The Conference Committee Farm Bill

Comments on a Proposed Change in the
Grassland Reserve Program

The following email comment was received from National Wildlife Federation in response to suggested changes to Grassland Reserve Program:

Your suggested changes to the grasslands program has raised concerns regarding the purpose and scope of the proposed grassland reserve program.

Under both the Senate and House legislation, the grassland reserve program is a mere 2 million acres to cover everything from the pacific prairies of California to the Texas coastal grasslands, the sage-steppe grasslands of the Intermountain West, the prairie of the Great Plains and the native meadows and pastures of the east. NWF asked for 5 million acres, as we believe there is a substantial need for this program to protect the remaining remnants of native grasslands. In light of the fact that we are dealing with a very limited amount of acreage that can be enrolled, NWF believes that native grasslands should be the first place where we focus this program. Native grasslands are both uniquely valuable and endangered, and exotic grasses and forbs do not support the full complement of native biodiversity like native grasslands.

Landowners who have kept their native grasslands intact have played a key role in safeguarding our nation's native plant and wildlife species, but have gotten no support from previous Farm Bills for this valuable conservation service. NWF believes that these landowners and the landscapes they have preserved should be the top priority for the limited number of acres available in this program.

Thanks. If you have questions, please let me know.

Malia Hale
Senior Legislative Representative
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th Street, Suite 501
Washington DC 20036

Response:

Malia

Thanks for your prompt and thorough response.

Yes, I can see your concerns. But after dealing with Everglades restoration efforts that have inadvertently turned native habitats into more intense uses, in order to pay for the "privilege tax" that was intended to fund habitat restoration efforts (because the focus was on the Everglades Agricultural Area, and potential impacts in Hendry County were ignored) and programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, where people have deliberately destroyed habitats (including native prairie grasses) so they can qualify for the program, I really want to avoid wording that can create other potential "unintended consequences."

I completely agree. There is limited acreage and funding and that should go to native grasslands. I also agree that landowners who have kept their native grasslands intact and have played a key role in safeguarding our nation's native plant and wildlife species should be the top priority for the limited number of acres available in this program.

However, while your comment about exotic grasses and forbs not supporting biodiversity like native prairie is true in many areas, it is NOT TRUE in ALL areas of the country. In fact, the opposite is true in some places. And that's my concern. If a program is designed and worded to fit conditions in one or two parts of the U.S., if consideration is not also given to its impact on other parts of the U.S., it can serve to DO MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD in other areas.

Right now, the GRP language I've targeted only provides for restoration. My experience has been that when the government pays for restoration, but not for keeping existing habitats intact, we end up getting restoration, even if it makes no sense and does more damage than good in some places, simply because, as any program officer will tell you "that's what the program pays for."

I've watched perverse incentives destroy habitat in every state in which I've lived. I've also watched restoration efforts fail when they focus too much on "turning back the clock," and ignore the impacts (and consequences) of natural selection, which sometimes creates adaptations that can provide great benefits for wildlife. That's why I'm raising an alarm here. One size does not fit all.

One way to accommodate our two points of view is to ensure that preference is given through the application and selection process to native grasslands and to landowners who have kept their native grasslands intact.  The rule can even stipulate that properties in the prairie states can participate only if they restore land to native grasses.

These limitations should be made in the rule, not in the statutory language.  The statutory language should ensure that the Secretary is given the ability to ensure that the Grassland Reserve Program will fit more than one situation around the country, and provides the opportunity to retain existing habitats when there is the "potential to serve as habitat for animal or plant population of significant ecological value."

I'm happy to work with you on language so both objectives are achieved. Right now, I'm concerned the current language will cause the destruction of existing habitats. I don't think either of us want that. We have enough of that already, without adding to the problem.

Let's discuss this further so we can ensure that we do the most good possible, without doing any damage.

All the best,

Craig Evans
Email - craig@privatelands.org
Cell phone - 561-289-9690

Would you like to add a comment about this issue?  Please email me at the email address above, or click "send email" below.