A Dialog with Defenders of Wildlife 
Part 7 - "State Block Grants"

On Monday, August 27, 2001
Mark Shaffer of Defenders of Wildlife wrote:

7. Sec. 1239F We would not support a block grant approach.

On Thursday, August 30, 2001
Craig Evans of Florida Stewardship Foundation wrote:

RESPONSE:

This is a tough one. I am doing my very best to include as many recommendations as possible from National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The state block grant proposal is the centerpiece of NASDA's Farm Bill recommendations.

You will see in the attachment accompanying Part 3, that the block grant program language had strikeouts through it. That came from an attachment that was provided to me by another reviewer. So you are not the first one to oppose the block grant program.

As you can see from the green-coded highlights in the proposed revisions I sent to you on August 27, several of NASDA's proposals have been incorporated elsewhere. The language for "state level administration" also responds to some of their proposals.

Let me talk to NASDA about this. They may not be happy with me anyway, since no funding is included with the state block grant language.

Craig

On Thursday, August 30, 2001
Jeff Smoller of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wrote:

Mark and Craig,

As an employee of a state natural resources agency I have been following, with interest and encouragement your exchange of perspectives. I first applaud all parties for engaging in this historic process that has such great potential.

I am hopeful that the last remaining obstacles to agreement, particularly the block grant issue, might not be considered deal breakers for several reasons

1. The bill is underpinned by the philosophy of performance-driven, placed-based, adaptive management approaches, which may require the flexibility of at least an optional block grant relationship with the states, particularly if the states have the capacity, will and integrity to address compelling problems that are beyond the ability of linear programs. (Because WI DNR is an environmental regulator as well as conservation agency we often see problems that could be addressed through an integrated -- so-called green and brown -- approach, but EPA's linear, media-driven governing statutes and conservation laws present obstacles.)

2. The bill provides for (although this is a may, not shall) through its required state planning processes the kind of consultation that insures the incorporation of multiple perspectives but checks and balances.

3. The bill provides for mandatory reporting of results, expenditures and future plans.

4. The Farmland Stewardship Council's duties include developing guidelines, monitoring progress and recommending modifications, presumably all potentially affecting Block Grant issues and other points of discomfort (but not deal breakers) in the draft bill. The Council has proposed membership that can be a credible and constructive watchdog. A suggestion: If the block grant privilege is abused by some objective standard, there might be consideration of a default position.

In brief, while the plan, do, check, and act language in the draft may not conform precisely with total quality management, the intent is there. With the designed-in reporting of performance, multi-party participation in evaluation, transparency and enlightened auditing, the concern for accountability that often is the under pinning fear of block grants may be mitigated.

I am enjoying the exchange and applaud the sophisticated level of dialogue.

Jeff Smoller
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707

On Thursday, August 30, 2001
Sara Vickerman, director of Defender's Oregon State office, wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2001
Craig Evans of Florida Stewardship Foundation wrote:

Thanks, Sara.  That might be a workable approach.  If you will refer to Sec. 1239F,  you'll see the following language already is included:

“(f)  STRATEGIC PLANS.—The state department of agriculture may collaborate with a local advisory or planning committee to develop a state strategic plan for the enhancement and protection of land, air, water and wildlife through resource planning.  The state strategic plan shall be submitted to the Secretary annually in a report on the implementation of projects, activities, and other measures under the block grant program.  In general, state strategic plans shall include—

      “(1)  A description of goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals for designated program activities;

      “(2)  A description of how the goals and objectives are to be achieved, including a description of the operational processes, skills and technologies, and the human capital, information and other resources required to meet the goals and objectives;

      “(3)  A description of performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the relevant output service levels and outcomes of the program activities; and

      “(4)  A description of the program evaluation to be used in comparing actual results with established goals and objectives."

Wouldn't that do exactly what you are proposing?

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001
Sara Vickerman, director of Defender's Oregon State office, wrote:

Craig.  . I'm not sure.  Does "wildlife" mean fish, wildlife, plants, and more generally long-term ecological integrity? Does this suggest that Ag agencies would be taking the lead on conservation planning?  I think ag agencies should be involved, but not be required to lead conservation planning excercises. We have been working on the fed appropriations (CARA and derivatives) that refer to planning and they expect fish and wildlife agencies to do it. . Cheers. Sara

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001
Craig Evans of Florida Stewardship Foundation wrote:

Sara

What we need here is collaboration.

The programs we are discussing are focused primarily on agricultural operations on agricultural land. Seems to me that the ag departments would have the primary entree to landowners, and the knowledge to know how conservation programs can best be blended in with ag operations.

CARA was focused on conservation programs that already are carried out in many cases by state fish and wildlife agencies.

There is obviously a lot of overlapping turf, interests and responsibilities. I think the language suggested by Dave Walker at International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies might work here as well, i.e. The state department of agriculture shall consult with the agencies with management authority and responsibility for the resources affected on properties on strategic plans are developed.

Craig