. Maybe we should be inquiring into what we can do to help
foster a social environment at the community/citizen level that
supports the application of science. In my view, we're faced with a
social challenge, not a technical one.
In effect, we should be looking for a new relationship between
government, science, and citizens that supports stewardship by people,
rather than looking for more regulatory and decisionmaking powers in
government. The future can be much brighter if we learn to work with
people. In fact, there are those who believe that the only way that
many future problems can be effectively resolved is through people and
community of place, that other course of action simply won't lead to
sustainable solutions. I believe that. I think that many of you in
attendance at this meeting do too.
So, what would such an environment, or social setting, look like
relative to science? Well, it might look something like this:
People would become actively and constructively involved
in understanding science and its implications.
People would gain a sense of ownership and responsibility
over science and information, especially that which is important to
them locally.
People would apply science and information to solving
problems and in making decisions and choices.
Of these statements, the most important is the one containing the
word ``ownership.'' If we could approach this interface of science and
community in a way that resulted in people having a sense of ownership,
the other outcomes would have an excellent chance of materializing,
naturally so. I believe, that if people are to have ownership they must
be ``empowered.'' I really think that it's as simple and, at the same
time, as complex as that.
When people feel dis-empowered, disenfranchise, or otherwise
threatened, they have the choice of ignoring, refuting, or even
demonizing the science that comes their way. Their power (at least
within their own social circles) comes from doing just that. As one
person told me, ``If the locals don't consider it important, it just
isn't going to happen.'' I think that person is telling us that we can
complete all the studies, assessments, reports, and decision support
models we want. By themselves, these things are not going to really
change anything. We need to work for the trust, understanding,
ownership and responsibility of people if science is to be effectively
applied on the ground.
There is a process for creating such an environment. I call it
``Community-based Stewardship.'' Now, there are lots of terms being
thrown around these days, ``collaboration,'' ``partnerships,''
``collaborative stewardship,'' etc. What I'm talking about is a process
of empowering people, particularly people in place based, or community,
settings. It is not simply a process for getting people, or
representatives of special interests, together to talk for the purpose
of finding ``common ground.'' We're talking about a place-based,
community-based, in fact, community-led process for stewarding
landscapes, watershed, and ecosystems.
It is local people living in a community construct who have the
attachment to the surrounding landscapes needed for lasting,
sustainable stewardship. My sociologists friends have convinced me that
there is always a cultural setting that defines the interrelationship
of people to land. That culture may not presently contain all the
knowledge, or even the right land ethic, needed to steward the land in
the greater interest of society, but all that can change through a
process aimed at incorporating science into local knowledge and wisdom.
That's our challenge.
Imagine a future in which a majority of the community holds,
practices, and teaches land and environmental ethics that are
scientifically sound and inclusive of the larger interests of society.
Imagine further that the role of government and scientists has largely
shifted from regulation and formal decisionmaking to that of supporting
citizen-based, citizen-led solutions to many environmental issues, at
least those that lend themselves to solving at that level. In my mind,
that's the future that we need to work toward. A fantasy? Perhaps, but
I do see us moving in that direction.
Given the space and support for doing so, the process I speak of
seems to come together and evolve almost naturally. Although it doesn't
readily lend itself to modeling or text book descriptions, the
following diagram serves as a visual reference to help our discussions
here today.
community-based stewardship
The relationship between community and government, as implied by
this model, primarily depends upon those agencies that have a local
presence in the community, such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, or the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Typically, a lot of front end work is needed between the
community and these (and other) agencies to make community-based
stewardship operational. It's not our purpose here today to talk about
that relationship. However, I do want to again emphasize the importance
of ``Trust and Empowerment.'' In my opinion, community-based
stewardship cannot be made operational without these qualities of human
interrelationships. Empowerment, in all its complexity and subtlety,
also affects the role of science in this model, and certainly its
effectiveness.
So, let's see what the people I interviewed had to say concerning
what needs to be done for science to become more effectively involved
in the community. Here is some of what I heard:
We need to have scientists available to us; they need to
demonstrate that they care about us and have a first hand knowledge of,
and concern for, where we live.
Scientists need to be close enough, or available enough,
to gain credibility. They need to be more than just someone who
occasionally shows up to explain or present something.
Scientist need to be out on the ground and talking with
people to gain credibility.
Scientist need to listen to us as well, learning is not a
one way street.
Scientific information needs to be brought down to the
local scale and communicated through local language and culture for it
to be effective.
Scientists need to respect the local knowledge.
Before starting major surveys, work with local people to
help them understand what's going on, and why. After that, stay
involved with them. If ground truthing is needed, get the locals
involved.
Similarly, get local people involved in monitoring; help
them to feel that you and they are working with common purpose.
In short, all this says to me that science needs to have a ``face
put on it'' at the local level. If I may, I would like to leave you
today with some recommendations on how to do that.
1. Train scientists to work effectively in a community context
(i.e., establishing credibility, gaining trust, and helping people to
become more a part of the science that should be considered important
to them and the area they live in).--Most people I interviewed
indicated a need to have more local contact with scientists, not less.
They want to bring that knowledge and expertise down to the local level
and they want to feel that the scientists involved are truly concerned
and knowledgeable about them or the area they live in. While there are
ways of attaining these goals, they often are disallowed by agency and/
or professional protocol. Having key people regularly sitting in
community gathering places, drinking coffee, and discussing matters of
local interest is not often considered productive work. Nor is it
viewed as a way of getting the ``important'' reportable work out. Yet,
that may be exactly what is called for if we are to become effective as
change agents on the ground, where, in my opinion, it counts the most.
There is now training available on how to work effectively in a
community setting. I would hope that in the near future the importance
of this kind of work becomes better understood and accepted, and that a
part of the work force becomes committed to working for trust and
credibility at the local level.
2. Staff the culture.--To be even more effective in gaining
confidence and application of science at the local level, we should
think about permanently locating scientists within communities and
expect them to become active members of the community, both locally and
more regionally. This is not without precedent. At least some, and
perhaps most, of the scientist who came to USGS from different agencies
to staff biological services remain in their former duty stations. In
one such case that I'm familiar with, the scientist is well known and
respected throughout the region she works. At the same time, I know
this person to be deeply committed to the ecology of this particular
area. Here is an example that appears to be meeting many of the
conditions people are asking for. She is also proving that you do not
have to compromise your values to be effective in this role. In fact, I
believe the opposite is true; you lose respect if you do compromise
yourself. Fairness, objectivity, and caring are, however, mandatory
prerequisites.
3. Form ``regional science teams'' and work toward establishing
their regional credibility.--There are examples of regional science
teams already in existence in various parts of the country. But, in my
opinion, they're being formed mostly for the wrong reasons--typically
to put the best possible science together to advise agency
administrators and support formal, government-led decisionmaking
processes. These are the very actions that people are telling us only
promote suspicion and distrust for science from government sources. The
idea that such teams could support community-based stewardship across
the area they cover is mostly absent from the thinking behind their
formation. The concept of local empowerment and trust is missing.
Regional science teams, if set up to serve community-based stewardship,
could be extremely effective in getting science applied on the ground.
If oriented to gaining people's confidence and trust, and if
effectively connected to communities as discussed above, they could
become recognized sources of expertise and information for the region.
This could grow to be even more true over time. As the county
commissioner in Idaho said, ``Yes, the science is good, but if it's
going to make a difference it needs to be brought down to the local
level and delivered in a way that gains people's confidence.''
__________
Statement of Larry Johnson, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited
introduction
My name is Larry Johnson. I am an engineering geologist by
profession. I am President of a geotechnical engineering and
construction service consulting firm in Reno. While I serve on numerous
professional boards and committees, my true love and life is in the
Nevada outdoors. As such I have been a director of Nevada Bighorns
Unlimited for the past 15 years.
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited was founded in 1981 by a small group of
Nevada sportsmen and conservationists. Since its beginning, NBU-Reno
has grown into one of the most successful and respected, action-
oriented, non-profit organizations in the State of Nevada with a
growing membership base of well over 3,500. NBU is an organization
concerned with the conservation and management of not only Bighorn
Sheep, but all of Nevada's wildlife. The organization's mission is to
promote and enhance increasing populations of wildlife in Nevada, to
fund programs for professional management and habitat improvements, and
to protect the heritage of sportsmen and hunters. The organization is
led by a rotating group of 16 volunteer Board Members dedicated to
making a difference in Nevada's natural habitat. The membership is made
up of primarily hunters, but also includes conservationists,
outdoorsmen and wildlife lovers of all ages. NBU-Reno is striving to
protect wildlife, habitat resources, and hunting rights through the use
of game reintroduction programs, conservation activities, education,
scientific research, legislative action, and honest hands-on labor. NBU
holds only one major fund raising event each year. The annual banquet
and auction attract well over 1,500 hunting enthusiasts and wildlife
lovers from all over North America. The funds generated from this event
are what enable NBU to accomplish their mission. We have invested
millions of dollars into Nevada wildlife projects. Now more than ever,
those who participate with NBU by donations, time, or participating as
a member have a profound effect on the future of wildlife resources not
only throughout Nevada but throughout the world as well.
wildlife projects
Before the turn of the century, Bighorn Sheep were Nevada's most
numerous big game animal. Emigrant journals documented Bighorn Sheep
silhouetted against the sky on every rock pinnacle in the Truckee River
canyon below present-day Reno.
Historically, Nevada was the only area in the Nation to have three
subspecies of Bighorn Sheep; the Rocky Mountain Bighorn, the California
Bighorn, and the Desert Bighorn.
By the turn of the century, however, Desert Bighorn populations had
been drastically reduced while Rocky Mountain and California Bighorns
had become completely extinct within the State. This virtual extinction
was caused by a combination of market hunting, loss of habitat, and
disease from the introduction of domestic sheep.
NBU's mission to promote and enhance increasing populations of
wildlife in Nevada, and to fund programs for professional management
and habitat improvements was born out of the desire to put back what
was lost. NBU's goals of protecting our heritage as sportsmen and
hunters was inspired by a group of individuals who believe there is
nothing more important than protecting our land and its wildlife.
NBU is well known for transplanting big game animals back into
their original habitat--animals including not only Bighorn Sheep, but
also Elk, and Antelope.
Today the Division of Wildlife, funded by groups like NBU has
reintroduced these majestic animals back into their original habitat
throughout the State.
The future of big game in Nevada is extremely promising due to a
high percentage of public land, and the fact Nevada has one of the most
progressive Division's of Wildlife in the Nation.
NBU, along with Federal Pittman Robinson matching funds, provides
all funding for the Nevada Division of Wildlife's Big Game
Reintroduction Program.
A lengthy land management process which takes several years is
necessary for a single reintroduction decision to be made. On average
an original reintroduction consists of approximately 20 animals. Within
5 years, another augmentation of a similar amount to the same area from
a different gene pool is then reintroduced. This process will produce a
huntable population of viable sheep within a decade.
Bighorn Sheep when reintroduced into an ecological niche that was
once their original habitat usually experience a population explosion.
For the first time in modern history, the State is opening up the
management areas for hunting each year.
At this time, Bighorn Sheep have been reintroduced into over 50
mountain ranges in Nevada. Though a tremendous come back by any
measure, there is still work to be done.
NBU's actions prove that true sportsmen are consummate
conservationists. In their efforts to create a more balanced and
healthy wildlife population in Nevada and beyond, generations of
hunters and non-hunters alike will benefit for years to come.
habitat projects
Not much more than a hundred years ago, Nevada's landscape was
primarily that of grasslands and wooded mountains. This habitat
supported grazers, including Elk, Antelope, and the three species of
Bighorn Sheep.
With the spread of mining and ranching came the deforestation of
the mountains and the destruction of the grasslands. Sagebrush then
took over as the primary vegetation. Many of the native big game
animals became extinct in Nevada. Deer, never present in much of Nevada
before, came to feed on sagebrush.
The Federal grazing laws of 1932 put a stop to uncontrolled
livestock grazing and true wildlife and habitat management practices
began to be implemented.
NBU supports Nevada's habitat with funding for a number of special
restoration projects, as well as many volunteers donating hands-on
labor for these projects. NBU's major habitat improvement programs take
areas of poor quality and restore them to usable land which benefits
all types of wildlife, including man.
Reseeding
Range fires have devastated millions of acres of big game winter
range and habitat over the years, significantly decreasing the animals'
potential winter survival rates. Without the assistance of groups like
NBU, reseeding efforts would not have been possible.
If these areas had not been reseeded with sagebrush and other
natural grasses, a noxious weed known as the cheatgrass would have
taken over almost immediately, choking out all other forms of
vegetation. Cheatgrass has no nutritional value. Deer have been known
to literally starve with a belly full of cheatgrass.
Timely donations from NBU and other organizations have aided in
purchasing seed and private helicopter services to assist in the
reseeding effort of critical range areas literally saving the lives of
potentially thousands of animals.
Water Developments
Water is often the limiting factor in the expansion of wildlife
populations. Nevada's climate ranges from arid in the south to semi-
arid in the north, making access to a healthy water supply an even
greater issue.
NBU is involved with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Fraternity for the Desert Bighorn's water projects in all facets of
planning, design, funding, and construction of water development
projects. This allows for expansion of habitable ranges for wildlife,
including Desert Bighorn Sheep, California Bighorn Sheep, Antelope,
Elk, Sage Grouse, Chukar, and a multitude of non-game species.
Hundreds of these water development systems known as ``Guzzlers''
have been completed in Nevada over the past couple of years with great
success. As a consequence, big game animals are not the only animals
benefiting from these water developments. As anticipated, everything
from Coyotes to Eagles to Bats have been sighted drinking from these
guzzlers.
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited is involved in a successful collaborative
partnership with the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition. The objective
of the Coalition is to develop a consensus on the overall health of the
Great Basin in eastern Nevada, and to implement actions to restore the
health of the land. The Coalition is a partner with BLM's Ely Field
Office as they implement the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration
Project. The goal of this 10-million acre project is to restore and
maintain the biological and ecological conditions of the Great Basin
landscape in eastern Nevada through collaborative efforts.
In order to maximize restoration capability and success while
achieving mutual goals, approximately 75 independent, non-governmental
partners including agricultural, conservation, cultural, environmental,
universities, private enterprise and other interests have joined the
Coalition to help the BLM implement decisions on public land. The
centerpiece of the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project is the
partnership between the Coalition and the BLM. Nevada Bighorns
Unlimited has supported this project from its inception. Other partners
include Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, University
of Nevada at Reno, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Nevada Woolgrowers
Association, Society for Range Management, Red Rock Audubon Society,
White Pine, Lincoln and Nye Counties, and others.
Public involvement is expanded through landscape teams. These
teams, comprised of agency staff and scientists from outside the BLM,
will identify landscape goals, conduct landscape/watershed assessments,
support NEPA compliance and plan amendments, develop site-specific
objectives designed to meet established goals, develop and recommend
actions designed to meet objectives, and monitor and evaluate
implemented decisions. All of which will assist the Agency in its
decisionmaking regarding appropriate restoration activities. All
stakeholders, including academic researchers, educators, Native
Americans, interest groups members, and interested citizens will have
input and be a part of the process.
Congress could help by adequately funding this project to
facilitate the Coalition's involvement in restoring public lands in
eastern Nevada. Second, Congress could adequately fund the Coalition's
partnership activities to facilitate involvement by Coalition members
and the public.
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited has joined the Eastern Nevada Landscape
Coalition to help the BLM restore healthy ecosystems in the Great
Basin. Doing so will improve wildlife habitat, watershed stability,
riparian areas, species diversity and composition, and Native American
values.
Legislative Efforts
Over the past several years, NBU has become more involved in
legislative activities in order to further support the future of
Nevada's wildlife. NBU was instrumental in organizing a sportsmen
conservationist group, known as The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife,
which provides a unified voice for sportsmen in the legislature.
The Coalition represents all types of sportsmen, including big
game, waterfowl, upland game, fishing, trapping, houndsmen, rod & gun
clubs and general conservationists.
During legislative sessions, the Coalition allows rapid
dissemination of information to each Coalition member group pertaining
to relevant wildlife issues. Each group maintains its complete
autonomy, but can join in with other groups on a statewide basis to
provide real political clout. Through NBU's efforts, a number of
important victories have been won in the Legislature.
With continued support by groups like NBU and effective habitat
management, the trend in Nevada today is a return to the grasslands of
our past. This trend will assist in the State's augmentation efforts of
big game animals across the State significantly.
education projects
NBU faces the challenge of education head-on determined to win.
Popular sentiment over the last several decades has not supported the
hunter. From prime-time media to our children's teachers, the true
picture of hunters and their impact on the environment has been
distorted.
NBU fully believes that without educating our youth with the facts
and merits of hunting, sportsmanship, wildlife management and
conservation, the results of our other endeavors will be of little or
no benefit to the future of wildlife in our State.
To this end, there are several programs funded and supported by NBU
that merit mention.
Jim Lathrop Memorial Scholarship Fund
This scholarship fund was created by NBU in honor of NBU's founder,
the late Jim Lathrop. The fund represents a cooperative effort
involving NBU, the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the University of
Nevada. It was set up for post graduate study in the fields of biology
and wildlife management and has been extended to include funding of
summer internships for selected individuals majoring in wildlife
management and has been extended to include funding of summer
internships for selected individuals majoring in wildlife management.
The objective of these studies will be further understanding and
development of big game populations and habitat enhancement within our
State.
Wild Outdoor World Magazine
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited has formed a partnership with the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation and the Nevada Division of Wildlife to publish
a wildlife magazine targeting 4th graders throughout Nevada. The
magazine is published in full color five times annually and is
distributed in elementary schools throughout the State. (A copy is
attached for review.)
We are limited by budget constraints in reaching all fourth graders
statewide, even though teachers and students enthusiastically request
increased circulation.
research
NBU-generated dollars have assisted in the funding of several
important research programs conducted by several distinguished
institutions such as the University of California at Davis, The Caine
Veterinary, Teaching and Research Center in Idaho, and Washington State
University.
The most recent research project is being conducted by Washington
State University under the direction of Dr. William Foreyt. The most
important element of this research program has been the establishment
of evidence outlining the devastating consequences upon wild sheep
herds caused by interaction between Bighorn Sheep and domestic sheep.
It is believed the main reason for Bighorn Sheep extinction
throughout their original habitat is due to pneumonia contracted from a
bacteria transmitted from domestic sheep herds.
NBU is a firm believer in the multiple use of public lands. They
recognize the rights of domestic sheep operators to graze on these
lands.
It is NBU's goal in funding this research to find the causes and
cures for these transmitted diseases so that domestic and wild sheep
can coexist.
Funding provided by Nevada Bighorns Unlimited to Dr. Foreyt and Dr.
Ron Silflow has greatly assisted in their efforts to develop a
laboratory test to determine the potency of the bacteria responsible
for causing pneumonia in wild sheep.
This test serves as the tool for discriminating between potentially
dangerous and relatively harmless isolates of the bacteria. The test
can now be applied to practical issues of Bighorn Sheep management and
health maintenance. These developments pioneered in the study of
bacterial organisms in Bighorn and domestic species can be immediately
applied to other wildlife species such as Deer, Elk and Dali sheep.
The information gained from NBU funded research is already having
an impact on policymaking decisions regarding the shared land use of
Bighorn and domestic sheep.
The research promises to contribute valuable information to
facilitate management decisions regarding the transplantation of
Bighorn Sheep populations. NBU expects management applications
facilitated by this research tool will have a positive impact on the
maintenance of healthy, flourishing wild sheep populations in future
years, and assist in understanding and management of wildlife
everywhere.
NBU's commitment to promote and enhance increasing populations of
indigenous wildlife in Nevada will continue to be extended to those
dedicated to increasing the knowledge and understanding of our
wildlife.
project funding needs
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited receives funding requests for a wide
variety of wildlife, habitat, education, and research projects from a
wide variety of schools, universities, State and Federal agencies. We
are continually involved in programs such as:
Big game, fishery, and game bird reintroductions;
Green stripping (protection) of existing habitat form
wildlife;
Noxious weed control;
Habitat Restoration;
Wild Horse Management (see attachment)
Water Development in Desert Habitats;
Education; and
Research.
Many badly needed projects cannot be implemented primarily due to
funding short falls. NBU would like to fund a full-time water
development crew, big game transport units, aerial wildlife survey
equipment, and GPS telemetry tracking systems for the Nevada Division
of Wildlife, reseeding, green stripping, and water development projects
for the Bureau of Land Management, as well as Sage Grouse research
programs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Additional and a continual source of funding would greatly assist
in our goals--the enhancement of wildlife resources throughout the
State.
______
ATTACHMENT
Bureau of Land Management Update.--March 2000
subject: wild horse and burro management
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended,
provides for the protection and management of wild horses and burros
(WH&B) to assure a thriving, natural ecological balance and multiple-
use relationship on the range. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
responsible for implementing this Act by assuring healthy, viable WH&B
populations within herd management areas (HMAs) at appropriate
management levels (AML), and through appropriate placement of excess
animals.
issue summary
``Restoration of Threatened Watersheds'' is a vital initiative
within the Presidents fiscal year 2001 budget for the BLM and includes
a comprehensive strategy for achieving AML on all HMAs. This strategy
is necessary to counter one of the major threats to watershed health
and dependent resources that excess WH&B populations pose to the land's
carrying capacity. Currently WH&B populations are 85 percent over the
BLM's estimated AML. Attaining AML on HMAs is the most critical need of
the WH&B program. With current funding, the BLM is unable to remove
sufficient animals to make progress toward AML or even to maintain a
static population.
background
Wild horse and burro populations are exceeding AML on 159 of 192
HMAs. Populations are increasing at approximately 18 to 20 percent per
year. For all HMAs the BLM estimates the overall established FAIL at
27,379 animals. At the end of fiscal year 2000, the BLM projects the
population will be 50,631 animals, or 23,252 animals over AML. WH&B
populations are exceeding the capability of the land to support them.
If the BLM does not reduce populations. irreparable damage will occur
to riparian zones and watersheds, water quality, threatened and
endangered species such Is the Lahontan cutthroat trout and Desert
tortoise, and special status species such as Sage grouse. In addition,
degradation of native vegetation communities will accelerate the
establishment and spread of invasive weeds. If the BLM does not manage
WH&B herds within AML, the agency could face numerous lawsuits from a
variety of interest groups. resulting in court management of natural
resources.
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposal of $29,447,000, which includes
a $9 million increase to base funding and 172 FTE (+5 FTE), will allow
the BLM to implement a strategy to bring all HMAs to AML in 4 years.
The strategy will require the BLM to remove 12,855 animals from HMAs
(an increase of 6,855 animals) in the first year, dropping to 4,500
animals by the sixth year and remaining at that level. The strategy
will allow the BLM to improve its marketing of animals and events; will
allow the agency to implement techniques to enhance the adoption
prospects of older animals; and will enable the agency to provide long-
term care and holding (pasturing) for the oldest, least adoptable
animals. With consistent funding through fiscal year 2005, the BLM can
achieve AML on all HMAs. In fiscal year 2006 and beyond, the BLM will
need to gather and adopt only 4,500 animals annually, which is below
the current and anticipated long-term adoption demand. The savings from
reduced gathers, holding and adoption costs will greatly offset the
increased cost of long-term care and holding. As the number of animals
in long-term caring and holding declines through natural attrition and
adoptions, the BLM will realize lower costs for maintaining ``a
thriving. natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on
the range''.
contact
Lee Delaney, BLM Group Manager for Wild Horse and Burro Management
(202) 452-7744.
Bud Cribley, BLM Senior Wild Horse and Burro Specialist (202) 452-
5073.
______
Bureau of Land Management--National Wild Horse and Burro Program
The ``Restoration of Threatened Watersheds'' Initiative--Living Legends
in Balance with the Land.
A Strategy to Achieve Healthy Rangelands and Viable Herds--A Fiscal
Year 2001 Presidential Budget Initiative
One of the major threat to watershed health is an overabundance of
wild horses and burros on rangelands. During fiscal year 1999 BLM
completed a comprehensive program capability and population modeling
analysis. This analysis revealed that at current funding capability and
adoption demand, WH&B populations will increase at a rate faster than
our ability to remove excess animals.
population status
Projected populations for fiscal year 2001 is 50,631 animals;
23,252 animals over Appropriate Management Level (AML)
of 27,379;
159 of 192 Herd Management Areas (HMA) are over AML;
Reproducing at 18-20 percent per year; 9,475 animals in the year
2000.
impacts of current management
Overpopulation leads to increased negative impacts on watershed
health, habitat of the herds, and dependent resources and uses,
specifically:
LSeverely damages upland vegetation and riparian areas
critical to wild horse and burro herd health;
Significantly diminishes water quality and watershed
stability;
LContributes to potential listing of threatened species
(i.e. sage grouse) and jeopardizes the recovery of listed species,
(i.e. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout);
LIncreases the threat to other Special Status Species;
LThreatens wildlife viability by creating unhealthy
competition for limited forage;
LIncreases the likelihood of exotic invasive weed
species becoming established;
LMagnifies existing conflicts with public land users
(recreation, cultural, livestock); potentially displacing these uses
and leading to litigation by such groups;
LLitigation could cause the Courts to redirect BLM's
budget to resolve the issue.
attaining aml on all of blm's hma's is the most critical need of the
program
Faced with this critical need and acting on recommendations from
the WH&B Advisory Board, BLM modeled several management scenarios for
achieving AML to determine shortest timeframes and highest cost
effectiveness.
Current Management
Current funding is only adequate to remove and adopt 6,000
animals/year.
Current funding does not allow for achieving AML or
maintaining a static population.
Projected populations in 2010 will be 126,380 animals on
the range.
99,001 animals over AML (462 percent over AML).
The Adopt-A-Horse or Burro Program is the only accepted
tool for dealing with excess animals.
Adopting only wild horses 5 years and younger to maximize
adoptions.
Fertility control research is ongoing, however, no
widespread usage for several years.
Current Management Without Budget Limitations
BLM's current management (only wild horses 5 years and younger
removed) without budget limitations does not achieve AML within a 10-
year planning period.
BLM's Strategy
Establishes a 4-year gather schedule for all HMAs
beginning in fiscal year 2001.
Reduce all HMA's to AML by removing with no age
restrictions.
Remove 12,855 animals in first year dropping to 4,500 by
sixth year and remaining at that level.
Requires a funding increase of $9,000,000/year over
current funding levels sustained through 2005.
Enhance marketing of animals and adoption events.
Train and geld wild horses otherwise difficult to adopt.
Place unadaptable wild horses in long term holding
(pasturing).
benefits
Significantly contributes to the improvement of watershed
health.
Contributes to healthy, viable herds on all HMAs.
Balances wild horse and burro populations with the
capability of the land.
Achieves AML in the shortest amount of time (4 years).
Removing fewer animals annually:
Equals fewer animals in the adoption system;
Reduces stress on the animals left on the range.
Decreased removal numbers equals significant cost savings
and is the most cost effective over a 10-year period.
Reduces resource conflicts and thus potential litigation.
Reaching AML on all HMAs in 4 years allows for achieving
``a thriving natural ecological balance'' as required by the Wild Free-
Roaming Horse and Burro Act thus achieving: Living Legends in Balance
with the Land.
Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc.,
Reno, NV, April 10, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman,
Hon. Harry Reid,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators and committee members: Good afternoon and I wish to
welcome you to Nevada on behalf of the Nevada Wildlife Federation
(NvWF). I am Elsie Dupree, president of this organization.
NvWF was founded over 50 years ago by dedicated sportsmen that
wanted to work on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our membership
consists of affiliate clubs and members. We have nearly 10,000 members.
The public domain lands in Nevada are habitat to many unique plants
and animals. We are very concerned about this habitat. I asked for
comments from affiliates and members for this testimony.
The general concern of all was the lack of funding to take care of
the land. Nevada could use funding to help with long term projects to
include:
Flood protection along our few rivers to protect habitat. Water
quality needs improvement as we remove mercury, arsenic and other
pollutants.
Water issues are a concern on the Stillwater Refuge, and Lahontan
Valley wetlands here in the North. There is a severe shortage of water
to maintain the wetlands. Invasions of noxious weeds in the riparian
areas are stealing valuable water. In the southern part of the State,
the Multi Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) will need funding to
continue the goals of recovery efforts for fish species such as the
bonytail chub and the razorback sucker. (see attachment one)
Walker Lake is an unique situation where the water coming to the
lake is allocated at 130 percent for irrigation. There is a need for
money for willing sellers to give water rights to the lake. Right now
our Division of Wildlife owns a small amount of water rights that in
dry years does not even reach the lake. This desert lake will die and
the waters where migratory birds rest will not support them with food.
The Great Basin Initiative is a good start for noxious weed
control. There need to be many educational seminars to educate the
public on the weeds and how to control them. Our State needs to be
fully involved in this problem with funding.
Several affiliates commented on the lack of funding for control of
the wild horses in our State. The herd populations are high and there
is little to no money to bring the herds to the set limits of control.
We see damage to the habitat from overgrazing in wildlife areas. Now
that we are in a dry year there is even more damage. We do not have the
man power to do the monitoring and repair work. Some of the range
workers in our Federal agencies cover more land in a year then what is
in some States in the East. It is impossible to do a good job with this
much territory. Our Federal agencies need budgets increased to meet
this problem. State agencies need funding for wildlife habitat
improvements. There needs to be grants for conservation groups to help
out on projects.
Other affiliates are concerned with the lack of funding to do the
proper studies. We need BEST SCIENCE to take the lead in wildlife
issues. There needs to be monitoring, research, and studies to show
that the program will work or has worked. Often funds dry up before
this is done.
Education is vital. The NvWF is using time and money to work with
our North West Sage Grouse Working Group for this purpose. We have
members from all walks of life making a slide show and pamphlet to
educate the public and the agriculture industry on just what a sage
grouse needs to survive and stop the declining trends. Our Governor has
a statewide committee working on Conservation Plans to help stop the
decline of sage grouse in our State and we fully support his efforts.
(See attachment two.)
Other educational programs by NvWF include our annual wildlife
poster contest for school age children and Backyard Habitats for those
wanting to help provide habitat for wildlife close to home. Our
affiliate, the Truckee River Flyfishers started a trout in the class
room program where grade school children raise trout fry in the class
room and then put them in the river. Ann Privrasky got this program
established so well that our Division of Wildlife is going to try to
get this program in every grade school in the State.
Education can be as simple as having our city, county, State and
Federal offices remember we live in a desert State and they should
landscape their areas with desert landscaping instead of green lawns
and other high water usage plants. This would educate the public also.
In summary, our State needs guaranteed funding so we can do long term
planning and repair the damage to the land.
The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson Funds were so successful
in funding State agencies to administrate wildlife programs that some
States and other local governments have never developed other funding
sources to manage wildlife programs. A guaranteed CARA type fund would
greatly enhance these programs. (see attachment three)
I thank you for your time and the chance to share some information
about Nevada. I will gladly try to answer any questions you may have.
Elsie Dupree,
President.
______
ATTACHMENT 1
Subject: CARA Info
Date: Wed. 04 Apr 2001 23:18:58-0400
From: Myra Wilensky
To:
Hi Elsie,
First, the wildlife title should include a specific amount. The
proposed $350 million in H.R. 701 for State fish and wildlife agencies
is a must.
A river and So. NV example you could use in your written testimony
is the following:
The second title could be used to provide funding for species
recovery activities under habitat conservation plans such as the Lower
CO Multi Species Conservation Plan. The MSCP is making a commitment to
continue the recovery efforts of threatened and endangered species
above the efforts mandated by the Endangered Species Act. While the
States and private entities are providing a substantial amount of
funding, funding under a species recovery agreement could further the
goals of recovery efforts for such fish species as the bonytail chub,
humpback chub, and the razorback sucker.
Funding under this title could be used to encourage species
restoration efforts while eradicating invasive species. The Lower CO
MSCP is encouraging the restoration of native species such as the
cottonwood willow while controlling such invasive species as tamarisk
and salt cedar.
I hope this is helpful. Good luck!
Myra.
______
ATTACHMENT 2
Subject: Sage Grouse Article
Date: Thu. 5 Apr 2001 11:00:08-0700
From: Julie Dudley
To: The Duprees
Nevada Wildlife Federation Works on Sage Grouse Booklet & Public
Involvement Campaign
(By Julie Dudley, Chair of Nevada Wildlife Federation's Endangered
Species Alliance)
background
Sage grouse are the ``Ambassadors'' of the sagebrush ecosystem,
spanning parts of California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Utah. According
to a Jan. 29, 2001 article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, sage grouse
once numbered 2 million, but today they are estimated at a mere
``140,000 birds.'' During the past few years, scientists have noted a
30 percent decline in sage grouse numbers, and in some places, 80
percent.
There are many reasons for the decline in sage grouse numbers and
no easy solution.
Because sage grouse are suffering from extensive loss of sagebrush
habitat, the drop in their population is more than worrisome. To many
it indicates the beginning of the collapse of the entire sagebrush
ecosystem.
In early 2000, the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NvWF) formed the
Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group (NWNVSGWG) to begin
discussing the sage grouse problem at monthly meetings in Reno and
Carson City. This group's mission is to advocate improvement of habitat
for sage grouse and other wildlife dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem
in Northwest Nevada.
Former Nevada Wildlife Federation President, Gale Dupree, is chair
of the NWNVSGWG and I am the vice chair. The NWNVSGWG has three goals:
1. To educate ourselves about a healthy sagebrush ecosystem and
sage grouse habitat requirements.
2. To insist State and Federal agencies immediately develop and
implement sage grouse conservation plans.
3. To build public involvement and support among Nevadans about the
urgency of improving the sagebrush ecosystem and sage grouse habitat
requirements, including operating a Web site with information on sage
grouse conservation needs.
Based on scientific research conducted throughout the West, there
are many reasons for the loss of sagebrush, and thus the decline in
sage grouse. These reasons are one or a combination of the following:
Invasion of annual, non-native plant species like
cheatgrass;
Increased fire frequency followed by weed invasions;
Brush control followed by seeding of non-native grass
species;
Invasion of pinyon and juniper woodlands into shrub
communities;
Conversion to agriculture;
Various livestock management practices;
Habitat fragmentation due to power lines, fences, roads
and urbanization.
Because of the sage grouse's potential listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), comparisons are being drawn between the grouse and
the spotted owl controversy (``The Next Spotted Owl,'' Audubon, Nov/Dec
2000) which divided communities in the Pacific Northwest. If the sage
grouse is listed under the ESA, much larger areas of the West will be
affected than those in the spotted owl controversy. Many Nevadans would
like to take positive, preliminary steps to avoid the heated
polarization displayed during the spotted owl controversy.
The NNNVSGWG is seeking funding to accomplish one such project by
answering Nevada private landowners' question: ``what can we do to
restore sage grouse populations?'' The Sage Grouse Booklet and Public
Involvement Campaign will provide the answers to this question by
giving private landowners information about seasonal sage grouse
habitats and ways to make conditions more conducive for the birds.
Based on shared information at NWNVSGWG meetings, the Nevada Farm
Bureau and Society for Range Management are helping make this project a
success. Conservation groups are also well-represented at the working
group meetings with members of the Sierra Club, Friends of Nevada
Wilderness, American Lands Alliance and Lahontan Audubon Society
attending, plus many State and Federal agency contacts.
The Sage Grouse Booklet and Public Involvement Campaign aims to
print an informational booklet based on science distributed to Nevada
private landowners recommending steps to enhance sage grouse habitat.
Second-tier audiences include the media, State and Federal agency
scientists, county commissioners, State and Federal legislators and the
general public.
Accompanying the printing and distribution of the booklet is a
public involvement campaign that includes press releases, media
relations, ad placements, flyers and a special sage grouse Web page
added to the current NVWF site at www.nvwf.org.
If you would like more information about this project, or would
like to attend a NWNVSGWG meeting, please call Julie Dudley, at (775)
323-4500 or Gale Dupree at (775) 885-0405.
______
ATTACHMENT 3
Subject: Testimony thoughts
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:35:43-0700
From: Leontine Nappe
To: Elsie Dupree
Elsie, I have been all day on a Black Rock NCA RAC meeting and will
be going out shortly for the evening.
So . . . here are my thoughts.
The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson funds were so successful
in funding State agencies to administer wildlife programs that States
and local governments have never developed other funding sources to
manage wildlife programs. Without PR and DJ funds, the States, at this
time, would have no wildlife program. With all the other commitments,
States have made, they are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate
now to fund wildlife programs. The PR and DJ funds primarily administer
the agencies, some research and contribute to purchase of key lands and
water.
Because of Federal lands in the West, lakes, reservoirs, and
streams, DJ and PR funds have not had to stretch to purchase habitat.
Many wildlife management areas and National Wildlife Refuges were
created to exist on drain or excess water from irrigation projects. As
we know now, ``waste'' or drain water is a disappearing commodity and
too late wildlife agencies both State and Federal must purchase water
to support these lands.
Belatedly, some States have through bonding issues started to
invest in land and water purchases or capitol improvements. The State
of Nevada has had parks and wildlife bonds in 1973 and 1990; a bill has
been introduced for another park and wildlife bond. Some counties have
also invested in open space through bonds. Washoe County recently
passed a $38,000,000 bond; however, parks for recreational development
were the primary expenditures.
The success of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson is also a
shortcoming. Although States are responsible for managing all wildlife
within the States, wildlife agencies spend virtually all of their funds
managing game species. Nongame species management is limited.
Federal lands once so vacant and available for wildlife are now
becoming filled with receptionists, utility and transportation
corridors, energy development, and other uses. Growing populations will
require Federal lands and tap agricultural water on both private and
Federal lands.
If we are to sustain wildlife populations, then States must expand
their responsibilities to managing wildlife species. All species of
wildlife dependent on wetland and riparian areas will require more
knowledge of their habitats and distribution, more education of the
public and more law enforcement. State wildlife agencies are well
equipped to handle these new tasks. Many, like the Division of
Wildlife, have with minimal State funding provided limited nongame
programs since 1970.
Some of the species which could benefit from these funds are: the
long billed curlew which is declining. Development and maintenance of
habitat for sandhill cranes. Creation and preservation of wetlands for
both waterfowl and shorebirds.
The Spring Mountains in southern Nevada host endemic mammals whose
distribution and habitat needs must be incorporated into an area
increasingly popular for recreation.
The Division of Wildlife could build Nature trails, and
interpretive centers, in existing areas and provide additional
education programs for schools. The Division of Wildlife could work
more closely with local government and Federal agencies, for instances,
to identify critical habitat for nongame species and to develop
programs to minimize impact on the habitat.
While nongame is important in this legislation, I would like to
point out that in the sage grouse potential listing has made us aware
that ecosystem protection is important. CARA funds could be blended
with game funds to build comprehensive programs. The bear in Nevada is
not a game species but is a species which is requiring more time and
commitment because people are encroaching on its habitat.
Tina Nappe.
__________
Statement of Terry R. Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada
Division of Wildlife
Good afternoon. I am Terry Crawforth, Administrator of the Nevada
Division of Wildlife. I would like to thank the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works for conducting these investigations into
wildlife conservation needs and inviting me to share our perspectives
on wildlife conservation and management in Nevada.
As the seventh largest State in land mass, Nevada's extensive
wildlands support a broad and diverse assemblage of plant and animal
communities. This diversity of wildlife and habitats is amplified by
the geographic and climatic character of the Great Basin in the north
and Mohave Desert in the South. Also, because Nevada is the driest
State, water is even more critical to wildlife distribution and
abundance. A wide variety of topographic features from low river
valleys to 13,000 foot alpine peaks offers habitat to Nevada's
wildlife, resulting in an astounding ecological diversity.
Managing this broadly diverse assemblage of animals and plants
presents many unique and formidable challenges. While some species such
as mule deer and rainbow trout have broad distributions across Nevada,
other species such as the Palmers chipmunk and the Amargosa toad exist
only in very localized landscapes. All are worthy of attention, though,
and therein lies the management challenge to the Division. As the
smallest wildlife agency in the Nation, the Nevada Division of Wildlife
is constantly faced with the difficult task of allocating limited
resources to the preservation, protection, management and restoration
of all elements of this vast and diverse wildlife resource.
The prioritization of management activities by the Division has
historically been largely a function of economics. The wildlife
receiving primary emphasis in Division management programs are those
species for which there is a consistent and adequate funding source.
For years hunters and fishermen who support the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration
Act by paying excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment have paid
for the majority of wildlife management programs in Nevada. In
addition, the matching funds required to capture these trust funds are
provided by these same sportsmen in the form of license and tag fees.
Hence, the wildlife species that have for years received priority
funding are those that are hunted and fished.
These extensive management programs funded by Nevada's sportsmen
can boast significant success in the conservation of wildlife in the
State. The big game management program in Nevada is second to none.
Trapping and transplant projects for species such as bighorn sheep,
antelope and elk have resulted in record animal numbers and
distributions throughout the State. The variety and abundance of fish
species available to anglers is impressive. Upland game species
including exotics such as the chukar partridge are pervasive. Nevada is
renowned in the West as a high quality hunting and fishing destination.
It is obvious that consistently funded, collaborative programs can
represent Nevada wildlife well.
It is important to note, however, that though management efforts
have been concentrated on sport wildlife, those species typically not
hunted or fished have not been summarily ignored. Good habitat
management fostered by successful game and sport fish programs
ultimately benefits all wildlife species. In addition, consistent,
albeit small, non-sportsman funded annual appropriations are dedicated
to non-hunted or fished species.
But we have been aware for some time that those species which do
not receive program emphasis because they lack dedicated funding
deserve more than they are getting from project ``spin-off'' or
residual funding. While our history of successful management of game
wildlife and protection of habitat provides a good model for the
conservation of Nevada's ``other wildlife,'' these species that are not
sought for sport or recreational purposes deserve more. Reliance on
reactionary and often ``last ditch'' tools such as the Endangered
Species Act is not productive. We see a profound need to be proactive
in the management of all Nevada wildlife.
What is essential for Nevada's wildlife diversity is sustained
funding to apply to already proven management techniques. Some recent
congressional appropriations will help when they eventually reach us,
but we need long-term legislation that provides an uninterrupted flow
of funds for Nevada's ``other wildlife''. We came close to this goal
with the near passage of title III of the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act in the 106th Congress, which would have provided consistent and
sustained funding for non game wildlife conservation. Nevada's ``other
wildlife'' deserves this degree of attention.
Senator Reid, I have always appreciated your dedication to the
wildlife resources of our beautiful State. I applaud your present
efforts to make a consistent and adequate funding source for Nevada's
``other wildlife'' a reality. I pledge my agency's support in this
endeavor. Securing a reliable funding source for Nevada's ``other
wildlife,'' when combined with Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux
funds that exist for game wildlife and sport fish would put a third leg
on the conservation stool and better balance Nevada's wildlife
conservation effort.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Gary Graham, Director, Wildlife Division, Texas Parks and
Wildlife, Austin, Texas
background
Texas is possibly the most unique State in the continental United
States. We have more species and habitats than all other States, except
perhaps California. However, unlike California, 97 percent of the land
and habitat in Texas is privately owned, which provides unique
conservation opportunities and challenges. The diversity of people and
perspectives in Texas is also impressive and healthy. Texas Parks and
Wildlife serves this diversity by promoting the conservation of all
wildlife, including over 1,000 species of nongame and rare wildlife, as
well providing conservation assistance to people interested in these
species. The funding provided by the Title III of CARA would go
directly to TPW, enhancing its ability to manage all of the State's
wildlife.
For Texas, the stakes are huge. By keeping common species common,
adding species to lists of endangered species will be uncommon. This is
particularly important in Texas with so many species and so much
private land. Wildlife-watching, hunting, fishing and other wildlife-
related recreation in Texas generated about $6.7 billion in direct
spending in 1996. Healthy landscapes and wildlife populations are vital
to both of these important issues.
accomplishments
Texas has several well-established programs targeting nongame
wildlife, including one of the largest wildlife diversity programs in
the country, as well as an extensive resource protection division that
has responsibility for monitoring and protecting wildlife habitat in
Texas, particularly aquatic habitats.
Overall, Texas Parks and Wildlife spends over $10 million a year in
these areas, out of a total agency budget of $250 million. In addition,
we spend about $21 million on game and general wildlife management, $20
million on fisheries management, nearly $40 million on law enforcement
and about $8 million on communication and education activities.
Over the past 10 years, Texas Parks and Wildlife has made major
additions to its private lands assistance program (technical guidance
staff) as well as creating and staffing new urban and nature tourism
programs. But with a State as big as Texas, even this isn't enough.
Even $10 million a year doesn't go far in a State with over 267,000
square miles of land, 80,000 miles of rivers and streams, 254 counties,
20 million citizens and 1,200 species of vertebrate wildlife.
Still, we have seen some tremendous success stories, such as our
Landowner
Incentive Program (LIP), the first program in the country that offers
financial assistance to landowners who wish to manage for rare and
endangered species and habitats. The LIP program stimulates
conservation by recognizing and rewarding landowners who are willing to
manage their land for rare species, using a voluntary, incentive-based
approach. While many landowners are already willing to manage their
land for wildlife without financial reward, there are times when a
little advice and startup funding is all it takes. Over the past 4
years, Texas Parks and Wildlife has spent nearly $1 million on 45
projects affecting 46,000 acres of habitat, matched by $425,000 in
outside funds.
Concurrently, we have increased our technical guidance program to
20 biologists. These biologists assist landowners in developing LIP
projects, as well as providing general wildlife management advice. In
their work with landowners, our technical guidance biologists have
developed wildlife management plans for 12.6 million acres, promoting a
habitat-focused conservation approach that works for wildlife as well
as for private landowners.
We also aggressively use nature tourism and Watchable-wildlife
projects as incentives for conservation through economic development.
We have seen this approach work particularly well along the Gulf Coast
and in South Texas, which now have a national reputation as bird-
watching destinations. Each April, birdwatchers in Texas can see over
300 of the 600 species of birds that occur in the State. Texas Parks
and Wildlife has been a leader in working with landowners and
communities, showing them that the bird habitat they provide can return
them direct economic benefits. And once people accept that nature
tourism is part of their business, it's easy to convince them that they
need to maintain the habitat their business depends upon.
We have already established and marketed the Great Texas Coastal
Birding Trail, producing maps that identify over 300 premiere bird-
watching sites on the Gulf Coast in cooperation with over 100
communities, as well as cost-sharing site improvements with those
communities. And we are following up with plans for the Great Texas
Wildlife Trail in central Texas and the Panhandle.
We have taken this nature tourism model a step further by proposing
a new complex of visitor and education centers, called the World
Birding Center, in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The Lower Rio Grande
Valley is one of the most economically challenged areas in the
country--4 of the counties there are among the poorest counties in the
United States. But bird watching has become a big business in the
Valley, generating nearly $100 million a year in tourism income. The
World Birding Center will serve as a focus for this new industry, and
is expected to generate an additional $10-$15 million a year in new
income to the region.
In addition, Texas Parks and Wildlife has had tremendous success
developing cooperative agreements with private landowners, precluding
the need to list a number of species under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. By working with landowners and other States, we have
developed conservation agreements for swift fox, lesser prairie
chickens, Arkansas River shiners and Devils River minnows, restoring
and securing the status of the these rare species in Texas.
One of our greatest challenges in conservation agreements concerns
the black-tailed prairie dog--a conservation issue that, if not handled
well, could lead to one of the biggest endangered species train-wrecks
in history. We are working now to develop a conservation agreement for
black-tailed prairie dogs, developing the plan in cooperation with
landowners and agricultural interests, as well as conservationists. And
the lesson we're learning is that we need to address more than prairie
dog conservation--we have to address the habitat and the suite of
species associated with it. It's no coincidence that prairie dogs,
swift fox, and lesser prairie chickens are all species of concern,
because prairies are a habitat of concern.
Through these various programs, by making a small investment now,
we have avoided the much larger costs associated with endangered
species issues--not only the direct costs that relate to regulating,
protecting and restoring the species themselves, but also the much
larger social costs that citizens bear when endangered species are on
their property.
The conservation incentives are there, but landowners, local
governments and communities need advice and assistance to put
conservation measures into practice. State wildlife agencies are in the
best position to offer this assistance.
the need for additional conservation
As these examples all show, conservation in Texas depends upon our
close-
working relationship with landowners and communities. In Texas, we know
what needs done, how to do it, and who to work with--but we simply lack
the resources to affect the hundreds of species that are in need of
conservation, as well as assuring the future of species that are
currently common. All the conservation we've accomplished to date has
been the ``easy stuff '', involving a few hundred wildlife species
whose needs are known and which readily respond to the habitat changes
humans impose on the landscape. But now we're faced with dealing with
another 1,000 species that aren't so easy. The conservation challenge
is just beginning.
And many of these species are not unique to Texas, their
conservation depends on States working together to affect habitat
throughout a species range. Interstate conservation requires funding
beyond what States can access themselves. And it requires long-term,
predictable funding.
For example, over the past 20 years, Texas Parks and Wildlife has
reintroduced over 7,000 eastern wild turkeys throughout the State, as
well as relocated thousands of native Rio-Grande wild turkeys. Thanks
to these restocking efforts, and combined with the habitat management
assistance we provide landowners, the wild turkey is back in Texas. We
now have turkeys throughout the State, occupying all of the available
habitat and supporting over 3 million hunter-days each year. Our turkey
restoration efforts worked because we had a reliable funding source
over an extended period of time, plus the technical assistance to
provide to landowners.
So that is the obstacle we're facing, obtaining the long-term
financial resources needed to expand our conservation partnerships with
citizens and communities. In Texas, we estimate that need to be at
least $30 million a year. This would allow us to expand our efforts in:
1. Landowner Incentives.--Estimated need: $6 million/year.
Habitat cost-share program and
Landowner incentive program.
2. Technical Assistance.--Estimated need: $4 million/year.
Expand technical guidance program and
Urban wildlife program
3. Increasing Recreational Opportunity.--Estimated need: $3
million/year.
Nature trails
River access
Watchable-wildlife projects
Nature tourism cost-share grants
4. Habitat Conservation and Restoration.--Estimated need: $4
million/year.
Conservation planning for wildlife
Habitat restoration projects
Re-establish populations of native species
Research and surveys
5. Conservation Outreach.--Estimated need: $5 million/year.
Demonstration habitats
Outreach programs
Urban wildlife program
Visitor and education centers (World Birding Center,
River Center)
Volunteer programs (Texas Master Naturalist, Texas
Nature Trackers)
Conservation information, literature, video
Schoolyard habitats Project WILD
6. Wildlife Research.--Estimated need: $1 million/year.
7. Resource Protection and Monitoring.--Estimated need: $2 million/
year.
8. Land Conservation (conservation leases, easements,
acquisition).--Estimated need: $5 million/year.
Total Estimated Need.--$30 million/year.
I have a handout that is an excerpt of a document we gave to
congressional representatives last year, focusing on wildlife
conservation.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
ATTACHMENT
Title III.--Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund
the benefits of cara in texas
Texas is the most unique State in the United States. We have more
species and habitats than all other States except perhaps California.
However, unlike California, 97 percent of the land and habitats in
Texas is privately-owned, which provides unique conservation
opportunities and challenges. The diversity of people and perspectives
in Texas is also impressive and healthy. Texas Parks and Wildlife
serves this diversity by promoting the conservation of all wildlife,
including over 1,000 species of nongame and rare wildlife, as well
providing conservation assistance to people interested in these
species. The funding provided by the Title III of CARA would go
directly to TPW, enhancing it's ability to manage all of the State's
wildlife.
For Texas, the stakes are huge. By keeping common species common,
adding species to lists of endangered species will be uncommon. This is
particularly important in Texas with so many species and so much
private land. Wildlife-watching, hunting, fishing and other wildlife-
related recreation in Texas generated about $6.7 billion in direct
spending in 1996. Healthy landscapes and wildlife populations are vital
to both of these important issues.
For wildlife in Texas, CARA could support Texas Parks and
Wildlife's conservation and outreach efforts in several areas:
Landowner Incentives.--Estimated need: $6 million/year. TPW has a
Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) which provides financial assistance
to landowners interested in helping rare species. CARA funds would be
used to expand the LIP and create new cost-share and incentive programs
for landowners, focusing conservation efforts on the privates lands
that host more of the State's wildlife.
CARA funds would also allow the Department to expand the number and
variety of workshops and held days it offers: teaching landowners by
example.
Technical Assistance.--Estimated need: $4 million year. TPW
currently employs technical guidance biologists who work closely with
private landowners, advising and assisting them with wildlife
management plans that affect nearly 10 million acres of wildlife
habitat per year. CARA funding would allow the Department to double its
current effort.
Increasing Recreational Opportunity.--Estimated need: $3 million/
year. TPW has identified over 300 wildlife-viewing sites as part of the
Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. This nature tourism effort has
directly benefited the local communities and landowners. CARA funds
would be used to expand this kind of effort to the other four tourism
regions of the State.
Currently TPW has 50 Wildlife Management Areas that are not all
accessible to the public. With CARA, the Department could create a
number of nature trails, with interpretive signage, to better serve the
needs of today's outdoor enthusiast.
CARA funding would allow the expansion of river access and
restoration programs initiated to work with private landowners to
develop controlled access programs that address needs of both users and
river landowners.
With CARA, staff would be able to fund a number of watchable-
wildlife projects with individual landowners as well as communities.
More work would be done with private landowners to develop controlled
access programs that address needs of users and landowners.
Habitat Conservation and Restoration.--Estimated need: $4 million/
year. As wildlife habitat is converted to human habitat, Texas is
losing a number of unique ecosystems. With the additional funding
provided by CARA, Texas could begin creating strategies for conserving
these unique habitats. Management efforts for aquatic and marine
ecosystems would also be increased, focusing on riparian, wetland,
riverine and estuarine ecosystems.
Texas has been a leader in conservation planning for wildlife
(particularly birds and bats). CARA funds would speed the development
of these plans on the status and management needs for species and allow
the Department to develop similar plans and recommendations for
reptiles amphibians lisp mammals and other important wildlife groups.
With CARA funding, TPW would also work to develop the capacity to
establish populations of native aquatics to replace exotics in lakes
and rivers. Programs would include habitat restoration, aquatic
vegetation nurseries associated with hatcheries, development of
educational outreach to engage population that impact or are impacted
by displacement of native with exotic vegetation.
Conservation Outreach.--Estimated need: $5 million/year. TPW has a
network of urban biologists who work with residents to increase
awareness of wildlife in urban areas. With CARA, TPW would be able to
expand this effort into other metropolitan areas.
CARA funding would allow the development of demonstration habitats
that combine many components of ``an ecosystem'' such as wildlife,
wetlands, riverine habitats on small land areas near or in urban areas.
TPW has created a number of volunteer and . . . citizen-involvement
programs and nationally acclaimed outreach programs, such as Project
WILD and Outdoor Kids, involving children and school teachers in
conservation education. With CARA these projects would be expanded
across the State, involving citizens directly in conservation.
Texas has a network of nature centers and TPW has created a number
of visitor and education centers--the Freshwater Fisheries Center, Sea
Center, and the World Birding Center. CARA funds would be used to
expand the efforts of existing education and nature centers. as well as
fund the creation of new education centers as needed.
Communication with the large urban populations is essential to the
success of all of these conservation areas, particularly outreach. TPW
is well known for its outstanding media efforts, including video, radio
and printed publications. CARA funds would allow TPW to expand these
efforts, as well as provide them at less cost to the public.
Wildlife Research.--Estimated need: $1 million Year. Good wildlife
management depends on good science. Each year, TPW funds 40-60 wildlife
research projects. gathering data on the management needs of native
species. However, with 10 ecoregions, dozens of habitats and almost
1,000 different species of wildlife, this research only scratches the
surface of what the Department needs to know concerning native plant
and wildlife species. CARA funds would be used to increase research
efforts statewide.
Resource Protection and Monitoring.--Estimated need: $2 million/
year. TPW is responsible for monitoring and correcting land and water
problems that may affect native fish and wildlife. With the creation of
the State Water Plan, these efforts have grown.
__________
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, State Director, Nevada Bureau of
Land Management
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss wildlife conservation
efforts in Nevada.
The State of Nevada encompasses a large portion of the Great Basin
and Upper Colorado River Plateau of the United States. These lands were
not divided into farms, primarily due to their lack of water. Towns
remain widely separated. Curiously, Nevada is said to be the most
urbanized State in our Nation. Those urban areas are concentrated,
however, as is evident in Las Vegas and along the Eastern Sierra Front.
As a result, Nevada has a wealth of open land, largely in Federal
ownership. These lands hold a wide and wonderful variety of wildlife
and wildlife habitat. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
responsible for management of about 48 million acres of this land and
the wildlife habitat on it.
Management of these lands is not an easy task. It requires
coordination and partnership with local and State conservation groups
and initiatives in order to be successful. The BLM in Nevada is
fortunate to have many fine partners in this work, including the State
of Nevada and its Division of Wildlife, as well as a number of private
organizations, such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Nevada
Wildlife Federation.
Recently, efforts to address some critical wildlife concerns in
Nevada have been highly visible. These include projects to recover the
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, management guidelines for sage grouse and the
sagebrush ecosystems that are their habitat, and the desert tortoise.
These species serve as a red flag for the overall health of our
environment. The sage grouse is suffering from a decline in habitat, a
concern to the BLM and many of the organizations and entities here
today. Under the leadership of Terry Crawforth, Administrator for the
Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, in cooperation with the BLM, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and others, have initiated a major effort to develop
conservation plans for sage grouse in eight western States. In Nevada,
Governor Guinn has taken a personal role in establishing a State sage
grouse committee to develop strategies to conserve this game species.
The BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service,
as well as State, local and tribal representatives, have formed an
interagency sagebrush habitat steering committee to coordinate habitat
assessment, mapping, evaluation, and restoration for species at risk
within sagebrush
ecosystems in 10 States, and to coordinate ecosystem and species
conservation planning in order to provide consistency across agencies
in addressing sagebrush ecosystem-related issues.
Through the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, the BLM in Nevada
is cooperating with State and local agencies to stop the spread of
invasive weeds and other vegetation and to restore appropriate plant
communities on the rangelands.
After major wildfires in 1999 and 2000, the demand for sagebrush
seeds and the seeds of other native plant species has increased
considerably in the Great Basin. Through issuance of permits for
harvesting of sagebrush and other native species seeds, the BLM is
tracking harvest activities to ensure that sufficient seed is available
for rehabilitation efforts that are currently underway in the areas
hardest hit by the wildfires. The BLM is working with the Plant
Conservation Alliance, private seed growers, State and Federal
nurseries and seed storage facilities to increase significantly the
supply of native seeds available for rehabilitation and restoration
work while reducing the cost of producing native seed in large
quantities.
The BLM's Ely Field Of rice has taken a leadership role under the
auspices of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative to restore and
maintain the biological conditions of the Great Basin landscape in
eastern Nevada through partnerships with the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Nevada Division of Wildlife and dozens of other groups.
Approximately 10 million acres of public land are in the project area,
including 4 million acres of pinyon juniper woodlands, 2 million acres
of pinyon juniper/sagebrush, 2.5 million acres of sagebrush, 1.5
million acres of valley bottoms and mixed forest conifer, 158 miles of
stream riparian habitat, and 7,800 acres of meadows, springs, seeps and
wetlands.
BLM field offices in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have continued
reintroduction and habitat improvement programs for bighorn sheep
populations. Nevada contains some of the premier bighorn sheep habitats
in the United States. Approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM-managed
lands in Nevada provide habitat for 3 subspecies of bighorn sheep: the
California, Rocky Mountain and Desert bighorns. Cooperative efforts
with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and partners such as Nevada
Bighorns Unlimited have successfully restored bighorns on many historic
habitats throughout the State. We estimate that there are an additional
1 million acres of suitable but unoccupied bighorn sheep habitat on
BLM-managed land in the State.
Federal, State and private partnerships have substantially enhanced
successful wildlife habitat management on BLM-managed land. The BLM
works closely with a variety of groups to restore habitats for native
wildlife species on BLM-managed lands. Over the past 10 years, the BLM,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nevada Division of Wildlife,
Trout Unlimited and local ranchers and sportsmen have made substantial
investments to restore Lahontan cutthroat trout to 128 miles of the
Marys River system, a premier trout stream in northeastern Nevada. The
BLM's Challenge Cost Share program, established by Congress in 1985,
has matched millions of dollars of private contributions with Federal
appropriations through successful partnership efforts that have
delivered conservation and restoration projects throughout the West.
The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, a new Federal/private partnership
in Clark County, is restoring native plant communities in the Mojave
Desert, including removal of the invasive tamarisk from riparian areas
and replanting native willows and grasses to benefit desert tortoise,
desert fish species and a wide range of native birds, mammals, and
amphibians.
Following the disastrous, widespread wildland fires of 1999, the
BLM extensively examined the effects of fire on habitat and ecosystem
processes. We found that a fire cycle had developed, referred to in
recent science reports as the ``cheatgrass-wildfire cycle.'' This
problem is acute in Nevada, where the cycle of fire disturbance has
spurred the invasive cheat grass to alter range and wildlife habitats.
Cheat grass has been on our landscape for many years, quietly spreading
its water-stealing roots to ever increasing areas.
Cheatgrass sprouts quickly as winter moisture arrives on burned or
disturbed lands. Its root mass quickly draws up all available moisture,
denying it to sagebrush seed. Left unmanaged, sagebrush benchlands
instead become fields of cheat grass. These fields dry out in the
summer sun, and lay in wait for summer lightning.
There was a time when people thought that getting rid of sagebrush
was a good thing. However, we now know that sagebrush is vital to the
health of Great Basin wildlands. Sagebrush provides cover for sage
grouse, mice and other rodents, smaller songbirds, ground squirrels--
over 170 species which are inhabitants of the open land. It provides
shelter from the summer sun and from raptors overhead. In winter, dry
cheatgrass is buried under snow. Sagebrush rises above the snow,
providing forage for deer, antelope, and sage grouse.
We look forward to working with our partners here in Nevada to
address the cheat grass problem, along with other efforts at wildlife
habitat and species restoration in a manner that balances the interests
of stakeholders and addresses wildlife and habitat needs. This effort
is massive, across the millions of acres of the Great Basin. Change
will require labor intensive effort and significant amounts of native
seed. Each landscape will call for its own prescription.
In some areas, we may need to plant sagebrush seedlings and sow
native seed by hand. The entire spectrum of plant and landscape
management must be brought into play if we are to begin a true Great
Basin restoration program.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that members of the committee may have.
__________
Statement of Hon. A. Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and California
Senator Reid, thank you for your continued interest in the
equitable distribution of Federal funding for wildlife conservation
efforts, and for the opportunity to present the views of the Washoe
Tribe and of Indian country generally on your proposed CARA
legislation. I also want to thank you again for your on-going efforts
to give the Washoe Tribe access to their ancestral homeland at Lake
Tahoe.
Senator, as you well know, CARA was severely diluted last year into
a ``CARA Lite'' that funded fewer activities with fewer dollars over
less time. No stakeholder was more adversely affected by this dilution
than Indian tribes, who lost every single provision that had benefited
them in the original legislation. I applaud your leadership in the
effort to breathe new life into CARA.
Your proposed legislation deals with two of what are currently nine
Titles in the House version of CARA. I will restrict most of my remarks
to these two titles, though I will, at the end of my remarks, touch
briefly on two other CARA Titles of import to Indian country.
Senator Reid, like States, Indian tribes have governmental
responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and
the regulation of hunting and fishing and gathering, on their lands.
Native Americans who fish, hunt, and gather on Indian lands pay excise
taxes on ammunition, fishing gear, guns, and boat fuel, just like other
Americans. It is critical that any wildlife conservation Title of CARA,
or a standalone bill, include a equitable distribution of Federal funds
to Indian tribes for conservation and regulation, so that we can
receive, and count on receiving, Federal moneys for these woefully
underfunded areas for which States have been receiving money for many
years.
wildlife
Title Indian tribes play a unique and crucial role in four purposes
identified under this title: (1) wildlife and habitat conservation; (2)
development of comprehensive wildlife conservation and restoration
plans; (3) cooperative planning and implementation of wildlife
conservation plans; and (4) wildlife education and public involvement.
Having lived in our homelands for thousands of years, Indian tribes
have developed a unique understanding of the ecosystem and through our
traditional and customary practices we have developed a traditional
knowledge and science that enhances the scope of conventional science.
Additionally, because tribal members have significantly more contact
with the habitat and wildlife and because we rely upon the natural
resources of our homelands, we are exposed to a greater degree of risk
when the wildlife and habitat is impacted. An unhealthy ecosystem will
directly impact the lives of Indian people.
Although there is little BIA funding and no EPA funding available
for tribes to conserve and restore wildlife, the Washoe Tribe has
pursued a commitment to habitat restoration and conservation, not just
on tribal lands but within our entire ancestral homelands. On tribal
lands we have used clean water funding to restore stream banks and
improve wildlife and aquatic habitat along the riparian corridor of the
Carson River. In addition, our conservation and restoration efforts
have maintained a reach of Clear Creek that university students and
local school groups visit to study. As part of our cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Forest Service at Lake Tahoe the Washoe Tribe
is preparing a wetlands conservation and restoration plan for the Meeks
Creek meadow and the Taylor/Baldwin wetlands. The Tribe will implement
the wetlands conservation and restoration plan in cooperation with the
Forest Service. However, because of the lack of funding, these efforts
are isolated and we are not able to achieve the full benefits of
comprehensive habitat planning.
The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration title of the pending
House legislation (H.R. 701) and last year's Senate bills (S. 2123 and
S. 2567) clearly identifies the need for a Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Plan, but the Washoe Tribe has no funding
available for development of such a plan. While we have been able to
implement and develop plans for isolated wetland areas through clean
water funding, we have not been able to develop a comprehensive
conservation and restoration plan or even collect data on wildlife
populations. The need for such plans increases as commercial and
residential development continues to creep in on tribal lands and the
pressure on wildlife habitat increases. Furthermore, Tribal lands are
often intermixed with lands under Federal and State jurisdiction,
requiring a coordinated planning approach. In our case, the Washoe
Tribe has jurisdiction over more than 60,000 acres of Indian allotment
lands in the Pine Nut Mountains, which are located in a checkerboard
pattern with BLM lands and private lands. Currently the BLM and State
agencies are engaged in a planning process in for their portions of the
Pine Nut Mountains, and the Tribe is a critical partner. However, the
Tribe's efforts are clearly hampered by our lack of funding for
wildlife and habitat planning. Similarly, conservation planning funds
would enhance our efforts to work with our State and Federal partners
on the conservation and restoration of habitats in the Lake Tahoe Basin
and on along the Carson and Truckee Rivers.
The pending House legislation, H.R. 701, includes language that
would provide Indian tribes with direct access to the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act funding. The allocation mechanism proposed in
this year's House version of CARA, allocates up to 2.25 percent of
total dollars to be divided among all 550 Indian tribes based on
relative land area and population. The 2.25 percent is based in the
acres of Indian trust land relative to total acreage in the United
States (56,015,221 million Indian trust acres divided by the
2,379,390,458 acres that comprise the entire United States). In fact,
the 2.25 percent actually represents less than the full equitable
share, for an example, the Washoe Tribe has done work on USES lands
with the Forest Service to conserve and restore wetlands on lands at
Lake Tahoe. Indian tribes will continue to work on conserving wildlife
and critical ecosystems within ceded treaty lands and other ancestral
homelands, which are no longer held in trust. Finally, it is important
to note that current proposals of this nature do not reduce existing
allocations to States and territories under the Dingell-Johnson or
Pittman-Robertson Acts, but rather involve only new allocations never
before raised and distributed.
The Senate CARA bills from last year omitted critical allocation to
Indian tribes, and would have continued to exclude tribes from these
funds, and I strongly urge you to use the language from Title III of
this year's Senate legislation.
sensitive, threatened and endangered species incentives title
As to your proposals under the category of Sensitive, Threatened,
and Endangered Species Incentives, we applaud your efforts to extend
funding to conservation plans to preserve species that are not yet
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act,
but are species of concern. Hopefully, by focusing efforts on these
species prior to their being listed we can avoid the need to list them.
Additionally, we encourage you to move beyond the language as contained
in CARA Title VII, and recognize the impacts of the conservation of
these species on Indian tribes. Sensitive, threatened, and endangered
species are a concern of Indian peoples everywhere, for they are a part
of our cultural heritage and a consideration in our land management
activities.
A classic example of this is the Lahontan cutthroat trout of the
river basins of Nevada. Native and non-Native peoples alike share a
desire for the recovery of these amazing fish. Habitat recovery efforts
are underway by all stakeholders, and help from the Federal Government
would be most welcome. Indian lands are integral to these efforts, and
the inclusion of Indian tribes as potential recipients of Federal funds
for the development of conservation plans and recovery agreements would
be appropriate. The State-Federal-Tribal recovery LTC effort on the
Truckee River is a specific example where the ability of Tribes to
engage the other partners is limited by our lack of funding. Again, in
order for Indian tribes to play our proper role in these conservation
efforts, it is necessary that tribes have the ability to access these
funds directly.
other cara provisions
I would like to briefly deviate from the two primary topics of your
proposed legislation to talk about a couple of other aspects of the big
CARA package that are important to tribes and that were stripped from
last year's bill at the eleventh hour:
The first is Title II, Land & Water Conservation Fund
Revitalization, which would allocate Federal moneys from oil and gas
revenues to various Federal agencies and State and tribal governments
for the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. Tribes would be
entitled to one State's worth of funding under current House bill
language. This too was stripped from last year's ``CARA Lite,'' and I
encourage you to support the effort to include tribes in any Land and
Water Conservation fund distribution in FY2002 and beyond. Although the
Tribe has no funding for conservation land acquisition, the Washoe
Tribe has been successfully partnered with Federal agencies and private
parties to acquire sensitive environmental and cultural lands for
conservation purposes. Indian tribes bring a unique element to the
conservation effort, and with funding we will be able to achieve more
win-win situations. Again, looking to the Pine Nut Mountains, to
improve land management, Federal and State agencies and governments
support Washoe Tribal acquisition of private land holdings which are
surrounded by Indian allotment lands, and the private land owner is
interested in selling the land to the Tribe, but there are no land
acquisition funds available.
The final provision of note is the National Park and
Indian Lands Restoration, currently Title VI of last year's Senate
bill. The Title would provide up to $25 million annually for a
coordinated program on Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect
resources that are threatened with degradation, and protect public
health and safety.
The $25 million allocated to tribes under this title is modest when
you consider that it must be spread among more than 550 tribal
governments and 56 million acres of Indian trust land. However, it does
represent a critically important source of funds, and I strongly urge
you to ensure that the Senate version of CARA Title VI or its
equivalent is kept intact in any CARA legislation that emerges from the
107th Congress.
Senator Reid, once again I thank you for your leadership on this
and so many other issues important to the Washoe Tribe and Indian
people across the United States.
__________
Statement of Robert D. Williams, Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Thank you for the opportunity to present information on species
conservation activities that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service)
is conducting in Nevada.
You requested that I comment on current conservation initiatives,
what conservation plans have been successful, what initiatives have
been planned but not implemented, what are the obstacles to engaging
people in conservation efforts, and what can we do to encourage more
participation in conservation planning.
It is crucial that the Service work cooperatively with our State,
Tribal, and private partners on species conservation. Recognizing this
the Service has developed and is implementing many approaches which
enable cooperative conservation efforts. These approaches are flexible
so as to encourage locally-based solutions to complex and sometimes
contentious conservation challenges. The initiatives and agreements I
will discuss are a result of these approaches. We need to continue
seeking, and indeed expand opportunities for local communities and
private landowners to share in the development of conservation
solutions.
Let me start by providing you with a review of current activities
in Nevada. Last year we and our partners signed two major conservation
efforts, the Clark County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) and the Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement.
The Clark County MSHCP covers 78 species, only two of which are
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This plan will allow for
a permit to be issued under Section 10 of the ESA for an incidental
take of the listed species due to development in southern Nevada. The
MSHCP covers over 145,000 acres that are subject to development over
the next 30 years.
The goal of the MSHCP is to conserve healthy ecosystems and the
species that are supported by them, while allowing for development. A
$550 per acre fee is paid to the County with the issuance of
development permits. The proceeds from the fees fund desert tortoise
conservation and recovery activities, as well as other actions needed
to protect the 78 species covered under the Plan. The plan provides
certainty for Clark County developers while ensuring conservation
measures that will help recover the listed species and prevent the
other species from being listed.
The establishment of the MSHCP was successful because of the
cooperation between Clark County, State and Federal agencies, the
University of Nevada, Reno, environmental groups, recreational
interests, and resource users.
The second major conservation action that was solidified last year
was a conservation agreement for the Amargosa Toad that resides in the
Oasis Valley. This agreement brought together Nye County, the city of
Beatty, private landowners, the State of Nevada, several Federal
agencies, environmental groups and The Nature Conservancy. The premise
of the agreement provides the Nature Conservancy the ability to
purchase valuable habitat for the toad from a private landowner. On
October 14, 2000 the agreement was signed with the parties, and they
are currently working together to manage the land and other resources
for the protection of the toad and the other species that depend on the
riparian wetland habitat.
Both of these plans depend upon private and public dollars for
their success. Private funding supports mitigation efforts and
conservation actions to protect the species listed in the agreements.
We are currently working on several other conservation actions. I
will list them here and then discuss some of them in greater detail.
Current initiatives include the following:
Tahoe Yellow Cress Conservation Agreement;
Coyote Spring Valley Habitat Conservation Plan;
Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration, Truckee River;
Sage Grouse Conservation Agreement;
Spotted Frog Conservation Agreement;
Lincoln County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
and
Nye County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
tahoe yellow cress conservation agreement
A planning team has been formed to develop a conservation agreement
for the Tahoe yellow cress, a plant that is found on the shores of Lake
Tahoe. Some of the habitat occurs on private lands, so involving
associations like the Lake Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association will
be a key element to the success of finalizing such an agreement. One
important measure to protect the Tahoe yellow cress is simply to build
fences around the plant. Should a private landowner agree to fence an
area to protect habitat, funds may be available through Candidate
Conservation Agreement Grants for the costs of the fencing or other
conservation activities the landowner may desire to make.
coyote springs valley habitat conservation plan
We are also working closely with a developer in Southern Nevada on
the Coyote Springs Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. Coyote Springs
Valley is critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Coyote Springs
Limited Liability Corporation has indicated a willingness to work, by
signing a Memorandum of Agreement with the Service and BLM, to create a
plan encompassing more than 40,000 acres of private and leased lands
within the valley, that would conserve desert tortoise habitat while
providing opportunities for residential and commercial development.
This plan is envisioned to also address the long-term water needs of
the developers, as well as the listed fishes in the nearby Muddy River,
which could be affected by long-term groundwater use. This type of pro-
active, early involvement with landowners is acknowledged by the
Service as one of the most important objectives in our efforts to
reduce conflicts and foster general acceptance of species conservation.
lahontan cutthroat trout restoration, truckee river
In our efforts to recover Nevada's State fish, the Lahontan
cutthroat trout (LCT), we have received funding to conduct habitat
restoration work on non-Federal lands along the Truckee and Walker
Rivers. We are working with the Nature Conservancy to conduct habitat
restoration work on the Truckee River that will benefit the river, the
riparian corridor, and all the fishes that live in the river. Our next
step will be to develop Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners
to compliment our LCT recovery efforts.
sage grouse conservation agreement
We are working with the State on the conservation of the sage
grouse. We appreciate the State of Nevada's leadership by heading up
this coordination effort, with the establishment of the Governor's Sage
Grouse Working Group. The working group is bringing together private
landowners, counties, environmental groups and Federal agencies to
develop a conservation agreement.
For private landowners with suitable sage grouse habitat, and who
are willing to protect it, there are a variety of funding options and
incentives from the Service. Congress authorized funding beginning in
Fiscal Year 1999 for the ESA Landowner Incentive Program to provide
financial assistance and incentives to private property owners to
conserve listed, proposed, and candidate species. I will discuss these
and other finding sources below.
As you are aware, under Section 6 of the ESA, funds are provided to
the States for species and habitat recovery actions on non-Federal
lands.
In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated 105 million for the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The Service will use
these dollars for Safe Harbor Grants, Habitat Conservation Planning
Grants, Species Recovery Land Acquisition Grants and Candidate
Conservation Agreement Grants. Each of these grants programs requires
States to provide at least 25 percent of the project costs in order to
receive funds from these grants. Additionally, some of the funds will
be used for Habitat Conservation Land Acquisition by States.
The Nevada Office of the Service recently worked with a number of
non-Federal partners on proposals for grants under the Service's
Partners in Wildlife Program. Of the six proposals submitted, five
grants were awarded through the Partners Program. Last fiscal year, we
worked with the Nevada Division of Wildlife to develop and submit
applications for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
grants, which led the Service to award $176,000 to the State. These
funds benefit 11 projects in Nevada.
In addition to the Section 6 moneys, Congress provided $50 million
in the fiscal year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations to be
allocated among the States for wildlife conservation, with the
objective of fulfilling unmet needs of wildlife within the States. One
of the primary means of accomplishing this goal is to encourage
cooperative planning by State governments, the Federal Government, and
other interested parties. Another $50 million for competitive wildlife
grants to the States was provided in the Interior appropriations.
You asked for examples of successful conservation agreements in
Nevada. The Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement is such an example. It
came together after 6 years of meeting with local officials and private
landowners to ensure they were comfortable with the direction of the
program.
This agreement gave Nye County an opportunity to play a leading
role in species conservation and is a good example to demonstrate that
local communities are willing, and able, to be leaders on species
conservation.
The Amargosa Toad's total range is limited to a 12-mile stretch of
the Amargosa River in Nye County's Oasis Valley. The alarm over the
toad's status was triggered by a 1994 survey that found only 30 adult
toads, resulting in a petition to list the toad as an endangered
species. Recent surveys conducted in cooperation with private
landowners, however, lead scientists to estimate that as many as 16,000
adult Amargosa toads may live in the Oasis Valley.
The Nature Conservancy purchased the Torrance Ranch, an area that
provides habitat for the Amargosa Toad, the Oasis Valley speckled dace,
the Oasis Valley spring snail, and 10 species of birds, including
yellow warbler, blue grosbeak, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Bullock's
oriole. The Nature Conservancy's purchase of the Torrance Ranch was
made possible with funding from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation and private donations.
The partners will undertake the restoration and monitoring of the
ranch with financial support provided by the Service, Nevada Department
of Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and The Nature
Conservancy and the University of Nevada, Reno's Biological Resources
Research Center. The land acquisition, combined with other actions
specified in the agreement, will secure the toad's future.
One of the obstacles that has impeded local people from getting
involved in conservation planning in Nevada in the past has been a lack
of personal communication between employees of government agencies and
landowners. Landowners may not know what incentives and options are
available to them for funding conservation measures. We in the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Nevada Fish & Wildlife Office are committed to doing
a better job of reaching out and communicating with landowners and
informing them on how they can play a bigger role in species
conservation.
One way we are working to support local conservation efforts is by
dedicating a staff person in our office to identify what grants and
incentives are available for conservation, and to reach out to State
and county agencies and private landowners to inform them of how they
can take advantage of these opportunities.
There may be other obstacles, but the Service is working to
identify and resolve them so that States, counties and private property
owners can and will take more active roles in species conservation.
There are numerous threats in Nevada that impact ecosystems and
cause species to decline, including: urban growth; invasion of non-
native grasses (such as cheat grass and white top); fire damage;
conversion of habitat to agricultural lands; and over-grazing.
Involving more people in conservation and protection of public and non-
Federal lands is crucial to preserving the health of the land and
maintaining the biological diversity of Nevada.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and welcome any
questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Dennis D. Murphy, Ph.D., Research Professor, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you initiatives to
bring better conservation of wildlife, fish, and non-game species to
Nevada and the West.
Many of those concerned with Nevada's natural heritage have come to
recognize that the critical environmental legislation of the 1970's--
including the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, the
Endangered Species Act, among others--has the potential of becoming a
collection of unfunded mandates unless the Federal Government can
deliver support for much needed management efforts. Funding for
endangered species in particular has been woefully inadequate. As more
species have been listed and the need for conservation responses grow
in turn, appropriations have limped along. In the middle of 1990's, the
United States spent more money on military bands than on species at
risk. During the same period more money was spent on Domino's Pizza
deliveries inside the Beltway than on imperiled species programs
nationwide. The message is straightforward. The Federal Government must
support programs that are necessary to conserve listed species, and
must aggressively pursue prelisting agreements and efforts to conserve
species before they become listed.
Despite a starvation budget for species protection, conservation
successes in Nevada have been many. The threatened desert tortoise
survives across much of the southern State despite explosive land
development and severe drought. Ash Meadows, described by Harvard
University's E.O. Wilson as a sacred American landmark, ``the
equivalent of Independence Hall or Gettysburg,'' now has protection and
work moves forward in earnest to conserve the many imperiled species
that reside there and to control invasive, weedy species that threaten
their habitat. The Spring Mountains Natural Recreation Area harbors
more endemic species than any comparable location in the country and
nearly all seem to be doing well despite rapidly increasing
recreational visits.
But many challenges still face our land and resource managers. The
sage grouse and its habitats have precipitously declined across much of
the north of the State. No fewer than 14 imperiled butterfly subspecies
are known from just a few dozen wetland acres across the dry middle of
Nevada; each one at more risk of disappearance than any of the
currently listed butterfly species found elsewhere in the western
States. Once the most abundant amphibian in the State, the northern
leopard frog now exists in just three of the more than one hundred
sites from which it was historically recorded on museum specimens. Our
most widespread frog may be just a few years away from disappearing
from Nevada.
What these species have in common beyond their imperilment is that
they live on a shared landscape--on both lands public and private. They
live on public lands with a very long history of resource use and
private stewardship. One conservation reality is apparent; that is,
that saving species and the habitats that support them is a shared
responsibility and will demand in coming years unprecedented
cooperation. That cooperation must include Federal land and resource
managers, State fish and wildlife staff, private stakeholders, and
scientists. Recognizing our long history of landscape mismanagement and
the twin threats from wildfire and invasive plant species, we have a
great opportunity to fail the sage grouse. Certainly money alone cannot
save the grouse. Federal and State managers must coordinate to find a
common ground between the prohibitive policy that comes with listings
under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the State's management of
fish and wildlife for consumption. Although we all agree that we must
save sage grouse, we must ask whether we want to save them as part of
our State's rich natural heritage, or so that we can have a season on
them.
Any new funding must look to recipients beyond the Federal and
State families. The shared landscape of the Intermountain West is not
equally shared. Private interests have long controlled the most
limiting resource--water. And, although the desert tortoise and sage
grouse conservation challenges in this State are not solely driven by
water allocation conflicts, most other species challenges are. It is
not a coincidence that pupfish, frogs and toads, spring snails, and
butterflies present land managers with the most immediate species
challenges. The springs, seeps, and riparian areas that support those
organisms have long been exploited and often overused. Where dollars
can buy water for fish and wildlife, and where private interests have
the desire to contribute to saving species our efforts will be
rewarded. A Federal listing of the 14 butterflies I mentioned can be
obviated with just a small redirection of waters and some three-strand
fencing. It is that simple to save uniquely Nevada butterflies in
Carson Valley, Big Smoky Valley, Railroad Valley, Steptoe Valley and
points in between.
Finally, cooperation must extend to information gathering and
sharing. We have to recognize we know woefully little about how our
wildlands serve both common species and rare ones. Our best intended
land management actions have often failed to achieve the desired
results and frequently have had adverse effects on species of concern.
In Nevada we have come a long way toward a remedy. For 7 years the
State has benefited from the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative, a
cooperative effort joining Federal and State land and resource managers
with university scientists to meet the goal of saving biodiversity in
the face of human population growth and diverse land uses. In
continuous communication, managers and scientists direct funds to
species and habitats at greatest risk, work together to study
biological systems that are poorly understood, and prioritize future
conservation actions. The Biodiversity Initiative cannot take all the
credit, but it is certainly not coincidence that although Nevada was
fourth in the Nation in candidates species for Federal protection in
1993, not one new species was listed in the State until forces in Elko
County caused the recent listing of the bull trout. Very unfortunately,
the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative's funding has been removed by this
administration from the Federal budget.
In Nevada we have a unique level of communication, cooperation, and
collegiality on resource issues. That foundation has fostered the
largest Habitat Conservation Plan in the country, 5\1/2\ million acres
in Clark County, covering nearly 90 species of plants and animals, most
not yet listed. In cooperation with California, Nevada is involved in
one to the Nation's most visible and ambitious restoration efforts to
save the fabled clarity of Lake Tahoe's waters. And, now we are
embarking on perhaps the biggest conservation challenge yet--to sustain
and restore the most Nevadan of all habitats, the sagebrush ecosystem.
Neglected, abused, and under incalculable threats, we frankly have no
available technology to reverse the decline of our sagebrush. But
Federal funding of a cooperative effort involving agencies and
stakeholders, founded on reliable experimental science offers our best
hope.
Senator Reid, I encourage you and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works to fund cooperative efforts to bring more effective
species conservation to our State and our neighbors.
__________
Statement of Karen R. Denio, Acting State Executive Director, Nevada
Farm Service Agency, Department of Agriculture
Good afternoon. My name is Karen R. Denio and I am the Acting
Nevada State Executive Director for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency. I appreciate the opportunity
to present information on the conservation programs administered by the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) in Nevada, the current levels of participation, and the
rationale for producer participation.
FSA and NRCS have several conservation programs available to
farmers and ranchers that provide incentives to encourage wildlife
habitat. Among these programs is the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), a voluntary program for agricultural landowners, offering
wildlife and environmental benefits. Generally, offers for CRP
contracts are competitively ranked according to the Environmental
Benefits Index (EBI). Environmental and cost data are collected for
each of the EBI factors, including:
Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on
contract acreage;
Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and
leaching;
On-farm benefits of reduced erosion;
Likely long-term benefits of reduced erosion;
Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion;
LBenefits of enrollment in conservation priority areas
where enrollment would contribute to the improvement of identified
adverse water quality, wildlife habitat, or air quality; and
Cost.
Under the CRP, producers receive annual rental payments and cost-
share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on
eligible cropland and marginal pastureland that improves soil, water
and wildlife resources. To be eligible to be enrolled in the CRP,
cropland must also have been planted or considered planted to an
agricultural commodity 2 of the 5 most recent crop years.
Conservation Reserve Program Continuous signups provide management
flexibility to farmers and ranchers to implement certain high-priority
conservation practices on eligible land. To encourage these high-
priority practices, continuous signup participants do not go through
the normal bidding process and can enroll noncompetitively. One
practice that offers significant wildlife benefits for farmers and
ranchers is the riparian buffer practice. The land can be marginal
pasture which is devoted to trees either planted or naturally
regenerated. This provides cover for waterfowl and fish, along with
other wildlife species.
A second wildlife enhancement practice is to develop or restore
shallow water areas that provide a source of water for wildlife for the
majority of the year. Other eligible acreage devoted to certain special
conservation practices, such as filter strips, grassed waterways,
shelter belts, living snow fences, contour grass strips, and salt
tolerant vegetation may be enrolled at any time under the CRP
continuous signup and is not subject to competitive bidding.
To be eligible under continuous signup, land must first meet the
basic CRP eligibility requirements. In addition to the applicable CRP
rental rates, payments up to 50 percent of the eligible cost of
establishing a permanent cover are provided to producers as cost-
shares.
Up to $350 million is available for additional incentives through
fiscal year 2002 to encourage producers to participate in the CRP
continuous signup, including:
An up-front CRP Signing Incentive Payment (CAP-SIP) of
$100 to $150 per acre.
A Practice Incentive Payment (PIP) paid as a one-time
rental payment, equal to 40 percent of the eligible installation costs
to eligible participants enrolling certain practices, in addition to
the standard 50 percent CRP cost-share rate.
New rental rates that have been established for certain
marginal pastureland to better reflect the value of such lands to
farmers and ranchers.
Through mid-January 2001, over 1.4 million acres nationally have
been enrolled under continuous signup practices. With these incentives,
enrollment of filterstrips has increased over 600 percent compared to
the historic program (signups 1-13)
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is used in many
States as a vehicle for conservation cooperation. The two primary
objectives of CREP are to coordinate Federal and non-Federal resources
to address specific conservation objectives of a State and the Nation
in a cost-effective manner, and to improve wildlife habitat, water
quality, and erosion control related to agricultural use in specific
geographic areas.
These unique State and Federal partnerships allow producers to
receive incentive payments for installing specific conservation
practices. Through the CREP, farmers can receive annual rental payments
and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving
covers on eligible land. Like continuous signup, CREP participants can
enroll noncompetitively and receive the signing and Practice Incentive
Payments.
Under CREP, Non-Federal partners provide a significant commitment,
such as 20 percent, toward the overall cost of the program.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is carried out
by NRCS. EQIP provides technical, educational, and financial assistance
to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related
natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally
beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance
to farmers and ranchers in complying with Federal, State, and tribal
environmental laws, and encourages environmental enhancement.
The purposes of EQIP are intended to be achieved through the
implementation of a conservation plan which include structural,
vegetative, and land management practices on eligible land. Five- to
ten-year contracts are made with eligible producers. Cost-share
payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or
vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilities,
terraces, filter strips, tree planting, and permanent wildlife habitat.
Incentive payments can be made to implement one or more land management
practices, such as nutrient management, pest management, and grazing
land management. By law, nationally, 50 percent of the funding
available for the program is targeted at natural resource concerns
relating to livestock production.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is another Federal
wildlife conservation program administered by NRCS. WHIP is a voluntary
program that provides cost-sharing of up to 75 percent for landowners
to apply a variety of wildlife practices to develop habitat that will
support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered
species, fisheries, and other types of wildlife. The purpose of the
program is to create high quality wildlife habitats that support
wildlife populations of local, State and national significance.
Although these conservation programs are available, it is often a
difficult decision for the producer on whether to participate. As
energy, fertilizer, and transportation costs continue to escalate, it
often puts the farmers and ranchers in the position of choosing between
production-based practices to pay the bills and the conservation
practices they wish to carry out.
Nevada's producer participation in CRP and the CRP continuous
signup is limited, due to a variety of factors. One factor is the
rental rate assigned to Nevada. Rental rates are based on the dryland
agricultural value because ongoing irrigation is not required as a
condition of enrollment. The dry land rate for enrolled land in Nevada
is about $17 per acre. Consistent with the statutory obligation
prohibiting haying or grazing, a producer is required to keep cattle
off the CRP land. Therefore, if a producer or a neighbor has cattle, it
would be necessary to fence the CRP acreage.
Along with wildlife enhancement benefits, one of the purposes of
CRP is to retire cropland in order to control erosion and improve water
quality. Because much of Nevada's land base does not have a cropping
history, due to its permanent grass cover or recently being put into
production, it is basically ineligible to be enrolled in the CRP.
In Nevada, there are more EQIP requests for participation than
available funding. For example, in 2000 there were 57 applications for
a total of $1,207,197 and, with the $992,478 allocation, 43 projects
were funded. The 2001 cycle is similar, in that 85 applications
totaling $1,769,873 have been received but, with $1,151,300 allocated,
a minimum of 44 projects will be funded.
Ultimately, participation in conservation programs benefits all of
us, for even as we recognize our farmers and ranchers as the original
conservationists, we each have a responsibility in preserving our land
and natural resources for the following generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or the committee
may have.
__________
Statement of Nick Pearson, State Conservationist, Nevada Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and provide an update on the Conservation
Programs implemented by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(ARCS).
Mr. Chairman, as you know: farmers across America are faced with
ever increasing pressures to maintain a productive and profitable
business. Prices for many farm commodities have been the lowest in
years and poor weather and growing conditions have been issues in many
areas. Production costs have increased due to many factors including
rising prices of nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas. In addition to
these concerns, farmers face increasing pressures associated with
natural resources. In recent years, concern regarding the health of our
soils, water supply, and air have made farming and ranching
increasingly difficult.
We know that farmers want to be good stewards of the land. They
know that stewardship is in the best interests of long-term
productivity of farming operations. And by and large. it is also
important to farmers and ranchers who want to leave improved natural
resources and a better environment for future generations. Our mission
is to help farmers and ranchers meet the challenge of sustaining their
natural resources while maintaining a productive and profitable
business.
Today, I would like to highlight the many ways our conservation
programs are making a difference around the countryside. Since the
enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(1996 Act), NRCS has experienced an increased national demand for
participation in conservation programs. Farmers are utilizing these
programs for a variety of benefits, including managing nutrients to
save on input costs and protect water quality, restoring and protecting
wetlands to create wildlife habitat, installing grassed waterways to
control erosion, and designing grazing systems to increase forage
production and manage invasive species.
Land users are using conservation to improve the productivity and
sustainability of their operation, while also improving the asset value
of their farm even during times of such dire economic strain. Our
programs are voluntary. In response to new environmental regulations at
many levels, we are helping farmers and ranchers meet some of the
regulatory pressures they may face. In turn, the public benefits from
conservation programs go well beyond the edge of the farm field. Mr.
Chairman, I believe that the conservation programs Congress included in
the 1996 Act, when coupled with our historic conservation programs, and
the State and local delivery system are proving winners for the farmer,
and the country as a whole.
conservation technical assistance
The cornerstone of our conservation activities is the NRCS work
force. Everything we accomplish is contingent upon the talents and
technical skills of our field staff around the country. They are
trained professionals with the technical tools, standards and
specifications who get the job done. NRCS has operated since its
creation through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals,
State and local governments, and other Federal agencies and officials.
That partnership may be even more important today if we are to meet the
challenging conservation problems facing our Nation's farmers and
ranchers.
While we are accomplishing much through the 1996 Act programs, it
is important not to lose sight of the importance of our ongoing
Conservation Technical Assistance program. For more than 60 years, the
NRCS has used conservation technical assistance to build a foundation
of trust with people who voluntarily conserve their natural resources.
On average, the Agency's conservation assistance leverages more than $1
in contributions for every Federal dollar invested. In States like
Nevada, NRCS has placed special emphasis on the conservation of private
grazing lands. As part of our efforts in this area, farmers and
ranchers are benefiting from planned grazing systems, resulting in
better productivity and improved natural resources. And through the
National Cooperative Soil Survey, approximately, 22,000,000 acres have
been mapped each year, so that natural resource decisions are based
upon sound science and complete information about the natural
resources.
NRCS accomplishes its goals by working with 3,000 local
Conservation Districts that have been established by State law and with
American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments. We also leverage
our resources with the help of more than 348 Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) Councils. State and local governments contribute
substantially, with both people and funding to complement NRCS
technical and financial assistance. Approximately 7,750 full-time-
equivalent staff years are provided annually by NRCS partners and
volunteers.
wetlands reserve program (wrp)
Next, I would like to highlight the accomplishments of the Wetlands
Reserve Program. WRP preserves, protects, and restores valuable
wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where historic wetland
functions and values have been either depleted or substantially
diminished. Program delivery is designed to maximize wetland wildlife
benefits, to provide for water quality and flood storage benefits, and
to provide for general aesthetic and open space needs. Approximately 70
percent of the WRP project sites are within areas that are frequently
subjected to flooding, reducing the severity of future flood events.
The WRP is also making a substantial contribution to the restoration of
the nation's migratory bird habitats, especially for waterfowl.
As directed in the 1996 Act, WRP enrollment is separated into three
components (permanent easements, 30-year easements, and cost-share
agreements). Pursuant to appropriations act directives, enrollment is
being balanced to respond to the level of landowner interest in each of
these three components.
The 1996 Act authorized a total cumulative enrollment of 975,000
acres in the program. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2000, the
program had almost reached maximum enrollment. The Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 provided an additional 100,000
acres, raising the cumulative enrollment cap to 1,075,000 acres and
allowing 140,000 acres to enroll in fiscal year 2001.
From inception of the program in 1992 through 2000, interest in WRP
has been exceptional. Historically, there have been more than five
times as many acres offered than the program could enroll. One benefit
of WRP is the amount of resources we have been able to leverage with
other Federal programs as well as non-governmental organizations. It is
clear from our experience to date, Mr. Chairman, that the WRP continues
to be very popular with farmers and ranchers and is a program that
clearly has strong support around the countryside.
wildlife habitat incentives program (whip)
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides up to 75 percent
cost-share for implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop
upland wildlife habitat, wetland wildlife habitat, threatened and
endangered species habitat as well as aquatic habitat. The WHIP also
helps landowners best meet their own needs while supporting wildlife
habitat development, and to develop new partnerships with State
wildlife agencies, nongovernmental agencies and others.
The program was initially funded at a total of $50 million in the
1996 Act, to be spent over a number of years. As a result of strong
interest, those funds were exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1999, at
which time 1.4 million acres were enrolled in 8,600 long-term wildlife
habitat development agreements. For fiscal year 2001, $12.5 million
will be provided for WHIP from funding in Section 211(b) of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, as authorized in the fiscal
year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. NRCS has made an enormous
effort to develop partnerships with government and private
organizations to develop a program that targets specific State
concerns.
farmland protection program (fpp)
The FPP protects prime or unique farmland, lands of State or local
importance, and other productive soils from conversion to
nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to leverage funds from
States, Tribes, or local government entities that have farmland
protection programs. The FPP establishes partnerships with State,
Tribes, and local government entities to acquire conservation easements
or other interests in land. It ensures that valuable farmland is
preserved for future generations and also helps maintain a healthy
environment and sustainable rural economy. The program was initially
funded in the 1996 Act at a level of $35 million, to be spent over a
number of years. To date, those funds have been exhausted, and local
interest in the program continues to be strong. For fiscal year 2001,
additional funding provided in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 will fund the FPP at $17.5 million. On January 22, 2001, a request
for proposals was published in the Federal Register. Eligible entities
had until March 8, 2001 to submit their proposals. After the evaluation
process is concluded, successful applicants will be notified in June
2001.
environmental quality incentives program (eqip)
EQIP provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to
farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and
related natural resources on agricultural land and other land. The 1996
Act authorized $200 million, annually for EQIP, utilizing funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). For fiscal year 2001, the final
appropriation was $200 million. In the 2 previous fiscal years,
Congress appropriated $174 million annually. Consistent with the
authorizing legislation, the program is primarily available in priority
conservation areas in order to maximize the benefits of each Federal
conservation dollar. The priority areas consist of watersheds, regions,
or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having significant
soil, water, or related natural resource concerns that have been
recommended through a locally-led conservation process. For fiscal year
2000, nearly 85 percent of the EQIP financial assistance funding was
provided within priority areas.
The program has been extremely successful. We received nearly
76,168 applications in fiscal year 2000. After NRCS ranked the
applications based on criteria developed at the local and State level,
16,443 long-term contracts with farmers and ranchers were approved.
Since inception of the program, EQIP has averaged about 6 times the
number of applications than could be approved with available funding.
Certainly the demand for the program remains high around the country.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would note that good conservation
doesn't just happen. It takes all of us, including the Congress, the
conservation partners, and most importantly, the people living on the
land working together to make it happen. As exemplified through the
many programs and activities we have underway, there is a great deal
happening on the ground. And the work is not only helping farmers and
ranchers build more productive and economically viable operations, but
also is building a better natural resource base for the future. We are
proud of our accomplishments and look forward to working with you to
build on all that we have done thus far. This concludes my statement,
Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I
would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.