[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE ADMINISTRATION AND DELIVERY OF CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 1, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-54
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-017 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Dakota Minority Member
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado STEVE KING, Iowa
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Nona Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine, a Representative in Congress from
Missouri, submitted letter..................................... 67
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 3
Witnesses
White, Dave, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Coppess, Jonathan W., Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Robinson, Steve, President, National Association of Conservation
Districts, Washington, D.C..................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Lohr, John R., Vice President, National Association of Farm
Service Agency County Office Employees, Norvelt, PA............ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Leathers, Ron, Public Finance Director, Pheasants Forever, Inc.;
Government Grants Coordinator, Quail Forever, St. Paul, MN..... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Manley, Ph.D., Scott W., Director of Conservation Programs, Ducks
Unlimited, Inc., Ridgeland, MS................................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Burns, Ph.D., P.E., Robert T., Assistant Dean, Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Resource Development & Professor,
University of Tennessee Extension Service, Knoxville, TN....... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Dlugosz, Steve, Certified Crop Adviser and Lead Agronomist,
Harvest Land Co-op, Madison, WI; on behalf of International
Certified Crop Adviser Program; and American Society of
Agronomy....................................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Braford, William L., Consulting Forester, Bluechip Forestry,
Natural Bridge Station, VA; on behalf of American Forest
Foundation..................................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Submitted Material
Schaeffer, Jennifer Mock, Agriculture Conservation Policy
Analyst, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, submitted
statement...................................................... 67
HEARING TO REVIEW THE ADMINISTRATION AND DELIVERY OF CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim Holden
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Herseth Sandlin,
Dahlkemper, Schauer, Kissell, Costa, Bright, Murphy, Owens,
Minnick, Peterson (ex officio), Goodlatte, Moran, Neugebauer,
and Luetkemeyer.
Staff present: Cindy Birdsong, Nona Darrell, Liz
Friedlander, John Konya, James Ryder, Anne Simmons, April
Slayton, Rebekah Solem, Patricia Barr, Brent Blevins, Tamara
Hinton, Josh Maxwell, Jamie Mitchell, and Sangina Wright.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research to review the
administration and delivery of conservation programs will come
to order.
I would like to thank our witnesses and guests for coming
today. This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of the
Subcommittee to review how USDA administers conservation
programs and the delivery system that is in place for providing
technical assistance to producers.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm
Service Agency, through the authority of this Committee and the
farm bill, currently administer over 20 programs to assist
producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on
agricultural lands. Early conservation efforts were focused on
reducing high levels of soil erosion, addressing water quality
and quantity issues, but have since evolved and expanded to
address other natural resources concerns, such as wildlife,
habitat, air quality, wetlands restoration and protection,
energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture.
Throughout this period of growth, one thing has become
clear: Technical assistance is a crucial component of
conservation, and it is important that landowners have access
to the technical expertise they need in order to implement
conservation practices.
In the 2002 Farm Bill, we recognized and responded to the
growing demand and need for more technical assistance. We
included a provision that allowed producers to retain approved
and certified third-party providers, known as TSPs, for
technical assistance. That provision maintains and expands
technical capacity for agriculture conservation programs.
However, despite those changes, and others included in the
2008 Farm Bill, we still find ourselves in a situation where
there is not enough technical assistance available to
landowners, and it is critical that we get this right.
Over the years, USDA has transferred responsibility for
administration, leadership, and funding of conservation
programs between FSA and NRCS. Last year, NRCS initiated a
streamlining initiative to identify the most efficient and
effective model for delivering conservation assistance, but
there is still debate about what the proper role for each
agency should be in order to ensure that landowners have access
to the technical expertise they need.
Effective administration of conservation programs is an
important topic that should be further discussed. Equally as
important are the delivery mechanisms in place to make certain
that technical assistance is available to those landowners who
want it.
Whether through NRCS or a technical service provider, a
consistent message we are hearing across the country is that
more people are needed in the field to provide technical
services to make certain that landowners have access to the
technical assistance they need to make land management
decisions and implement conservation practices.
Farmers and ranchers have always been the original stewards
of the land and continue to be the best advocates for resource
conservation. I look forward to today's expert testimony and
the opportunity to listen, learn, and question those
responsible for ensuring that that remains true in the future.
I will recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Virginia.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to review the delivery and administration of
conservation programs.
Since 1985, farm bills have increased the size and
complexity of conservation programs. There are a number of
programs that can assist producers to become better stewards of
the land. The 2008 Farm Bill created new conservation programs
that allow cooperation and flexibility among producers and
organizations to target conservation initiatives such as the
Chesapeake Bay, which is of great importance to the farmers and
ranchers in Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The farm bill increased funding to oversubscribed programs
to address backlogs and retool existing programs to make them
more producer friendly and available on a national basis.
However, if the programs are not being administered
effectively, and our producers are not receiving the technical
guidance they need, then an increase in the number of programs
and in the level of funding will not result in improved
conservation benefits.
Providing the participants of these programs with the
necessary financial and technical assistance is essential to
the success of conservation practices. This Committee has
worked hard to make sure that each conservation program has
adequate dollars. We have authorized the use of third-party
technical service providers to assist NRCS and the FSA staff,
and we have encouraged streamlining the application process.
The delivery system is the lifeline to ensuring the success of
conservation programs.
The administration of these programs and the salaries and
expenses involved in administering them have been a concern to
the House Committee on Agriculture for some time. Congress
needs to understand fully where the deficiencies are in USDA
administering these programs and systems, and whether or not
they need fine-tuning so that farmers and ranchers get cost-
efficient conservation on the ground.
I would like to thank Chief White, from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and Mr. Jonathan Coppess, the
Administrator for the Farm Service Agency, for being here today
to testify. I also want to thank our witnesses on the second
panel for their participation in this hearing, and for the work
that they are doing to help deliver conservation programs.
I am especially pleased to welcome Mr. Bill Braford, a
consulting forester from Rock Ridge County, Virginia. Mr.
Braford is a constituent who has more than 35 years of
experience in the field of forestry. After spending 30 years
working for the Virginia Department of Forestry, he became a
consulting forester in 2008. He acts as a technical service
provider for NRCS, and currently serves on the board of the
Virginia Forestry Association. I look forward to hearing his
insights into USDA conservation programs and what we should
improve in the next farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and would ask
all other Members to submit any opening statement for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Holden, and Mr. Goodlatte for
holding today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research.
Today's hearing focuses on the administration and delivery of
conservation programs through technical service providers and technical
assistance. I am concerned that with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) duplicating efforts
in record-keeping and check-writing, the current delivery system is not
working in the best way possible for producers or the taxpayers.
This is why today's hearing is so important. I believe it's not a
matter of more money but rather facilitating a dialogue between NRCS,
FSA and their partners that will solve this problem. Getting more boots
on the ground to provide adequate technical assistance to producers is
necessary to ensure participation in conservation programs.
The Committee has already started holding hearings on the 2012 Farm
Bill and as the process moves forward we will look into whether or not
there is a better way to divide the responsibilities between NRCS and
FSA when providing technical assistance to producers wishing to
participate in conservation programs. This is something I wanted to
address in the last farm bill but unfortunately, we couldn't see that
happen. Today's hearing is a good place to start to look for solutions
and ways to address these issues in the next farm bill.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and again thank
the Chairman for holding today's hearing.
The Chairman. I would like to welcome our first panel, Mr.
Dave White, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service at
the Department of Agriculture; and Mr. Jonathan Coppess,
Administrator for the Farm Service Agency with the Department
of Agriculture.
Mr. White, you may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAVE WHITE, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, Members
of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be here.
First, I would like to thank all of you for the joint
resolution you passed honoring the 75th anniversary of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service. We deeply appreciate
that very much.
I often hear people talk about what the greatest
conservation program ever is. And the response varies, and it
is generally from where the person sits the response they make.
But, in my mind, the greatest conservation program ever
occurred in 1935 when this Congress unanimously passed and
provided for a continuing soil and water conservation program,
voluntary, incentive-based, providing technical assistance to
our nation's farmers and ranchers.
Working with our partners and through conservation
districts, we have technical experts that work with farmers and
ranchers openly in an honest relationship. The farm gate is
open for us, and there is trust on both sides. No other Federal
agency has the access or the trust that we enjoy, and I will
jealously safeguard that and do whatever I can to improve the
efficiency of how it functions.
And research is showing that we have positive results.
Cropland erosion since 1982--between 1982 and 1987 was reduced
by 43 percent. That is a stunning amount in anyone's book. Last
month, we also reported the results from the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project in the Upper Mississippi. It is
showing us that conservation works. We have seen huge
reductions in many of the natural resources issues we have to
deal with.
It is also showing that us that suites of conservation
practices work better than ones in isolation; and it is showing
us that if we target our efforts, we can have an even greater
effect. For example, if we work on just 15 percent of the
cropland in the upper Mississippi, we can reduce overland
nitrogen loss by 29 percent and overland phosphorous loss by 20
percent.
We have also improved our efficiency. Between 2005 and
2009, we have doubled the number of customers we service every
year; and we are also helping farmers and ranchers meet those
emerging challenges that Mr. Holden talked about--energy, air,
environmental service markets.
And as we have learned from the CEAP that I just mentioned
to ensure conservation gets on the ground, we are now targeting
a little bit of the funds through special initiatives. We have
landscape-level initiatives such as the Mississippi River, the
Chesapeake Bay, Sage-Grouse. We have resource-focused
initiatives such as the organic water quality, water
conservation, air quality. And while most of the activity in
this is statutorily derived, we are focusing about eight
percent of EQIP funds on the initiatives, mostly the Sage-
Grouse and Mississippi River.
We are also working to get our house in order, Mr.
Goodlatte. The amount of financial assistance we administer has
increased 376 percent since 2002; and even though our
productivity has doubled, our front line staff has remained
pretty much constant. We have to figure out ways to do that,
and I think we have tremendous opportunities to do so.
The primary one is what Mr. Holden mentioned, the
streamlining initiative. We want to simplify the delivery,
streamline our processes, and make sure that we retain our
science-based delivery system.
There are five components to this. It ranges from
integrating all our tools into one desktop icon, to eliminating
the duplicate entry of data, to establishing a client gateway
on the Web where a farmer or rancher can sit at home and apply
for a program. If they have a contract, they can look at their
contract and see if there is a practice due or where they are
at. They can see if they are due a payment, where it is in the
process. They can look at their conservation plan.
These kinds of things are going to have a huge impact, and
our projections are that it is going to reduce the
administrative clerical burden on our field people by 80
percent. Our goal is to free up 75 percent of our folks' time
to be in the field.
You have a huge panel behind me on technical service
providers. They are going to give you a lot of information.
We surveyed our technical service providers. We only have
1,200 of them. We really should have a lot more. But we are
looking at training and how do we eliminate inconsistencies
between Federal and state. What can we do to make the
certification process simpler? What can we do to address the
payment rates?
And we are also developing what we call a conservation
plug-in, where a TSP can go through the USDA security firewall
and get client data that he is authorized to get, pull it out,
work on it, finish it, and put it back into the system.
In summary, we are working to streamline and modernize the
delivery of services to meet the needs of today's customers,
and the need remains great. I think you all know that the U.N.
is projecting 2.3 billion more people and is saying that a 70
percent increase of food production is going to be needed in
the next 4 decades. That is a huge undertaking and how we meet
that challenge is going to define us, but I am confident that
we will. I think that our children will inherit a resource base
as rich as the one we have now.
Thank you for inviting me to be here. I welcome the
opportunity to address any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave White, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share our
experiences in implementing a number of conservation programs contained
in Title II of the Food Security Act of 1985 that were added or re-
authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm
Bill). I am happy to be here again to discuss the work of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in delivering Conservation Technical
Assistance and providing technical and financial assistance through
2008 Farm Bill programs.
75 Years of Helping People Help the Land
Two thousand-ten is the 75th anniversary of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since our founding in 1935, we have helped
America's farmers, ranchers, and forest owners manage the nation's
working lands to ensure continued agricultural productivity and a
healthy environment. With about 70 percent of U.S. land in the lower 48
states in private hands; our mission remains a critical one.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP) Report released last month shows our efforts over the
past \3/4\ of a century have not been in vain. The CEAP data confirm
that voluntary, incentive-based conservation works and that the
conservation practices applied by farmers in the basin have resulted in
a 69 percent reduction in sediment loss.
Findings also indicate that implementing suites of practices to
address multiple resource concerns is more effective than using single
practices, reinforcing the need to engage in comprehensive conservation
planning. For many producers, conservation planning is the fundamental
starting point for maintaining and improving the natural resources that
support productive and profitable agricultural operations. In addition,
the CEAP Report provides quantitative support for improving program
effectiveness by targeting conservation programs to the acres with the
most critical need.
A conservation plan tailored specifically to a farm or ranch
identifies immediate or potential resource problems that could affect
production; helps producers comply with environmental regulations;
helps farmers and ranchers qualify for various United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs; adapts to changing
operational goals; establishes a reasonable schedule to apply needed
conservation practices; and can save farmers and ranchers time, labor
and energy. Once we have worked with farmers and ranchers to evaluate
their needs and conservation options, farm bill programs are available
to assist them in implementing the components of their conservation
plans.
Comprehensive planning through both technical and financial
assistance to land owners and managers has been at the heart of NRCS's
work throughout our history and will remain there for the foreseeable
future. Yet, as we begin our next 75 years of service, we realize that
how we deliver this assistance matters more than ever.
From FY 2005 through FY 2009, NRCS has written conservation plans
on over 185 million acres of crop, grazing, and forest land. In
addition, NRCS developed over 1,200 area-wide plans in FY 2009 for a
total of nearly 4,000 since FY 2006. These area-wide plans look at
opportunities for improvement beyond farm or ranch boundary, involving
multiple farm or ranch operations and local communities. NRCS staff is
servicing more customers per person, doubling the number of farmer or
rancher assisted per full time equivalent (FTE) from FY 2005 to FY
2009.
In accordance with NRCS regulations that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act at 7 CFR Part 650.5, NRCS will be preparing
site specific environmental evaluations to determine the need for any
Environmental Assessment of Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental evaluations (EE) integrate environmental concerns
throughout the planning, installation, and operation of NRCS-assisted
projects. The EE applies to all assistance provided by NRCS, but
planning intensity, public involvement, and documentation of actions
vary according to the scope of the action. NRCS begins consideration of
environmental concerns when information gathered during the
environmental evaluation is used:
To identify environmental concerns that may be affected,
gather baseline data, and predict effects of alternative
courses of actions.
To provide data to applicants for use in establishing
objectives commensurate with the scope and complexity of the
proposed action.
To assist in the development of alternative courses of
action; (40 CFR 1502.14). In NRCS-assisted project actions,
nonstructural, water conservation, and other alternatives that
are in keeping with the Water Resources Council's Principles
and Standards are considered, if appropriate.
To perform other related investigations and analyses as
needed, including economic evaluation, engineering
investigations, etc.
To assist in the development of detailed plans for
implementation and operation and maintenance.
Factors, such as greater taxpayer investment in conservation
through farm bills, the desire for increased transparency and financial
accountability, advances in science and technology, the need to
sustainably feed a growing global population, and burgeoning public
interest in environmental health, compel us to upgrade and update our
plans, programs, policies, and procedures. Moreover, in the current
farm bill, Congress has called on us to help producers meet new
conservation challenges, such as air quality, energy conservation,
mitigating for the impacts of climate change, and participation in
expanding markets for ecosystem services.
To address all of these priorities, I articulated three goals upon
becoming Chief last year. They are: ensuring conservation gets on the
ground, improve agency internal controls and increase accountability,
and creating a climate where private lands conservation can succeed.
Ensuring Conservation Gets on the Ground
We have taken several steps to ensure conservation gets on the
ground. First, we are targeting some of our financial and technical
assistance to landscape-scale conservation, specific resource concerns,
and special initiatives. By working at this scale we can treat resource
concerns much more effectively and achieve measurable results.
Landscape-scale initiatives include work in the Mississippi River
Basin, the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay and efforts to restore
sage-grouse habitat; targeted resource concerns including air quality
and the initiative for organic producers.
Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI). NRCS
is working to maximize environmental benefits in the Mississippi River
Basin through the MRBI. The initiative's main goal is to address
nutrient loading in the basin. In addition to these nutrient-focused
efforts, NRCS will also partner to find new and innovative ways to
address resource concerns ranging from water quality to soil erosion to
energy conservation and wildlife habitat. NRCS recently announced
funding for 76 projects in 12 states: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Funding is provided through the Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Enhancement
Program (WREP) and Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG).
Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI). The SGI is designed to enhance public
awareness of sage-grouse concerns, increase cooperation and
collaboration from a broad-based partnership, and provide funding for
conservation practices that benefit sage-grouse habitat. In March, NRCS
announced that up to $16 million in financial assistance would be made
available to protect sage-grouse population and habitat in 11 western
states: California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Funding is
provided through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). An additional $5
million has been provided through EQIP and WHIP to meet growing demand
under this initiative for a total of $21 million.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The GLRI supports the
Administration's vision for promoting voluntary action to protect and
restore priority watersheds. NRCS received $34 million for the
Initiative through an Interagency Agreement with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The funding will be used by NRCS to implement
priority programs, projects, and activities to protect, restore, and
maintain the Great Lakes ecosystem, as identified in the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Action Plan. The funding will be released
through a number of NRCS programs, including Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA), EQIP, WHIP, Emergency Watershed Protection Program-
Floodplain Easements, and Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.
States receiving funding include: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Initiative was authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill to provide assistance
to agricultural producers to minimize excess nutrients and sediments in
order to restore, preserve, and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Bay states
include Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative is currently being
delivered through the EQIP and WHIP. On June 18, USDA unveiled three
showcase watersheds designed to demonstrate what can be achieved by
combining strong partnerships, sound science and funding to solve
natural resource problems in a targeted area in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. The showcase watersheds are designed to demonstrate water
quality improvements in a confined geographic area through expanded
producer outreach efforts, use of innovative conservation practices and
intensive conservation planning, implementation and monitoring. The
goal is to reach out to 100 percent of the agricultural producers in
each watershed to gauge their current level of conservation treatment
and explain additional technical and financial assistance opportunities
available through various conservation programs.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Air Quality
Initiative. The 2008 Farm Bill includes a provision for EQIP to provide
payments to implement practices to address priority air quality
resource concerns from agricultural operations and to meet Federal,
state, and local regulatory requirements. In Fiscal Year 2010,
$33,825,000 of EQIP financial assistance has been allocated to Arizona,
California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas for this initiative.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Organic Initiative. The
EQIP Organic Initiative requires payments to be made for conservation
practices on operations related to organic production and/or transition
to organic production. In FY 2010, $50 million in financial assistance
was allocated among all states.
A second key aspect of getting conservation on the ground is
retooling programs for better performance and to increase the
efficiency of technical assistance resources. NRCS has dedicated
significant staff resources from the states and field to improve
performance of programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, EQIP and
CIG.
The President's FY 2011 budget also includes a new proposal for
Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs) to be deployed in high
priority agricultural watersheds. Though the Conservation Technical
Assistance Program, NRCS will use teams of Soil Conservationists,
specialists (engineers, biologist, range specialist or others as
needed) depending on the need in each watershed. The goal of deploying
the SWATs will be to reach every landowner in a targeted watershed
eligible for NRCS programs and provide them with the technical
assistance to assess their natural resource conditions and offer
resource planning and program help. Through the use of SWATs, NRCS will
greatly improve the environmental cost effectiveness of technical and
financial assistance programs.
Further, we are applying the knowledge gained through CEAP and
other research initiatives to improve program performance. For example,
NRCS has just completed the first ranking period sign up under the new
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and are pleased to announce that
12, 649,918 acres were enrolled as of June 18, 2010. We reviewed public
comments, assessed the first ranking period and made changes that
encourage enhanced stewardship and performance. We now have a final
rule for CSP which includes suites of conservation enhancements, as
CEAP suggested, to improve environmental performance. CSP remains
available nationwide, as provided in the 2008 Farm Bill, and the second
ranking period--now underway--is being conducted under the new rule.
Improve Agency Internal Controls and Increase Accountability
The second goal is to improve agency internal controls and increase
accountability. Since FY 2002, the amount of financial assistance NRCS
administers has grown by 376 percent. To support this growth, staff
year funding has increased as well. Funding for technical assistance
(salaries and expenses) related to the farm bill programs has increased
significantly, from $46 million in FY 2002 to $577 million in FY 2010.
In addition, the number of staff years associated with farm bill
programs has also increased from 431 in FY 2002 to 5,705 in FY 2010.
However, since FY 2005, the number of FTEs providing technical
assistance through the Conservation Technical Assistance Program has
decreased 13 percent. Across all programs, the applied conservation
practice acres per FTE increased by 32 percent. This trend requires us
to undertake new streamlining, partnership and management initiatives
to increase our efficiency, effectiveness and conservation results.
Delivering science-based technical assistance to clients is the
foundation for successfully carrying out NRCS's mission of helping
people help the land. Our on-site assistance to help clients identify
conservation objectives, inventory resource concerns and opportunities,
analyze alternatives, and formulate treatments through conservation
planning is unique. Provision of this technical assistance is
documented in 1.6 million conservation plans and 30 million planned
practices in our National Conservation Plan Database.
Conservation planning is a sound approach for the consistent and
effective delivery of financial assistance programs, helping to ensure
that the public's investment in private lands conservation achieves
desired environmental outcomes. The farm bill expanded NRCS's field
operations to include new authorities and the development and
administration of contracts and easements for financial assistance
programs. NRCS now manages about 400,000 farm bill program contracts in
its national ProTracts database. But our current business model and
processes leave inadequate time for on-site planning, design,
installation assistance and critical follow-up activities. In addition,
NRCS's information technology tools need to be integrated to gain
efficiencies.
In January 2009, NRCS responded by formally initiating the
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative, to define and implement
a more effective, efficient, and sustainable business model for
delivering conservation assistance. Three overarching objectives were
identified:
1. Simplify Conservation Delivery--The new business model must make
the delivery of conservation programs easier for both customers
and employees.
2. Streamline Business Processes--The new business model and
processes must increase efficiency through streamlined
processes, and be integrated across Agency business lines.
3. Ensure Science-based Assistance--The new business model must
reinforce the continued delivery of technically-sound products
and services.
As NRCS implements key parts of the Streamlining Initiative, we
anticipate a future where technical field staffs will spend as much as
75 percent of their conservation assistance time in the field, working
one-on-one with customers, to deliver planning, application, and
financial assistance in a way that emphasizes resource concerns--rather
than programs.
Pillars of the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
consist of:
1. Define, streamline, and integrate conservation assistance
processes across business lines. To ensure field staff can
focus their time on the Agency's core activities, NRCS will
more clearly define, streamline, and institutionalize sound
conservation assistance business processes.
2. Prioritize and deploy information technology that effectively
supports and aligns with the delivery of conservation
assistance. NRCS will develop a single portal, called a
Conservation Desktop, which will allow field staff and partners
to access all the tools and data needed to deliver technical
and financial assistance through one application. This
integrated environment will eliminate duplicate data entry by
staff and increase the efficiency of our information technology
development and use. NRCS will fully integrate geospatial data
and services into its business processes and tools to reduce
administrative time and enhance the quality of conservation
plans. Mobile computing technologies will be institutionalized
for planners nationwide, making our work more efficient,
reducing the travel time from unnecessary trips, and improving
customer service.
3. Provide field technical staff with natural resource science and
technology tools focused on conservation planning and practice
implementation. The foundation data and processes for assessing
resource concerns during planning is being redesigned to
simplify planning and client decision-making, and ensure NRCS
plans document estimated conservation benefits. This includes
restructuring the various science and technology tools used by
field staff nationwide to make them simpler, more consistent,
quicker to use, and accessible in both the office and the
field. The first of these tools to be updated will support
grazing, erosion calculations, and wildlife habitat
assessments. NRCS will also be integrating area-wide assessment
approaches into the Agency's conservation delivery processes,
and integrating conservation effects into NRCS' planning tools
to improve client decision-making, better describe outcomes,
streamline program ranking, and more efficiently support
environmental market programs.
4. To implement programs through staffing and delivery approaches
designed around more efficient business processes. Alternative
staffing strategies to address financial assistance needs and
supporting information systems will be implemented. Emerging
technologies, such as electronic signatures and alternative
approaches for screening, ranking and funding program
applications will be tested and implemented to streamline
program delivery and simplify program participation for
clients.
5. Establish tools and processes for interacting with clients that
are resource-centric, enhance customer service, and increase
NRCS' efficiency. A variety of new approaches for interacting
with clients will be implemented to enhance and customize the
Agency's services to its growingly-diverse clientele. The first
will be a web-based Client Gateway that will allow USDA program
participants to apply for assistance; view plans and contracts,
check on the status of payments from NRCS; digitally sign
documents; review upcoming work; and more at their convenience.
Other management initiatives we have set in motion include:
Strengthened Financial Management. NRCS continues to make internal
changes based on the lessons learned though financial audits. We are
working to develop and implement a Managerial Cost Accounting (MCA)
model to measure and properly allocate costs that align with the
strategic goals. MCA will be integrated into all aspects of NRCS
operations to support financial reporting, workload and staffing
management, budgeting and operational decision-making, and statutory
fund allocation requirements.
NRCS is committed to updating financial policies and procedures to
provide its workforce with the necessary information to produce
accurate, reliable, and timely financial information. All financial
policies currently published in the General Manual will be reviewed and
updated by the end of the fiscal year.
Funding Allocation Reform. NRCS currently uses a complex automated
process for allocating its financial and technical resources to the
states. Efforts are in place to review and reform the Agency's
allocation process to better align the dollars with resource
conservation needs and concerns. By coordinating the development of
conservation plans with participation in financial assistance programs,
the Agency will be better positioned to identify future workload and
the dollars needed to implement the conservation plans through
mandatory financial assistance programs, such as EQIP. The information
from conservation plans, along with refining our Activity-Based Costing
data, workforce planning and workload analysis, will be the framework
for a new allocation process.
National Headquarters Realignment. NRCS National Headquarters was
realigned in January 2010 to provide the infrastructure to achieve
Agency priorities. The objectives of the realignment were to provide
more timely and effective support to NRCS state and field offices;
better maintenance and communication of policy and guidance; better
aligned administrative functions and management services, and increased
collaboration at all levels of the Agency to allow more time for state
and field employees to work on conservation activities in the field.
Creating a Climate Where Private Lands Conservation Can Succeed
The third goal is creating a climate there private lands
conservation can succeed. An essential element of creating a climate
for success is working effectively with diverse partners at all levels
to implement farm bill conservation programs. This includes working
successfully with our USDA sister agencies including the Forest
Service, Rural Development, and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Two
programs we deliver jointly with FSA are of particular interest to this
Subcommittee--the Conservation Reserve Program, including the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and the Grassland Reserve
Program.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP provides technical 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. CRP is
administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), with NRCS providing land
eligibility determinations, conservation planning, and practice
implementation.
NRCS and FSA have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which
outlines the responsibilities of NRCS and FSA with respect to CRP
technical assistance (TA). Under this Agreement, FSA processes payments
for landowners and NRCS is reimbursed for TA expenses.
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP). The purpose of GRP is to assist
landowners in conserving grazing uses and related conservation values
by restoring and conserving eligible land through easements and rental
contracts. The GRP statute authorizes the enrollment of an additional
1.22 million acres of eligible land from FY 2009 through FY 2012. GRP
is administered jointly by NRCS and FSA. NRCS administers the easement
portion of GRP and provides technical assistance to landowners for both
easements and long-term agreements and all conservation planning.
NRCS and FSA have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which
outlines the responsibilities of NRCS and FSA with respect to the
implementation of GRP. FSA processes GRP payments and NRCS reimburses
FSA the actual personnel costs, overtime and travel related to
assisting with GRP administration. FSA determines payment limitations
for rental contracts and any applicable restoration agreements,
assesses penalties and associated costs, makes payments, and maintains
funding codes for easements and rental contracts to monitor the 60/40
funding split required by the 2008 Farm Bill.
A second vital set of partners is our Technical Service Providers
(TSPs). The 2002 Farm Bill first authorized the use of TSPs by
requiring USDA to allow producers to receive technical assistance from
individuals other than NRCS staff. In other words, TSPs are force
multipliers in putting conservation on the ground. Over the 6 years of
the TSP Initiative, 56 percent of its funds have been obligated through
EQIP. The major remaining distribution of funds is: CRP, 13 percent:
CTA, 12 percent: Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), 11 percent: WHIP, four
percent: Watershed Rehabilitation, two percent; and Emergency Watershed
Protection (EWP), two percent. In FY 2009, NRCS partnered with the
private sector, state agencies, soil and water conservation districts
and nongovernmental organizations to provide $29 million in technical
assistance through the TSP program.
The 2008 Farm Bill amended the TSP provisions, requiring national
standards for TSP certification. TSPs register, become certified and
manage their TSP profiles through TechReg, an on-line support tool.
TechReg also helps landowners locate and choose a certified registered
TSP who can help them meet their conservation goals. NRCS can also
obtain technical or support services directly through procurement
contracts, contribution agreements, and cooperative agreements.
Assessing our National Resources
Results of our latest National Resources Inventory (NRI), released
this past April, underscore the wisdom of Congress in establishing an
ongoing program of soil and water conservation on private lands 75
years ago. The NRI shows that Congress' decision continues to pay
dividends, as total cropland erosion declined about 43% between 1982
and 2007. This achievement is testimony to the commitment of
generations of landowners and operators to conserving our natural
resource base.
While that is worth celebrating, a second finding from the same
report tells us the nation's working lands are now at risk from
development. During the same 25 year period, the total acreage of
developed land in the country increased by about 56%. This means that
more than \1/3\ of all land that has ever been developed in the lower
48 states during our nation's history was developed during the last
quarter century.
Of particular concern is that nearly 14 million acres of prime
farmland were developed between 1982 and 2007. That represents the loss
of nearly 4% of all prime farmland in the U.S.--or an area almost as
large as West Virginia. Cropland acreage declined nearly 15%, but
there's better news here. About half of this reduction is accounted for
in enrollments of environmentally sensitive cropland in CRP, which NRCS
helps to implement.
We believe these results prove the work of NRCS is as important in
2010 as it ever was--and likely growing in importance, as the amount of
available farmland decreases and the demand for food increases. The
United Nations predicts world food output must grow by 70% over the
next 4 decades to feed an additional 2.3 billion people worldwide by
2050. That will place additional pressures on our soil, air, and water
resources.
We must use knowledge gained from the NRI, CEAP, and other
essential tools to prioritize our efforts where the conservation need
is most critical and where the investments will do the most good.
We must also be serious about keeping working lands working and
must help agricultural producers stay on their land. We must maintain
and build new alliances with partners to enable land owners to take
full advantage of our easement programs, which reserve farmlands,
ranchlands, grasslands and wetlands for current agricultural uses--as
well as for future generations.
Another avenue of support for producers is generating new revenue
streams for them through environmental services markets. As Congress
has directed, we must help farmers and ranchers gain recognition for
all the environmental benefits working landowners provide to their
fellow citizens, and pay them for them--benefits like clean air, clean
and abundant supplies of water, carbon storage in fields and forests,
and wildlife habitat that creates opportunities for hunting and
fishing.
In Closing
As NRCS works to streamline and modernize the delivery of services
to meet the demands of today's customers, we are also helping to
achieve the enduring objectives of a nation committed to both
productive lands and a healthy environment. During FY 2009 over 48
million acres of agricultural land had at least one conservation
practice applied. Interest and demand for conservation assistance
remains strong. Support for comprehensive planning, CTA and financial
assistance provided through farm bills remains essential to our
success, in 2010 and beyond.
Thank you for inviting me to be here. I am now happy to take any
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. White.
Mr. Coppess.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN W. COPPESS, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Coppess. Thank you, Chairman Holden, Ranking Member
Goodlatte, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss implementation of conservation programs
and the technical assistance that is required to do so.
The Farm Service Agency implements several highly
successful conservation programs. In particular, these include
the Conservation Reserve Program, the Emergency Conservation
Program, and the Grassland Preserve Program, which we
administer jointly with NRCS. Soon we will also be
administering the Voluntary Public Access Program authorized
under the farm bill.
Today, I would like to discuss briefly how FSA works with
technical assistance providers in our major conservation
programs. Much of our technical assistance is done in concert
with NRCS, and we greatly appreciate their efforts as well as
the efforts of our many conservation partners.
The Conservation Reserve Program provides cost-share
assistance and annual rental payments to farmers and ranchers
to establish conservation covers, and a conservation plan is
required for each CRP participant. FSA has an agreement within
NRCS to provide conservation planning for CRP participants
specifying responsibilities of each agency. FSA has a similar
agreement with the Forest Service to provide conservation
planning for CRP participants and with other Federal and state
agencies to conduct monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of
CRP practices.
Beginning in 2006, FSA has, in certain cases, used private
contractors to redirect technical assistance when NRCS
experiences an especially high workload. Several states have
implemented pilot programs using private-sector firms to
develop conservation plans.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a component
of CRP. It is a broad partnership between USDA, states, and
private groups. As part of the CREP agreements, state
agricultural and environmental agencies are required to
contribute technical assistance resources for implementation.
They also monitor outcomes. These agencies typically contribute
about ten percent of the total project cost in the form of an
in-kind technical assistance service.
The Emergency Conservation Program provides emergency
funding and technical assistance for producers to rehabilitate
farmland damaged by natural disasters. Between six and seven
percent of ECP funding is used for technical assistance. FSA
provides technical assistance for certain practices, and has an
agreement with NRCS to provide technical assistance for
practices requiring greater conservation expertise. FSA also
has an agreement with the Forest Service to provide technical
assistance under ECP for hurricane disasters. In implementing
ECP funding projects, FSA and NRCS staff work hand in hand at
the local level.
On the Grassland Reserve Program, we jointly administer:
GRP is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support
for working grazing operations and protection of grasslands.
Applicants can apply for a rental contract or an easement with
either NRCS or FSA. NRCS is responsible for administering the
easement acquisition process, while we at FSA are responsible
for rental contracts and payments.
NRCS provides leadership on regulations and provides on-
the-ground technical assistance for both easements and rental
contracts. FSA manages financial assistance funds, which
includes making payments for rental contracts and easement
acquisition. Both agencies collaborate on policy decisions and
day-to-day program management.
Finally, I would like to touch briefly on savings derived
through FSA and NRCS coordination on programs. FSA and NRCS
have significantly reduced technical assistance costs over the
past 10 years. Through automation and some of the streamlining
changes that Chief White has mentioned, we have developed
collaboratively between the two agencies. The cost of general
CRP sign-up activities were reduced by approximately 30 percent
per contract, and the cost of continuous sign-up activities
were reduced by approximately 18 percent per contract.
The re-enrollment of expiring 2007 through 2010 CRP
contracts offered additional opportunities for streamlining and
cost savings. FSA worked with NRCS and agreed to make
adjustments to the NRCS model estimates to reflect time savings
on CRP contracts with forestry-only practices. This reduced
technical assistance costs by 29 percent per contract.
These are just a couple of examples of the way we have
worked together to work on efficiencies and cost savings.
In conclusion, technical assistance, as you mentioned,
plays an incredibly vital role in our conservation programs.
Both FSA and NRCS understand the nature of sound technical
assistance for these programs. We will continue to work closely
with NRCS as well as our other Federal and non-Federal partners
to ensure that FSA program participants receive the highest
quality technical assistance to meet program requirements.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coppess follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan W. Coppess, Administrator, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss implementation of conservation
programs and the technical assistance required to place conservation
practices on the ground.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) implements several highly successful
conservation programs. The largest of the conservation programs, the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), has resulted in more than 31
million acres of grasses, trees, riparian buffers, filter strips,
restored wetlands, and high-value wildlife habitat. The Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP) provides emergency funding to farmers and
ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters and for
carrying out water conservation measures in periods of severe drought.
FSA and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) jointly
administer the Grassland Reserve Program, which is a voluntary
conservation program that emphasizes support for working grazing
operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and
protection of grassland under threat of conversion to other uses.
As soon as the interim rule is published FSA is prepared to begin
administering the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives
Program, a newly authorized 2008 Farm Bill program. This program will
provide grants to states and tribal governments to encourage owners and
operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily
make their land available for public access for wildlife-dependent
recreation, including hunting or fishing. The funding for this program
is administered by state and tribal governments. We expect the interim
regulation for this program to be published this summer, and also have
scheduled several tribal consultation sessions across the United States
beginning in August, to receive input from tribes before we draft the
final rule.
To implement our conservation programs, FSA relies on technical
assistance from NRCS, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Department of Energy, State Forestry agencies, state
agricultural, fish and wildlife and environmental departments,
conservation districts, non-governmental organizations, and the private
sector. These partners help us with numerous activities that fall under
the umbrella of technical assistance, including eligibility
determinations, conservation plan development, conservation practice
development and implementation, outreach to farmers and ranchers, and
monitoring the impacts of conservation programs.
Today, I will discuss how FSA works with technical assistance
providers in each of our major conservation programs. Much of our
technical assistance interaction is with NRCS, and we greatly
appreciate their efforts, as well as the efforts of our many other
conservation partners.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The Conservation Reserve Program provides cost share assistance and
annual rental payments to farmers and ranchers to establish
conservation covers. Numerous conservation practices are available to
farmers and ranchers, including grasses, trees, filter strips, riparian
buffers, wetland restoration, and high-value wildlife habitat. A
conservation plan is required for each CRP participant.
FSA has an agreement with NRCS to provide conservation planning for
CRP participants, specifying the responsibilities of each agency. For
instance, NRCS is responsible for certain technical eligibility
determinations and for developing conservation plans, while FSA is
responsible for compliance determinations and consultations with other
Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
agreement also specifies reimbursement rates based on NRCS's Cost of
Programs model. The current agreement was negotiated after the 2008
Farm Bill and is in effect through 2012.
Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, FSA and NRCS meet to
discuss anticipated needs for the coming year and develop a cost
estimate. FSA reimbursed NRCS $62.3 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and
$56.3 million in Fiscal Year 2009.
FSA has a similar agreement with the Forest Service to provide
conservation planning for participants installing tree practices under
both the CRP and the Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program.
CCC funds are provided to the Forest Service, which distributes those
funds to State Forestry agencies in the form of technical assistance
grants. State Forestry employees provide technical assistance services.
FSA is reimbursing the Forest Service for $1.9 million in both 2008 and
2009.
Beginning in 2006, FSA explored providing technical assistance
through private sector vendors. Private sector vendors can be used to
redirect technical assistance when NRCS experiences high workload and
would have difficulty providing timely completion of CRP conservation
plans. Under FSA authorization, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, North
Dakota and Minnesota have all implemented pilot programs using private
sector firms to develop conservation plans. Though the scope of these
projects has been limited, we generally do not find that the private
sector plans cost less than equivalent plans developed by NRCS. We are,
however, generally pleased with the quality and timing of the plans
developed by these partners.
Although the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is not
one of our ``traditional'' technical service providers, I would like to
mention their efforts. The 2008 Farm Bill provided direction for the
Secretary, acting through NASS, to conduct an annual survey of cash
rental rates. We have coordinated with NASS and will plan to use their
statistically reliable cash rent data as a basis for establishing CRP
rental rates.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a component of
CRP, is a partnership among USDA, tribes, states and, in some cases,
private groups. By combining CRP resources with state, tribal, and
private programs, CREP provides farmers and ranchers with a sound
financial package for conserving and enhancing natural resources.
State agricultural and environmental agencies are required to
contribute significant technical assistance resources for CREP
development and implementation, including outreach, conservation
planning, and engineering services. They also monitor CREP outcomes.
State agricultural and environmental agencies typically contribute ten
percent of the total project cost in the form of ``in kind'' technical
assistance services.
Emergency Conservation Program
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) provides emergency funding
and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate
farmland damaged by natural disasters and for carrying out emergency
water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. Funding for
ECP is discretionary and is generally made available in supplemental
appropriations acts. Between six and seven percent of ECP funding is
used for technical assistance, or approximately $1 million annually.
FSA provides technical assistance for certain ECP practices,
including debris removal, fence restoration and grading and shaping of
damaged land. FSA has an agreement with NRCS to provide technical
assistance for practices requiring greater conservation expertise,
including restoration of conservation structures and other
installations as well as drought emergency measures. FSA also has an
agreement with the Forest Service to provide technical assistance for
ECP for hurricane disasters that affect tree stands.
Timing of this assistance is critical to meet the oftentimes urgent
needs of producers facing damage from disasters. FSA and NRCS staffs
work hand in hand at the state and county level to provide efficient
and timely service to producers. For instance, FSA and NRCS staffs in
Tennessee are working at the state and county level to provide
assistance to farmers affected by recent flooding.
Grassland Reserve Program
FSA and NRCS jointly administer the Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP). GRP is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support
for working grazing operations, enhancement of plant and animal
biodiversity, and protection of grassland. Applications may be filed
for a rental contract or an easement with NRCS or FSA.
Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses
of the land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing
practices and operations related to the production of forage and
seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons.
NRCS is responsible for administering the easement acquisition
process, while FSA is responsible for rental contracts and payments.
NRCS provides leadership on regulations and provides all on-the-ground
technical assistance for both easements and rental contracts. FSA
manages financial assistance funds, which includes making payments for
rental contracts and easement acquisition. Both agencies collaborate on
policy decisions and day-to-day program management.
Monitoring, Assessment, and Evaluation
Monitoring, assessment, and evaluation is necessary both for CRP
assessment and reporting, and for providing sound science essential for
effectively administering CRP and other conservation programs. The need
for monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of conservation programs has
been recognized by Congress in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills, and the
2008 Farm Bill includes language defining technical assistance to
include ``. . . activities, processes, tools, and agency functions
needed to support delivery of technical services such as . . .
monitoring and effects analyses.''
FSA uses Federal, state, university, and other organizations to
conduct monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of the effects of
conservation programs. The results are used to improve program
delivery, target program resources, quantify program benefits, and
communicate program accomplishments. Between 2003 and 2008, FSA used
$2.25 million from multiple funding sources to identify, quantify and
document environmental benefits generated by CRP. These analytical
results have been used: to develop conservation initiatives using
highly beneficial CRP practices; to develop environmental goals for the
FSA strategic plan; and to guide CRP decisions, such as informing
USDA's decision not to permit `early outs' from CRP contracts in 2008.
CRP monitoring and evaluation activities are coordinated with, and
complement, USDA's Conservation Effects and Assessment Program (CEAP).
CEAP is a multi-agency, multi-year program tasked with ascertaining the
effectiveness of conservation practices, such as those implemented
under CRP, in providing environmental benefits.
Other Technical Assistance
FSA also implements programs to review potential exposure to
potential hazardous materials associated with the operation of former
grain storage facilities or associated with foreclosed properties. FSA
uses private sector engineering firms and agreements with the
Department of Energy to use Argonne National laboratory to conduct
groundwater site investigations and to develop remediation protocols.
Technical Assistance Savings and Coordination
FSA and NRCS have significantly reduced technical assistance costs
over the past 10 years. FSA, with assistance from NRCS, automated the
environmental benefits index calculations for the CRP general sign-up
in 2003. In addition, FSA and NRCS automated field-level information
regarding soil erodibility and other features, allowing the automation
of eligibility determinations and reducing costs. FSA and NRCS further
streamlined the tasks necessary to implement technical assistance for
CRP. Because of these automation and other streamlining changes, the
costs of general sign-up activities were reduced by approximately 30
percent per contract and the costs of continuous sign-up activities by
approximately 18 percent per contract.
The re-enrollment of expiring 2007-2010 CRP contracts offered
additional opportunities for streamlining and cost savings. FSA and
NRCS reviewed the tasks required for re-enrollment activities and
agreed to implement changes that resulted in significant savings for
all re-enrollment contracts. In addition, FSA worked with NRCS and
agreed to make adjustments to NRCS model estimates to reflect time
savings on CRP contracts with forestry-only practices. Technical
assistance costs for these contracts were reduced by 29 percent per
contract.
Further, FSA and NRCS work together to facilitate implementation of
their various program-related workload constraints. For example, FSA
provides projections of potential CRP enrollment activities to NRCS to
help NRCS plan for potential workload demand changes.
Conclusion
Technical assistance is a vital component of effectively and
efficiently placing conservation practices on the ground. Each form of
technical assistance--including timely and efficient conservation plan
development, broad outreach to current and potential program
participants, and monitoring and assessment on conservation program
impacts--helps conservation programs achieve their intended purpose.
FSA works closely with Federal and non-Federal partners to ensure all
FSA program participants receive high quality technical assistance to
meet program requirements.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Coppess.
Mr. White, as Mr. Goodlatte mentioned in his opening
statement, he and I represent regions within the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. We just introduced a bill, H.R. 5509, that we
believe builds on the success of the farm bill program and
would bring some regulatory certainty for our farmers. We
believe additional technical assistance and third-party
providers will play an integral role in helping farmers comply
with regulations. So it is important that the system is
working.
Can you tell us, are there particular areas or regions that
have an overly complex system of delivering conservation? Are
there areas or regions with a successful conservation delivery
system that could be replicated and that we can learn from? And
how is the agency working to make sure technical service
providers are available to help provide assistance?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Mr. Holden, what you and Mr. Goodlatte
have put in that bill is absolutely, in my view, vital. The
concept of certainty is exactly what our producers need.
When you look at the Chesapeake Bay and they talk about
millions of tons of this and millions of tons of that, what
does it mean to a producer? I can't get my arms around it. What
we have to do is be able to give the producers the certainty
that if they do these practices on their farms that helps the
water quality, nobody is going to mess with them. And I just
want to thank you and applaud both of you so much for doing
that.
Regarding different areas of the country, we are
geographically challenged in some areas like in Alaska or maybe
Guam. We have the northern tier of states where you have a
limited amount of time you can work. So there are limiting
factors out there. But, as we move across the country, we have
the staff and the ability to effectively address those issues,
sir.
And as far as the emerging issues, we will have to find a
way to accommodate them within the existing system.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Coppess, in your opening statement, you address a
number of ways that NRCS and FSA are working together with
limited resources and particularly NRCS staff shortages. Can
both of you elaborate on and be more specific about how you are
working together to make sure technical assistance is
available?
Mr. Coppess. Certainly, and thank you.
The bulk of that work obviously happens at the field level.
And we are quite proud of--I think both of us are quite proud
of the service centers and the work that they do in the
counties across the country where NRCS provides the technical
assistance on CRP and the BCP program especially; how we sort
out getting the sign-ups, the contracts through; and then
working with NRCS very closely on technical assistance, on
conservation plans in particular for CRP. I think it is
probably one of the biggest workload areas that we see with
them.
The Chairman. Mr. White.
Mr. White. I would just echo what Jonathan says. We do have
a good working relationship. We have some defined roles that
seem to be working well together. We get along well. I think
from Maine to Hawaii most of our field offices get along, and I
hope that we continue with that.
To be more frank, some of this kind of bothers me a little
bit, because I don't want folks trying to put a wedge between
us. We have enough challenges and enough work out there, and we
need to work together, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Coppess, if you could just get back to me on the matter
we talked about before the hearing started, the transferring of
funding from one CREP program in western Pennsylvania to the
lower Susquehanna CREP----
Mr. Coppess. Absolutely.
The Chairman.--and the concerns that producers have brought
to my attention about rental rates.
Mr. Coppess. We will look into it right away.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome to both of you.
Mr. White, I appreciate some of your comments regarding
NRCS programs that are voluntary and incentive-based. We have
worked hard to keep it that way, to keep the incentives there
for farmers to do the right thing, because they have a lot of
incentives on their own to do the right thing as well.
And then you, just a moment ago in response to the
Chairman's question with regard to our concerns about what is
going on with the Chesapeake Bay, you said, ``If they do these
things, nobody is going to mess with them.'' Would that that
was the case. I absolutely agree with that principle, that if
you do the right thing, nobody should mess with you. But we are
confronted with those here in this Congress who think that they
should mandate actions that will have an impact not only on
those who ``aren't'' doing these things, but also on those who
are and who have made tremendous progress for which they are
not getting proper credit.
The fact of the matter is that the phosphorous and nitrogen
that are flowing into the Chesapeake Bay--at least the portion
coming off from farms--has been reduced by half in the last few
decades. And it is entirely because of responsible management
on the part of farmers who have undertaken, both on their own
and with the help of the NRCS, voluntary, incentive-based
efforts to keep the Bay free and clear.
The Chairman and I are committed to continuing to work in
that direction and making sure that farmers not only can help
to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay, but also help the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and the economy of their regions
by staying in business, by keeping those farms in farmland
rather than being developed for other things, which are
probably the greater source of difficulties for the Bay, that
dramatic population growth in the region.
But in that regard, in terms of helping them, one of the
things that I have noted is the number of certified technical
service providers is a little over 1,100 today, and I believe
that is nearly \1/2\ as many certified TSPs compared to 2004.
What do you believe has contributed to the drop in TSPs, and
how can this program be improved?
Mr. White. One digression, sir, I wanted to let you know,
last time you were here you kind of took me to the woodshed a
little bit on this six percent CCPI. I want to let you know, I
have met with our staff--I felt awful. I couldn't sleep for a
couple of days--and we are going to manage that thing so we
stay below that six percent. So I just wanted to let you know
that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, we appreciate that. That means more
resources available to farmers, and that is a good goal.
Mr. White. So the TSPs, I will just say, we could have done
one heck of a better job. The registration requirements were
cumbersome. We were having them do online training through
AgLearn, and some of it wasn't appropriate to them. We would
have a national agreement with, say, a group, and then there
would be state-level requirements that were added to that.
And we are trying to address that. We actually did a survey
with the TSPs, and we found out the things that were wrong. We
have tried to address a lot of them in the TSP final rule.
And let me just talk about the state requirements.
Mr. Goodlatte. So you are saying that you think with better
management you can provide better services with fewer
personnel.
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I do.
We understand on the state-level requirements we need that
better consistency. We have it now that if the state has an
additional requirement it has to come to Washington and we have
to approve it. And if it is not required by state law, they
better have a good reason. You have a lot of folks coming after
me that can address this with great specificity, but we hope to
really improve that process, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Do you find that there is a cultural problem with NRCS
officials who are suited to provide technical assistance, but
may have difficulty providing program administration? And, if
so, should this be corrected without hiring additional
administrative employees?
Mr. White. You know, when we talk about the integration of
our systems, I don't know how you carve out, okay, this is
piece X and this is piece Y. It has to be part of a seamless
system. That is what we are working towards. As far as the
administrative efforts and the technical efforts are blended
into a seamless unit, that is what our streamlining is trying
to do, and I think we can accomplish that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Great. And I hope you sleep
better after this hearing than the last one. I hate to think I
might be responsible for any sleepless nights.
Mr. White. Well, sometimes you need a little incentive.
Mr. Goodlatte. Right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
We have three votes coming up. I think we have time for the
gentlewoman from South Dakota for any questions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you for the testimony. We
appreciate your insights.
I would like to talk just a little bit about some of what
is going on in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota. We have
some wetlands issues, as you know; and we have a lot of
producers in South Dakota who are seeking wetlands
determinations. They are simply waiting for certification from
NRCS.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that NRCS needs some
assistance in certifying these wetland determinations since
only the conservation technical assistance accounts can be used
to certify them. So, as it stands, those accounts are used to
provide planning before wetland determinations in addition to
salaries for over half of the NRCS employees in the state. And
for this reason there just aren't enough funds in that account
to allow states like South Dakota--again, others in our
region--to properly address the wetland determinations in a
timely manner. In eastern South Dakota alone, there are over
2,000 determinations waiting for certification.
So, Mr. White, what plans do you have to allow more
technical assistance, or the agency more broadly, what the
Secretary may have for NRCS to determine the wetlands? Is it
possible to allow more flexibility with funds allocated to NRCS
so that they are able to assess all of these determinations
with other funds?
And, finally, would be it possible to allow a special
increase in conservation technical assistance accounts for
states like South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota, who have
this lingering challenge?
Mr. White. The answer is, yes, ma'am, we can do that. We
have a provision in the President's budget request for extra
money on what we are calling little soil and water action
teams. I think the House approved $12.5 million.
What we would do, Ms. Sandlin, you know how soil surveys
are kind of done, where we would put a team of soil scientists
in a county and they would actually work themselves out of a
job, and then you would move them to another county and they
would do the soil survey there. This is kind of what we are
thinking, where we would put an agronomist, biologist,
engineer--whatever is needed--to actually address that.
I talked to the people in South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Minnesota, that if this goes all the way through, that is
probably where we would put some of these extra teams to just
work on that. They wouldn't have to do anything else, do these
wetland determinations for these producers, because we can't
survive with a couple thousand backed up. So, ma'am, I hope to
address that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, I appreciate that, and we look
forward to working closely with you. You have some great folks
in the office there in South Dakota that we work closely with,
with my constituents who are wanting these determinations
sooner rather than later.
As Mr. Coppess knows, we have folks through his agency that
are concerned about the calculation for the SURE payments and
the delays that we have experienced there. This leads me to my
final question for both of you, and that is, the functions that
each of your agencies deliver and the reimbursement activity
that this creates. Could either of you talk about the
administrative burden that you believe may exist, and how we
can find some efficiencies as it relates to how the
reimbursement rates are calculated?
Mr. Coppess. Well, thank you. And certainly, as you
mentioned with SURE and quite a few programs, we have no
shortage of struggles in trying to get some complex programs
out. Administratively, we have done everything we can to try
and alleviate some of those, but we bump up against various
hurdles as we do.
I think the basic concept that we go through in using NRCS
on the technical service side, and then reimbursing through CCC
funding and all that, we see a lot of that working and working
quite well. One of the things that I have noticed since I have
been at the agency, and one of the reasons why it is our top
priority right now, is this modernization effort. Part of what
we struggle with is trying to work through years and years of
processes that have not been improved, and on very antiquated
systems that do not allow us to necessarily communicate as
efficiently and as well as we need to within NRCS, with RMA,
with the other agencies that we work with.
So as we go through this process over the next few years we
are very much trying to clean that up and improve how we work,
not just internally, and not just at the field level, but
across the country and with other agencies. I think that we
will see significant improvement on time at the countertop, on
time for sign-up, on time from sign-up to payment, and every
bit of that process.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. My time has almost expired. What is
the timetable for the modernization effort to be completed,
assuming you have all the resources you need?
Mr. Coppess. Making the big assumption that we continue to
get the funding we need to complete it, we are looking at final
contract pieces in 2013, and a lot of the big modernization
push being completed by 2014. That is the time-frame we are
looking at. We are always looking to speed that up.
One of the most important things about how we are operating
this modernization effort is it is not going to be built in the
dark and rolled out at one time. We are pushing very hard to
take care of those things we can clean up now on the short
term, get those out of the way, start making those improvements
so that our customers see it, so that our field employees see
it, that you all can see that this is progressing as we want
to.
So while the end date is never going to be as clear as we
want it to be, the most important thing is that we make that
progress as we go, and that we demonstrate that progress as we
go.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlewoman.
We have about 7 minutes, since it is the first vote of the
day, I think we have time for the gentleman from Missouri's
questions.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for Mr. White. Mr. White, you are a fellow
Missourian. You know where I come from and the problems that we
have with the Missouri River and the Mississippi River with
regards to the Corps of Engineers and their dictates from the
Fish and Wildlife to increase the habitat for the pallid
sturgeon. They are digging these 20-30 deep chutes, 100 wide,
300 long, 20-30 acres per mile, and they are dumping this soil
in our River.
Now, we had a letter to Secretary Vilsack to discuss this
with him. And during a Committee hearing he sat in the chair
between you and Mr. Coppess, and he made the commitment to work
with us on the various issues we had. And this is extremely
important. You are spending $80 million a year right now
studying the hypoxia issue in the lower Mississippi River
basin, and this is a part of it, and yet we are dumping soil in
there.
I have a copy of the letter; and, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to enter it into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The document referred to is located on p. 67.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. He said in there that--despite his
commitment he stated that, ``It is highly unlikely that the
relatively insignificant temporary discharge of sediments and
nutrients from the chute and backwater restorations has any
significant bearing on the hypoxia issue in the Gulf of
Mexico.''
Mr. White, this doesn't make sense. Number one, he is not
working with us. Number two, he is not recognizing the issue of
the sediment that $80 million study is out there to work on.
And, number three, if those things are not important, then why
in the world are we fining our farmers who live along this, who
allow some sediment inadvertently to drop into the river? Can
you answer those questions, please?
Mr. White. Well, if anyone dropped the ball on working with
you it would be me, because I was at that hearing, and I should
have followed up, sir. And I will make that commitment now.
I think what we have in this particular instance, it
strikes me that there is really kind of a conflict between a
couple of different laws, the Endangered Species Act, which
says you need the sediment in there for the birds that nest on
the sandbars and some of the fish that live there, and, as you
well know, under the Clean Water Act, you have to get a 404
permit to dredge and fill or dump any sediment. And which one
takes supremacy? USDA does not administer either one of those
laws.
So what I would commit to you, sir, is that--if we could
meet and if I could get some specificity on how I can carry
this issue forward for you and for the producers you represent
to try and seek a resolution.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Well, what is your answer to the $80
million study here that we are working on over the next 3 years
with--let me get the agency here--well, it is with your group--
to work on this, and yet we are dumping sediment in there and
the Secretary doesn't think it is important. Why are we
spending $80 million if it is not important?
Mr. White. Well, I think that any type of scientific
knowledge advances us. And for that reason, particularly on
something so critical as this that we have the actual science
that can inform our subsequent decisions. I think that would be
money well spent if it points us a way out of this or towards a
solution.
I understand your frustration with this, and I understand
how, on the face of it, it doesn't seem to make sense that you
would dump sediment at the same time you are trying to control
sediment.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Well, you are fining my farmers who live
along this who inadvertently or unintentionally dump small
amounts. They are getting fined for it, yet the Corps is
dumping 548 million tons. I mean, that is thousands of acres of
soil that could be in production. They were digging slews,
chutes for fish and birds and whatever here that doesn't make
any sense.
Mr. White. Right. Well, I know that if we look at the
Missouri River a long time ago, it used to meander back and
forth on about a mile floodplain. And the amount of sediment it
carries now because we kind of channelized it a bit is, like, I
don't know, 75 percent less than it used to carry, and because
of the levees and whatnot, we have actually stopped some of
that meandering. So I know that the contention is that they are
only putting in a fraction of the sediment that the river would
have taken prior to manipulation, and the study will help us
find out better answers to all of these.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Over the last several years, their
intention was to stop the influx or the putting into the river
the sediment, to lower the sediment that is in there, and now
we are going the other direction, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir, I understand.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I apologize for running over here, but I
appreciate and look forward to your discussion on the side with
my staff and myself.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Chairman. We will recess and return right after the
votes. There are three votes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Subcommittee will reconvene.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. White and Mr. Coppess, for joining us today.
I wanted to ask you a bit about the efficiencies that you are
trying to improve, the streamlining initiatives that you have.
I had a constituent from my district who had contacted my
office, and he basically was concerned that there was a number
of duplications that were occurring, duplications in paperwork
with the FSA and NRCS, and finding it very tedious and
sometimes unnecessary.
And so, just what actions is the NRCS undertaking as part
of your streamlining initiative to simplify conservation
deliveries? If you would just give me some information on that,
Mr. White, I would appreciate it.
Mr. White. Yes, ma'am. Part of this initiative is to--well,
one of the things that would really help your client is, next
year, when we implement this client gateway. By the end of next
year we should have a pilot out there, where a producer at home
can apply on one form without leaving their house. The same
form would be available in the office for people who don't have
Internet connectivity.
But it would just be one form. That person would be able to
see their documents, their contracts, their plans, and all
kinds of stuff like that. I think that would be a huge
advantage. And we do have one form now for applying for all
conservation programs. And if we can get that online, it would
be even better.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. So that will be online soon, or not?
Mr. White. The projections are we will roll the pilot out
toward the end of 2011. There has to be a lot of IT work done
between now and then.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. What are the barriers to that? Obviously,
some IT issues?
Mr. White. Yes, ma'am. It is a programming issue. I think
we have adequate funding; we are trying to fund the effort.
But, essentially, it is mostly the diversity--we have a lot of
stand-alone software that are wonderful, but the first place
they have been integrated is at the field office.
I will give you a specific example. The WIN-PST program
tells us how pesticides migrate through every soil. So we can
tell if there is a problem with high groundwater or something
like that. So I am working on your conservation plan in
something called Tool Kit. And I see that you use glyphosate on
a five percent loam. Well, I have to get out of Tool Kit, go
into WIN-PST, find out how glyphosate moves through, get that
information, go back into Tool Kit and put it in. And that is
the kind of stuff that we have to make seamless.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. They can't talk to each other, basically.
Mr. White. Yes, the first place they are being integrated
is at the field office, and they should be integrated up here.
And that is what this effort will do.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Okay. Are there any other barriers that
you see to provide a more effective and efficient delivery of
conservation?
Mr. White. Well, probably, the standard answer from any Fed
worth his or her salt would be to say ``I need more,'' but I am
not saying ``more.'' I think we can manage this. I think I have
seen enough where, if we can get these efficiencies done, we
will be able to do the job, ma'am.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Mr. Coppess, do you have anything to add
regarding that?
Mr. Coppess. Well, thank you. And some of what Chief White
was explaining sounds familiar with just different terms and
different computer problems, or different software link-up
problems. That is a big part of it.
Our system is antiquated. You know, your accounting office
is basically an island in the IT system, and it has no way to
connect across counties. And so, many producers that have land
in two counties, including my family, has to go from county to
county. And, oftentimes, in the offices, we have them printing
off from one printer, to get off one system, to take it over
and do a sign-up on another computer to use the other system.
So these things have just been sitting for too long without
that modernization and that upgrade.
And then around all of that are these forms and processes.
And farmers are very candid in their feedback about what they
feel are too many forms, too many signatures, too many things
they have to go through. And a lot of that is just built up
over time and over changes in programs and new programs being
added in and new requirements.
And so, what we want to do, as we go through this
modernization effort, we want to take the opportunity that, as
we clean up or improve our IT system, that we clean up
everything around it, that we actually simplify these processes
and this system so that we are not trying to modernize
something that doesn't make sense when it is on paper.
So it is a big process. Obviously, we need to have that
kind of linkage with NRCS, in what we do, with RMA, with other
agencies. And that is part of what is driving the way we are
putting all of this together as we go through the system.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. All right. Well, I thank you both for that
answer, and my time has expired.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chief White, thank you for your presence here today.
Mr. Coppess, nice to see you once again. I don't know that
I have any questions about the timing of the CRP sign-up, but
maybe you will have something else to report in that regard.
Chief White, I was particularly pleased to hear you say
that you had sleepless nights after being questioned by Mr.
Goodlatte. That is encouraging to me, that someone is paying
attention to the issues that we raise, and one of those I
raised with you last year in my office. I very much appreciate
our conversation. It was about the Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program, AWEP. And we talked about the statutory
requirements of the law that would give priority to water
quality issues.
In the first round of AWEP applications, Kansas was shut
out, in my opinion, in large part because the priority was not
given by NRCS, as required by law. You indicated that that was
going to be corrected. And I assume, as far as I know, that is
the case. Is that true?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. I think you received about three of
them this time around.
Mr. Moran. That is encouraging to hear. Thank you.
Mr. White. More sleepless nights.
Mr. Moran. Good.
The second part of my question, though, relates to another
topic that we talked about, and that is about conversion of
agricultural land--irrigation agricultural land to dryland
farming. And the statute says that NRCS approved conservation
activity for, ``the conversion of agricultural land from
irrigated farming to dryland farming.''
I am not aware that NRCS has yet approved conservation
activity to carry out that--mandate that language. Is that
true, and is there something in the works?
Mr. White. Mr. Moran, I think that some of the AWEPs that
we approved this year may deal with that very issue. I will
have to check and make double-darn sure.
But beyond that, we also were able to send some extra EQIP
funding out to the Ogallala. And I will just have to see how
exactly they used it, but it was for the water conservation in
that particular area. And I will have to follow up with
specifically what that was, sir.
Mr. Moran. Okay. I appreciate that very much and look
forward to continuing this dialogue.
And then let me ask a question about EQIP. One of the
things that troubled me in Senate comments in regard to EQIP
was that we can take money out of EQIP and use it for spending
in other areas. That was part of the conversation that took
place in the Senate Agriculture and Nutrition Committee.
And I have done at least checking in Kansas, and, from what
I can tell, EQIP funding is over-subscribed, meaning that there
are more applications than funds available.
And so my question is, is NRCS on track to utilize all EQIP
funds allocated in the farm bill? And if that is not the case,
is there a process by which you can reallocate funds not spent
elsewhere to states like Kansas that have pending applications?
Mr. White. Generally, every year we have a backlog of EQIP.
And we are on track to use all the appropriated funds. As you
know, what is authorized is not necessarily what is
appropriated. There is that gap there. But, yes, sir, we are on
track to use it.
Mr. Moran. So the suggestion, at least by a Senator, that
we can use EQIP funds to pay for food and nutrition programs
because there are excess funds in EQIP, there are no excess
funds, is that true?
Mr. White. Not of the appropriated amounts.
Mr. Moran. Thank you for your testimony. I think that is
the conclusion of my questions.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chief White and Mr. Coppess, for being with us
today.
This question I am going to ask has been touched on by
several of my colleagues, and if you all could add to this, I
would appreciate it. We have talked about how--and understand
that our farmers are great conservationists, stewards of the
land. But yet, there is still a lot of regulatory pressure
being put upon the agriculture community.
How, in our conservation programs, are you able to help the
ag community deal and cope with and respond to, in an effective
way, these regulatory pressures that are continually coming to
them?
And, Chief White, if you can go first, please.
Mr. White. Yes, sir. And I will try to be brief.
We have an actual statutory stipulation in the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program that says one of the
purposes of EQIP is to help producers meet or avoid regulation.
And I don't mean avoid like hiding; I mean avoid like, there is
not a problem here for you guys to even regulate. So that is
one of the driving factors.
We have tried to work with regulatory agencies to that end,
like the sage-grouse initiative in the West. The sage-grouse is
on the candidate list which could be listed as endangered
species. We want to avoid having that bird even listed because
of the impact it could have on our ranchers out there.
So we are working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
we are kind of mirroring what Mr. Holden and Mr. Goodlatte have
conceptualized in their bill, the concept of certainty. So if a
rancher does A, B, C, and D that help the sage-grouse, that
person will not have to worry if the sage-grouse becomes listed
under the Endangered Species Act. We meet regularly with the ag
groups and the conservation groups. We are working with the EPA
and Fish and Wildlife and all the other bodies to try and find
ways that we can effectively use the conservation practices to
help producers with these regulatory requirements.
In California, in Mr. Costa's area, the air quality is just
huge for these producers. So there is a way that we can help,
sir, and we are actively engaged in that.
Mr. Kissell. Okay.
And Mr. Coppess?
Mr. Coppess. Sure, thank you.
In much the same way that Chief White was mentioning, under
CRP, particularly the continuous sign-up authorizations and
capabilities that we have, we have tried to maintain some
flexibility and to try to move those around and do some of the
same or similar-type issues with both sage-grouse, lesser
prairie chicken, in some of these areas where they are in a
threatened situation or endangered situation.
But we can help farmers then, using the continuous sign-up
capabilities, to get that habitat in place, to use CRP
continuous to then improve habitats so that they have less of a
problem to worry about, from the regulation side of it.
I think we have looked at a myriad of things on using
filter strips and runoff and waterways and those sort of
things, and how we can continue to be flexible and maintain
that flexibility under continuous sign-up.
Of course, the general sign-up, when we get to it,
hopefully in the near future, also allows us to take into
consideration under the Environmental Benefits Index how we
best target the limited acres and funding that we have to help
the producer with the various issues that they face.
And so, we continue to use that flexibility, to use all of
our authority to try and help producers out on the ground where
they need it most in these areas. I think, as you do that, sort
of, the ounce of prevention helps a lot further down the line
instead of trying to correct problems after they have become a
problem, to try to prevent them from becoming a problem.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you.
Chief White, you had mentioned earlier in your testimony
about some great success stories of resource conservation,
maybe Upper Mississippi Basin, things like this.
Sort of real quickly, because my time is running out, how
did those come about? And how are we taking those lessons to
other places?
Mr. White. A lot of it is just hard work over the years,
from the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s. Our
data for the Upper Mississippi show that, if it were not for
conservation practices, sediment would be 70 percent worse in
our rivers. Actually, the number is 69 percent, to be precise.
But it is the terraces, the buffers, the waterways, the
conservation tillage that the men and women who own and operate
that land have put on to conserve the resources, not just for
us today but for sustainability so our kids have the bounty we
have today.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. Minnick. No questions.
The Chairman. The gentleman passes.
The gentleman from California?
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, first of all, thank Chief White and the folks
there with the efforts that have been made recently with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, not only with the
European grapevine moth and the funding for additional
detection, but the eradication in recent weeks is very
important.
In addition to that, we appreciate the continuing support
on, as you noted, the air quality issues that are a tremendous
problem. With over 300 crops growing in one of the most
productive agricultural regions in the entire country,
nonetheless we, as a closed-in air basin, have tremendous air
quality issues we have to deal with. The Nisei Farmers League,
the Grape and Tree Fruit League, and the California Table Grape
Commission, as well as our local ag commissioners, appreciate
the partnership in working together.
I have a couple of questions I want to go in, as we delve
into these issues, Chief White. You know the drought and the
air quality issues have created tremendous strain on the
agriculture economy in our valley. It is my understanding that,
as it relates to air quality specifically, the number of
qualified participants--well, I know this--clearly outweigh the
availability of resources, that there are still 521 high-
priority applications that remain unfunded.
Is there any way to get to that backlog in Fiscal Year
2010?
Mr. White. There is, in any fiscal year, give and take. You
know, some states will say, ``We don't need this much.'' Other
states like Kansas say, ``Good gracious, send it our way.'' So
between now and September, we will be doing stuff like that,
and it is quite possible we will be able to get more funding
out there.
I know that--help me with the number, but what we did out
there last year was the equivalent of removing, like, 153,000
cars from the road every year, just in the air quality effort.
Mr. Costa. Yes. No, it was significant.
Mr. White. And if we can do something like that again, what
I am hearing is that that air quality board might not even have
to write ag as a part of those regulations they do out there. I
don't know if that is true or not.
Mr. Costa. On those 521 remaining high-priority projects
that are completed, do you have sense of how many Tier 0
tractors and engines remain in the valley? Have your folks come
back to you with any numbers?
Mr. White. No. I know, at one time, it used to be, like,
2,000. When they had that sign-up last year, people, like,
lined up around the building. I know, at one time, there was
2,000. And these 500, I assume, would be the highest ranked,
which would have probably those Tier 0 or maybe Tier 1.
Mr. Costa. I guess what we are concerned about is, if 521
applications from Fiscal Year 2010 end up having to be rolled
into Fiscal Year 2011, will there be any funds left in Fiscal
Year 2011 available for those additional applications for Tier
0 or Tier 1?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. When you look at 2011, the farm bill
stipulates that $37 million is to be used under the
Conservation Innovation Grants, subsection B for air quality.
That is, sort of, the minimum. So that would be disbursed.
California gets the bulk of that because of the regulatory
requirements. But then, above and beyond that, if there are
other EQIP funds, they would be eligible for that, as well, if
we can----
Mr. Costa. And, as you know, we have provided state
funding, as well, to support that.
Mr. White. Yes. You have state funding out there, and the
producers. That is 50 percent of it, as well.
Mr. Costa. Right. And we have gone from PM10 to
PM2.5. And, I mean, we are doing a tremendous amount
to deal with the issue.
Some have argued the USDA should not be engaged in such
programs to help farmers meet these regulatory standards. What
do you think is the USDA's role in supporting farmers who are
trying to comply with air quality regulations, whether they be
in California or elsewhere?
Mr. White. How we can provide them the technical assistance
and the financial wherewithal to meet those requirements. And
specifically in your area, aside from just the Tier 0
replacement effort, I know they have those--oh, they are kind
of like radar, they go on the back of a sprayer, that can read
where a tree is and turn the sprayer on and off. That is, like,
a 40 percent reduction in the volatile organic compounds can
come from that technology alone.
So, as we look at new technology, we have to make it
available to the producers at the local level.
Mr. Costa. Well, we are going to need your continued
support. We appreciate that. You know, some of us believe that
the current set of conservation programs are very helpful, but,
frankly, we need to do more. And I hope you concur.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. Costa. My time has expired, but thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Costa. And we will continue to work with the
Subcommittee and with both NRCS as well as FSA to help farmers
throughout the country.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran, had a follow-up
question.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for extending me this
opportunity.
Just, Mr. Coppess, anything to add in regard to that CRP
sign-up date? Has anything happened since we last visited?
Mr. Coppess. No, unfortunately, I have no new news on the
general sign-up for CRP. We are currently--the final EIS is
out, and we are currently in that no-action period where we are
taking comments on the EIS. And so, again, we will move it as
quickly as we can once those processes are completed.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks our witnesses for their
testimony and answers today.
And we would like to welcome our second panel: Mr. Steve
Robinson, President of the National Association of Conservation
Districts; Mr. John Lohr, Vice President, National Association
of FSA County Office Employees; Mr. Ron Leathers, Public
Finance Director, Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever; Dr.
Scott Manley, Director of Conservation Programs, Ducks
Unlimited; Dr. Robert Burns, Assistant Dean for Agriculture,
Natural Resources, and Rural Development, the University of
Tennessee; Mr. Steve Dlugosz--I hope I am pronouncing that
right, sir--Certified Crop Advisor, Lead Agronomist, Harvest
Land Cooperative, on behalf of the International Certified Crop
Advisor Program and the American Society of Agronomy; Mr.
William Braford, consulting forester, Bluechip Forestry,
Natural Bridge Station, Virginia.
When everyone is seated and, Mr. Robinson, when you are
ready, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF STEVE ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. I am Steve Robinson. I am a producer and
President of the National Association of Conservation
Districts. I own and operate a 900 acre grain, soybean, and
wheat family farm in Marysville, Ohio. And I have served as the
local district supervisor of the Union County Soil and Water
District since 1988.
I also manage Robinson Excavating, Inc., a family-owned
excavation business, where we specialize in ponds, waterways,
rock chutes, and many other conservation practices.
I am pleased to be here today on behalf of NACD to discuss
conservation program administration and delivery.
As a producer, I have had the opportunity to utilize farm
bill programs and assistance. Conservation practices on my farm
include nine water and sediment control structures, three
waterways, rock chutes, subsurface drainage, a wooded wetland,
builder strips, the use of no-till and strip-till on corn. And,
in addition to these conservation practices, I have 200 acres
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
For many of the conservation activities on my land, such as
the multiple water and sediment control basins I have installed
throughout my farm, I have not received any financial
assistance. However, the technical assistance provided by NRCS
has provided me with the necessary information and tools to
install these important conservation measures based on good
science.
As a contractor, I have seen firsthand how technical
assistance helps landowners install conservation practices that
reduce soil erosion and improve water quality. My work gives me
the opportunity to see the results of technical assistance,
from the conservation plan to the completed project on the
ground. NACD's top priority is to encourage landowners to adopt
conservation practices that provide countless public benefits
such as clean air, clean water, healthy soils, and wildlife
habitat.
Technical assistance delivery is the most critical element
to conservation program participation and conservation practice
adoption. However, as I talk with conservation district
officials across the country, the constant message is there is
not enough technical assistance funding to meet landowners'
needs and demands.
Insufficient technical assistance is the main barrier to
conservation practice adoption. While we recognize there has
been an increased investment in conservation programs, this has
come without an increase in staff needed to deliver additional
assistance.
For example, the Maryland Soil Conservation Districts have
identified a shortfall of 96 staff needed to meet the increased
workload resulting from the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. These
positions are critical to the adoption and implementation of
conservation efforts that will help achieve and improve water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
District and NRCS professionals can help these producers
implement best management practices and mitigate regulatory
burdens. The bottom line is that we support full funding for
NRCS to deliver farm bill conservation programs, and meet the
growing demand and need for technical assistance in concert
with conservation districts, TSPs, and other partners.
In this rather complex environment, we should examine all
potential improvements to effective, efficient conservation
technical assistance delivery. We would like to see full
accounting of staffing and technology needs required to fully
implement farm bill conservation programs and accomplish our
national and local conservation goals.
We seek the most direct and efficient structure for
conservation program delivery. For that reason, we support the
current consolidated conservation delivery with NRCS, and we
will measure all ideas by these standards.
We at NACD have formed a Farm Bill Task Force to, in part,
examine technical assistance requirements. And we will be
taking a close look at the question of how to improve technical
assistance delivery to farmers and ranchers. As you begin the
work of writing the 2012 Farm Bill, we hope to closely work
with your Committee to address this issue, and to ensure that
there are appropriate funding mechanisms for technical
assistance delivery.
Conservation districts are uniquely positioned to work with
the NRCS, TSP, and others to expand technical assistance
capacity. As we broaden and strengthen the traditional
conservation partnership, conservation districts are already
leveraging Federal funding to accelerate conservation
application on the ground.
The general public expects clean air, clean water, healthy
soils, and abundant wildlife habitat. As a nation, we need to
be fully committed to provide the necessary tools and
assistance to landowners to achieve these essential public
goals. This investment, along with appropriate conservation
incentives, will allow landowners to implement conservation
strategies and make the necessary changes to the landscape to
accomplish these vital goals.
The bottom line is that producers need quality technical
assistance to maximize the effectiveness of the financial
assistance they receive. Even without financial help, many
producers still rely on technical help to ensure that they are
putting quality practices on the land. It is the combination of
the two that makes America's conservation delivery system
effective and efficient.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of the conservation districts from around the
country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Robinson, President, National Association
of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C.
Good morning. I am Steve Robinson, a producer and President of the
National Association of Conservation Districts. I own and operate a 900
acre corn, soybean and wheat family farm in Marysville, Ohio, and have
served as a district supervisor for the Union County Soil and Water
Conservation District since 1988. I also manage Robinson Excavating,
Inc., a family-owned excavation business specializing in ponds,
waterways, rock chutes and wetlands. I am pleased to be here today on
behalf of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) to
discuss conservation program administration and delivery.
Across the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation districts are
helping local people conserve land, water, forests, wildlife and
related natural resources. We share a single mission: to coordinate
assistance from all available sources--public and private, local, state
and Federal--in an effort to develop locally-driven solutions to
natural resource concerns. More than 17,000 officials serve in elected
or appointed positions on conservation districts' governing boards.
Working directly with more than 2.3 million cooperating land managers
and local communities nationwide, our efforts touch more than 1.6
billion acres of private land. We support voluntary, incentive-based
programs that provide a range of options, providing both financial and
technical assistance to guide landowners in the adoption of
conservation practices, improving soil, air and water quality,
providing habitat and enhanced land.
Established under state law, conservation districts are local units
of state government charged with carrying out programs to protect and
manage natural resources at the local level. To assist in Federal
conservation programs implementation, our members work with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), as well as other Federal
agencies and state and county programs.
Among other things, conservation districts help:
implement farm conservation practices to keep soil and
nutrients in the fields;
conserve and restore wetlands, which purify water and
provide habitat for birds, fish and numerous other animals;
protect groundwater resources;
plant trees and other land cover to hold soil in place,
clean the air, provide cover for wildlife and beautify
neighborhoods;
assist local communities with stormwater management,
reducing runoff and keeping sediment out of streams and lakes;
help developers and homeowners manage their land in an
environmentally-sensitive manner; and
reach out to communities and schools to teach the value of
natural resources and encourage conservation efforts.
As a producer, I have had the opportunity to utilize farm bill
programs and assistance. Conservation practices on my farm include nine
water and sediment control structures, three waterways with rock
chutes, surface drainage, a wooded wetland, filter strips and use of
no-tillage and strip tillage on corn. In addition to these conservation
practices, I have 200 acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP).
For many of the conservation activities on my land, such as the
multiple Water and Sediment Control Basins I installed throughout my
farm, I have not received any financial assistance. However, the
technical assistance provided by NRCS has provided me with the
necessary information and tools to install these important conservation
measures based on good science.
As an excavator, I have seen first-hand how technical assistance
helps farmers install conservation practices that reduce soil erosion
and improve water quality. My work gives me the opportunity to see the
results of technical assistance from the conservation plan to the
completed on-the-ground project.
In many ways, farm bill conservation programs and policies help
keep me on the farm. While I get some support from commodity programs,
the conservation tools--both technical and financial--have helped me
and other producers avoid regulation and allowed me to continue farming
in an ever-changing environment.
Technical assistance is the backbone of Federal conservation
programs, enabling local NRCS field staff and districts to work with
landowners and state and local agencies to address local resource
concerns. Technical assistance is utilized to work with landowners on
all elements of conservation plans, from design and layout to
implementation. It is designed to help landowners understand the need
for and benefits of conservation practices and to outline necessary
steps or actions for farm bill conservation program participation.
Technical assistance is also utilized for conservation practice
evaluation and maintenance. Once a conservation system is established,
it must be maintained to ensure continued benefits.
Funding for technical assistance allows NRCS, conservation district
employees and technical service providers (TSPs) to meet face-to-face
with landowners on their operations, and help them design strategies to
address specific resource needs. Through these discussions, a
comprehensive conservation plan can be developed and financial
assistance programs such as EQIP or other programs can be utilized to
help meet the goals of the conservation plans. We are pleased to see a
new emphasis by NRCS to streamline procedures, use newer technologies,
and encourage more technical assistance delivered on the farm or ranch.
NACD's top priority is to encourage landowners to adopt
conservation practices that provide countless public benefits of clean
air, clean water, healthy soils and wildlife habitat. We are pleased
with the overall commitment provided for conservation programs in the
2008 Farm Bill.
Technical assistance delivery is the most critical element to
conservation program participation and conservation practice adoption.
However, as I talk with district officials across the country, the
consistent message is that there is not enough technical assistance
funding to meet landowners' needs and demands.
For example, Maryland Soil Conservation Districts have identified a
shortfall of 96 staff needed to meet the increased workload resulting
from the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). These
positions are critical to the adoption and implementation of
conservation efforts that will help achieve improved water quality in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Across the country, landowners are seeking information on how to
best manage their land. Demand continues to increase for additional
technical assistance to help interested landowners develop appropriate
conservation plans and practices regardless of the size of the tract of
land, land use type, or use of financial assistance. Many landowners
are ineligible for conservation programs, while others find the
application process complicated, time consuming, and sometimes
prohibitive to participation. It is important to reach all lands in a
watershed to achieve local and national goals for the area.
Insufficient technical assistance is the main barrier to
conservation practice adoption. While we recognize there has been an
increased investment in conservation programs, this has come without a
correlating increase in staff needed to deliver additional assistance.
More technical dollars are needed as program funding increases.
Increasing technical assistance is necessary to realize the full return
on our conservation investment.
In addition to more boots on the ground, paperwork burdens continue
to be a concern. Improved efficiencies and asset allocation need to be
achieved to allow technical personnel more time in the field.
Streamlining applications, reducing paperwork requirements and
increasing computer program compatibility could ease the burdens on
field office staff while also benefiting producers during the
application process.
We support NRCS Chief White's conservation delivery streamlining
initiative to reduce duplication of data entry, simplify conservation
delivery, and streamline business processes to achieve greater
efficiency and allow field staff to spend more time in the field with
customers delivering conservation assistance.
The bottom line is that we support full funding for NRCS to deliver
farm bill conservation programs and meet the growing demand and need
for technical assistance in concert with conservation districts, TSPs
and other partners. In this rather complex environment, we should
examine all potential improvements to effective, efficient conservation
technical assistance delivery. We would like to see a full accounting
of staffing and technology needs required to fully implement farm bill
conservation provisions and accomplish our national and local
conservation goals. We seek the most direct and efficient structure for
conservation program delivery and for that reason we support the
current structure of consolidated conservation delivery within NRCS. We
will measure all ideas by these standards.
NACD has formed a farm bill task force to in part examine technical
assistance requirements and we will look closely at the question of how
to improve technical assistance delivery to farmers and ranchers. As
you begin the work of writing the 2012 Farm Bill, we hope to work
closely with the Committee to address this issue and ensure that there
is an appropriate funding mechanism for technical assistance delivery.
Conservation districts are uniquely positioned to work with NRCS,
TSPs and others to expand technical assistance capacity. As we broaden
and strengthen the traditional conservation partnership, these local
advocates are already leveraging Federal funding to accelerate
conservation application on the ground.
Conservation districts have technical staff capable of providing
quality technical assistance and are well-equipped to receive and
utilize any new Federal funds for technical assistance to assist local
producers and program participants to put conservation practices on the
landscape.
Another growing issue as land continues to be fragmented and urban
and suburban areas continue to encroach on rural lands is that of small
acreage landowners. There is little to no technical assistance
available for this quickly growing group. Small acreage landowners
frequently are not eligible for Federal assistance programs, or rank
low due to the scale of their operation. As consumers seek more
locally-grown foods, it is imperative that these small acreage farmers
receive conservation technical assistance to meet their natural
resource concerns. Conservation districts have identified small acreage
resource issues through their locally led conservation efforts, but
assistance remains limited.
With the growing threat of regulations, such as EPA's new pesticide
permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act and the establishment
of TMDLs in the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds, private landowners
will have an even tougher time navigating an already difficult maze of
permits, regulations and bureaucracy. Landowners will be left with the
enforcement and the financial burden of compliance without guidance or
technology to do so.
Technical assistance is an essential ingredient to help these
landowners navigate through the complex maze of Federal bureaucracy.
Because they are known and trusted by local farmers and ranchers,
conservation districts are frequently the liaison between the landowner
and Federal and state agencies. Districts and NRCS professionals can
help these producers implement best management practices and mitigate
regulatory burdens.
The public expects clean air, clean water, healthy soils and
abundant wildlife habitat. As a nation we need to be fully committed to
providing the necessary tools and assistance to landowners to achieve
these essential public goals. This investment--along with appropriate
conservation incentives--will allow landowners to implement
conservation strategies and make the necessary changes to the landscape
to accomplish these vital goals.
The technical assistance provided by NRCS field staff, along with
the resources provided by conservation districts and state conservation
agencies, is critical to the success of conservation in the United
States. The bottom line is that producers need quality technical
assistance to maximize the effectiveness of the financial assistance
they receive. Even without financial help, many producers still rely on
technical help to ensure that they are putting quality practices on the
land. It is the combination of the two that makes America's
conservation delivery system efficient and effective.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
conservation districts across the country.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Lohr, before you begin, what county in Pennsylvania is
Norvelt located in?
Mr. Lohr. That is Westmoreland County.
The Chairman. Westmoreland County, okay. Okay, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LOHR, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FARM SERVICE AGENCY COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES, NORVELT, PA
Mr. Lohr. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is John Lohr, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before your Committee today.
I have worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm
Service Agency and its predecessor, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, for my entire adult
life, beginning as a part-time ASCS field assistant after high
school. Since 1978, I have been the FSA County Executive
Director at the Greensburg, Pennsylvania, service center.
I am here today representing NASCOE, the National
Association of Farm Service Agency County Office Employees.
Also, our national President, Myron Stroup of Kansas, is here,
sitting behind me. NASCOE is the organization that represents
all county-level employees of the Farm Service Agency, and we
are here today because we believe that USDA can administer and
deliver conservation programs in a more efficient and effective
manner.
Before the USDA reorganization in the mid-1990s, FSA's
predecessor, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, administered all USDA conservation programs. In fact,
the root of the county committee system is centered on the
administration of conservation programs created by the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Today, FSA staff and
county committees are still responsible for the largest USDA
conservation initiative, the Conservation Reserve Program.
This morning, I will explain a few of the reasons why
having FSA administer conservation programs makes sense for
producers and ranchers, as well as the American taxpayer.
With regard to program eligibility, both FSA and NRCS use
the same forms. It is redundant to have both agencies gathering
eligibility information. As for processing the application, FSA
maintains all records pertaining to the farm or ranch. At
present, either the producer or an NRCS employee makes numerous
visits or inquiries to the FSA office to gather the data to
complete a conservation application.
FSA also has extensive experience issuing payments and has
the software and training to make the payments in a timely
manner. The availability of all producer and farm eligibility
records in one location allows for faster and easier
resolutions when payment problems occur.
Since it is necessary for the NRCS staff to make frequent
farm or ranch visits, their offices are unattended on many
occasions. Each business day, every FSA office is continuously
staffed to service all program applicants. Allowing the FSA to
administer conservation programs would eliminate producer
frustration when they make trips or initiate phone calls to
NRCS only to find no staff in that office.
Additionally, the success of the current Conservation
Reserve Program demonstrates that NRCS and FSA can work
together, with FSA handling program administration and with
NRCS responsible for the technical aspects of the program.
Our proposal allows USDA to do more work without additional
resources. If FSA is responsible for conservation
administration, NRCS staff will have more time to spend with
farmers and ranchers, educating them about conservation
programs and ensuring the programs work as Congress intended.
Under the NASCOE proposal today, all phases of conservation
programs defined as administrative, like applications, contract
maintenance, and payments, would be the responsibility of FSA.
NRCS would be responsible for all phases of conservation
programs defined as technical, like conservation plan
development, on-site determinations, and contract compliance.
These assignments would allow each agency to utilize their
abilities and resources in the most effective and productive
manner. FSA has consistently been able to deliver programs with
a low average administrative cost. FSA would bring the same
level of delivery cost and efficiency to conservation program
administration.
Both FSA and NRCS are upgrading their technology and
business processes, FSA through the Modernize and Innovate the
Delivery of Agricultural Systems project, the MIDAS project,
and NRCS through the Conservation Delivery Streamlining
Initiative. Having FSA administer conservation programs would
go a long way toward assisting NRCS in reaching these two
streamlining goals: reducing field staff administrative
workloads by 80 percent and enabling their field staff to spend
75 percent of their time in the field providing assistance to
farmers and ranchers. With these two technology and business
upgrades under way, now is the time to make IT changes to
enhance FSA's administrative and NRCS's technical capabilities.
In summary, NASCOE supports FSA being responsible for all
conservation program administration. We believe that allowing
NRCS personnel more time for producer technical assistance and
program education will ensure that Federal conservation
programs will be more cost-effective and provide a better USDA
service to our farmers and ranchers.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohr follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Lohr, Vice President, National
Association of Farm Service Agency County Office Employees, Norvelt, PA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Lohr,
and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee
today.
I was born and raised on our family's dairy farm in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania. I have worked for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency and its predecessor the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for my entire adult life,
beginning as a part-time ASCS field assistant after high school in
1968. Since 1978, I have been the Farm Service Agency County Executive
Director in my home county and today also cover Fayette County from a
consolidated office in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. I am here today
representing the National Association of Farm Service Agency County
Office Employees (NASCOE). I am pleased that our national President,
Mr. Myron Stroup of Kansas, is also here today.
The National Association of Farm Service Agency County Office
Employees (NASCOE) is an organization that represents the county level
employees of the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). NASCOE was originally chartered in 1959. FSA
employees are in contact with virtually every producer in the United
States, and NASCOE is proud to represent all county office employees,
85% of whom are association members.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we are here today
because we believe that the USDA can administer and deliver
conservation programs in a more effective and efficient manner. With
today's Federal budget situation, Federal employees will continue to be
required to do more with less for the near future. Natural Resource and
Conservation Service employees in the field serve American agriculture
well, but what has become increasingly evident to Farm Service Agency
(FSA) county office employees is that there are many workload
duplications by FSA and NRCS field staff. NASCOE members at the field
office level regularly relate to us that NRCS employees indicate they
prefer to work at what they do best, the technical field work, and that
FSA is better equipped and ready to handle conservation program
administration.
Please recall that before the USDA reorganization in the mid
1990's, FSA's predecessor, the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), administered all USDA's conservation
programs. In fact, the root of the county committee system is centered
on the administration of conservation programs created by the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Today FSA staff and locally
elected county committees are still responsible for the largest USDA
conservation initiatives, the Conservation Reserve Program and the
Emergency Conservation Program.
This morning I will explain just a few of the reasons why having
FSA administer conservation programs makes sense for producers and
ranchers as well as the American taxpayer.
With regard to program eligibility, both FSA and NRCS use the same
forms. It is redundant to have both agencies gather the eligibility
information. FSA is required to load all the data and maintain the
forms. FSA already keeps farm and producer eligibility records for both
agencies. FSA field office personnel have experience and training in
completing eligibility forms so it is more cost-effective for FSA to be
the office to initiate the application and determine eligibility. In
addition, it is much more efficient to have eligibility completed prior
to the applicant's discussion with NRCS on the technical practice
determinations.
As for processing the application, FSA maintains all records
pertaining to the farm or ranch. FSA county office staff creates and
updates farm records, the Common Land Unit, acreage reports, etc. If
FSA has the responsibility for conservation administration, producers
would visit the FSA office to initiate the conservation program
application and have access to their farm's data. At present, either
the producer or an NRCS employee makes numerous visits and inquiries to
the FSA county office to gather and/or update the data to complete the
application. Allowing the FSA office to handle the application process
would save time and eliminate confusion for both the producer and the
office staff.
FSA has extensive experience issuing payments and has the software
training to make the payments in a timely manner. The availability of
all eligibility, producer and farm records in one location allows for
faster and easier resolutions when payment issuance problems arise.
Since it is necessary for the NRCS staff to make frequent farm or
ranch visits, their office is unattended on many occasions. Each
business day, every FSA office is continuously staffed to serve program
applicants. Allowing the FSA to administer conservation programs would
eliminate frustration when producers make trips or initiate phone calls
to the NRCS office only to find no one available to assist them.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) currently allows the FSA
office to take the application, determine payment eligibility, generate
and approve the contract, and make cost share and annual rental
payments with NRCS making technical determinations. The success of the
CRP demonstrates that NRCS and FSA can work well together with FSA
handling the program administration and with NRCS responsible for the
technical aspects of programs.
Our proposal, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, allows
USDA to do more work without additional resources. If FSA is
responsible for conservation administration, NRCS staff will have more
time to spend with farmers and ranchers educating them about
conservation programs and assuring the programs work as Congress
intended.
Under the NASCOE proposal today, all phases of conservation
programs defined as administrative, applications, contract maintenance,
payments, etc., would be the responsibility of FSA. NRCS would be
responsible for all phases of conservation programs defined as
technical, i.e., conservation plan development, on-site determinations
and contract compliance.
These assignments allow each agency to utilize their abilities and
resources in the most efficient and productive manner. FSA has
consistently been able to deliver farm programs with a low average
administrative cost. FSA would bring this same level of delivery cost
and efficiency to conservation program administration.
Both FSA and NRCS are in the process of upgrading their technology
and business processes, FSA through the Modernize and Innovate the
Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) project and NRCS through the
Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative. Having FSA administer
conservation programs would go a long way towards assisting NRCS in
reaching its Streamlining Initiative goals of reducing field staff
administrative workloads by 80%. It would also enable their field staff
to reach the goal of spending 75% of their time in the field providing
conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers. NRCS has indicated
concern with the administrative burden on field office technical staff
from expanded roles for contract development and management. NRCS's
Streamlining Initiative encourages a move to a ``natural resource
centric view'' concentrating on identifying and solving resource
problems and moving away from a ``financial assistance centric view.''
The NRCS Streamlining Initiative highlighted as one of its top
objectives the implementation of programs through alternative staffing
and delivery approaches designed around more efficient business
processes to minimize the non-technical workload on field staff.
Now is the time to make the IT changes to enhance FSA's
administrative and NRCS's technical capabilities. For example, FSA and
NRCS use different GIS software programs, ArcGIS and Toolkit,
respectively. This is not practical. It is extremely inefficient to
develop and maintain two USDA systems to administer farm and
conservation programs. We can no longer afford these inefficiencies.
In summary, NASCOE supports FSA being responsible for all
conservation program administration. We believe that allowing NRCS
field personnel more time for producer technical assistance and program
education will assure that Federal agricultural programs will be more
cost efficient and provide a better USDA service to our farmers and
ranchers. Finally, with our current budget situation, allowing FSA to
administer these programs assures the American taxpayer that USDA is
being the best steward possible with the funds we have been entrusted.
Thank you for allowing me to present testimony today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lohr.
Mr. Leathers?
STATEMENT OF RON LEATHERS, PUBLIC FINANCE DIRECTOR, PHEASANTS
FOREVER, INC.; GOVERNMENT GRANTS
COORDINATOR, QUAIL FOREVER, ST. PAUL, MN
Mr. Leathers. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to come here and talk to you
today. My name is Ron Leathers. I am the Public Finance
Director for Pheasants Forever, and I am here representing the
700 chapters and the 119,000 members of Pheasants and Quail
Forever.
We are here to talk about our Farm Bill Biologist Program.
The Farm Bill Biologist Program is a unique partnership between
the state fish and wildlife agencies, Pheasants Forever, and
USDA that uses the third-party technical assistance provisions
of the farm bill. And I would like to thank the Committee for
that opportunity to work jointly to deliver technical
assistance on the landscape.
Pheasants Forever's program is incredibly efficient and
effective. Using the power of partnerships, we are able to
deliver conservation to landowners as efficiently and
effectively as any program we have seen. Our State Fish and
Wildlife agencies and Pheasants Forever are passionate about
this opportunity. To deliver habitat is our mission and the
state fish and wildlife agencies' mission. In fact, we are so
efficient we are able to deliver $3 to $5 non-Federal dollars
for every Federal dollar that is invested into this program.
Our program started in 2003 in Representative Herseth
Sandlin's State of South Dakota with four farm bill biologists.
I was one of those farm bill biologists in 2003. At that time,
the program was funded solely by South Dakota Game, Fish, and
Parks and Pheasants Forever. In 2004, we were able to bring in
a contribution agreement with NRCS to help fund additional
bodies, and, in 2004, we expanded the program into Nebraska.
Since that time, we have added 62 biologists in 11 states.
New opportunities present themselves each week, and we look
to take advantage of those opportunities. Mr. Chairman, as we
spoke about earlier, we are looking to put some positions in
Pennsylvania to help sell the Pennsylvania CREPs. And we were
encouraged to hear that the amendments to the CREP program are
moving forward.
Our farm bill biologists work as an integrated component of
the USDA field offices, specifically the NRCS field office, but
they work with FSA staff, as well, to implement the CRP and the
various programs FSA delivers.
We are addressing landowner needs by holding landowner
workshops to encourage landowner participation in programs,
both generally, talking to the landowners that walk through the
door, and in targeted specific landscape resource needs. Farm
bill biologists have conducted landowner forums to help
landowners understand the specific programs, and this will be a
critical step as we move forward with the next general CRP
sign-up. All of our farm biologists will hold these landowner
forums to help landowners understand the program, to help
landowners understand the EBI, and to help landowners deliver a
competitive bid.
Administratively, the process has been relatively
straightforward, and I would like to thank the Committee and
NRCS for putting this into place. Our administrative team
tracks expenses, invoices the partners, and puts the positions
in place. This relative straightforwardness has helped to keep
our administrative costs low, and, again, we appreciate that
for our partners.
Before I wrap up, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for the
Committee's assistance in continuing to provide CTA fund
availability. Conservation technical assistance funds are what
fund the contribution agreements that keep our bodies in the
field offices working with the landowners. We have willing non-
Federal partners in several states, but limited CTA funds are
limiting our program's ability to grow.
Again, our partnership efforts result in incredible cost-
effectiveness, providing conservation technical assistance to
our landowners. Our joint biologists are doing some outstanding
conservation work, but the availability of CTA funds is
limiting our capacity to expand the program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
address the Committee and for your leadership in this area. I
would be happy to address any questions the Committee has.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leathers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ron Leathers, Public Finance Director,, Pheasants
Forever, Inc.; Government Grants Coordinator, Quail Forever, St. Paul,
MN
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ron Leathers. I
am the Public Finance Director for Pheasants Forever and I reside in
Blaine, MN. I am a professional wildlife biologist with expertise in
wildlife and Farm Bill Conservation Program delivery. My primary
responsibilities as Pheasants Forever's Public Finance Director are to
oversee administration of funding partnerships with public entities and
to develop organizational capacity for new partnership development.
I am here today representing the 700 nationwide chapters of
Pheasants and Quail Forever. These chapters complete on average more
than 25,000 individual projects annually with conservation minded
farmers and ranchers on 500,000 acres. The vast majority of these
projects is completed on private lands and involves grassland
establishment and management. Projects involve the establishment of
nesting, brood rearing, and winter cover for pheasants, quail, and a
wide array of wildlife.
Collectively, our members and supporters represent a sizable cross-
section of our nations' citizenry, and we appreciate the increased role
and importance of conservation in agriculture and its role in private
land stewardship that has led to consensus and partnerships among
government and private interests, including farm and commodity groups,
individual farmers and ranchers, and hunters and anglers.
It is our view that the conservation titles of recent farm bills
represent the most comprehensive array of conservation programs ever
enacted in conjunctions with Federal farm legislation and we recognize
and appreciate the strong support from you Mr. Chairman and your
Subcommittee in providing this authorization. I'd like to offer a few
thoughts about Pheasants Forever's efforts to implement the
conservation programs of the farm bill and to share some of the
individual program success stories that we have benefited from.
Program Background
Pheasants Forever's Farm Bill Biologist program began in 2003 with
the placement of four wildlife biologists in Natural Resources
Conservation Service county service centers throughout eastern South
Dakota. At that time, the program was funded solely by South Dakota
Game, Fish, and Parks. In 2004, South Dakota NRCS was able to direct
funding toward the partnership using the conservation technical
assistance provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill, resulting in the hiring of
two additional Farm Bill Biologists.
From its beginnings as a four employee, three-party partnership in
South Dakota, the Farm Bill Biologist program has grown to its current
level of 62 biologists in 11 states funded by 42 separate entities (see
map below). Much of this growth has occurred in the past 2 years as PF
began to recognize the overall value of this partnership to the
organization's mission delivery and began to direct additional
resources toward capacity and program infrastructure development. New
partnership opportunities emerge weekly, and Pheasants Forever
anticipates growth to continue at the current pace for the next 2-3
years.
Farm Bill Biologist Program Summary By State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Number of Producer/
State Implemented Biologists Landowner Acres
Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota 2003 7 9,659 458,021
Nebraska 2004 15 7,486 641,226
Minnesota 2004 5 4,802 21,407
Ohio 2005 7 6,959 102,473
Missouri 2005 -- 348 29,360
Wisconsin 2007 5 2,470 13,045
North Dakota 2008 3 847 43,186
Iowa 2009 5 170 3,752
Illinois 2010 5
Kansas 2010 (April) 5
Colorado 2010 (May) 3
Idaho 2010 (July) 2
----------------------------------------------------
Total............ 62 32,741 1,312,470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Farm Bill Wildlife Biologist Program Summary
The Nebraska Farm Bill Biologist partnership began in October 2004
and has had a significant impact on Nebraska's natural resources since
that time. The partnership is implemented with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission and Pheasants
Forever, Inc. This partnership was formed with six Farm Bill Wildlife
Biologists working with private landowners across the state to deliver
conservation programs. Since 2004, the program has expanded to include
nine biologists and is anticipated to grow by an additional five
biologists by the end of 2010.
From October 2004 to September 2009, the partnership impacted over
290,123 acres. A key to the success of the partnership is the ability
of the biologist to not only work with landowners to encourage
enrollment in conservation programs, but to also guide landowners
through every step in the contract enrollment, approval and completion
process. In the partnership history, biologists have allocated their
time spent delivering USDA conservation programs in the following
breakdown:
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) = 42.3%.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) = 24.1%.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) = 16.9%.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) = 9.5%.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) = 6.6%.
Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) = 0.6%.
The Farm Bill Biologist partnership may best be described as a
`one-stop shopping' location for landowners to both learn about and
enroll in conservation programs. The success of this partnership is
indicated by many numbers and results, but perhaps the best indicator
of success is the fact that landowners in the state typically have
about a 2 month waiting period to be able to meet with a biologist.
Another example of the partnerships' success is that its biologists are
primarily responsible for the great successes experienced in fully
allocating all the available Continuous CRP acres in the state for CP33
and CP38. In fact, both programs have a substantial waiting list of
landowners waiting for additional acres to be allocated to the state.
In addition to these traditional activities, the Nebraska
partnership biologists conduct many other activities that promote USDA
conservation programs and their delivery. Some of those additional
activities include:
Conducting 12 to 15 `Landowner Habitat Tours' across the
state each year. These tours to local sites allow landowners to
see firsthand the results and benefits of USDA conservation
programs on their neighbors lands.
Conducting eight to 12 landowner `Prescribed Burn Workshops'
across the state each year. These workshops help landowners
understand the value of prescribed burning and how to conduct a
safe and effective prescribed burn using USDA conservation
programs as a resource.
Formed six local `Prescribed Burn Associations' across the
state. A local prescribed burn association can best be
described as `neighbors helping neighbors' conduct burns in a
method that provides training, manpower and equipment.
Conducting ten to 15 `Landowner Conservation Program
Information Meetings' across the state each year. These forums
offer landowners the opportunities to learn how USDA
conservation programs can work in their farming and ranching
operation. These forums will become increasingly important and
increase in frequency when a general CRP sign-up is announced.
Minnesota Farm Bill Biologist Program
In Minnesota, five FBB's are funded through state and local
dollars. 70% state funding is leverage by 30% from a combination of
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Pheasants Forever
chapters, and other private groups including Lake Associations,
Watershed Districts, and local Sportsmen's groups. The majority of work
is preformed on the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP),
Wetlands Reserve Program, and MN's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) program.
The lack of Federal funding is a limitation to further expansion of the
MN program.
Wisconsin Farm Bill Biologist Program
In Wisconsin, FBB's work in cooperation with the NRCS, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, FSA, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Priority programs in WI include the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP) as well as the Emergency Watershed Protection Program-Floodplain
Easement (EWPP-FPE). Both of these programs are permanent conservation
easements designed to restore and protect drained and degraded wetland
habitats. In 2010, WRP funding supported 27 projects on 2,778 acres. Of
the $9.5 million allocated to WI, $3 million was an additional request
by the state due to strong landowner interest and backlog of
applications.
Ohio Farm Bill Biologist Program
In Ohio, FBB's assisted with the 2nd CRP--State Acres For wildlife
Enhancement (SAFE) proposal, and have assisted with statewide USDA
trainings/workshops. Staff assisted in changing statewide standards and
specifications for CRP seed mixes to increase wildlife and pollinator
diversity.
South Dakota Farm Bill Biologist Program
Since 2003, South Dakota partners have increased the number of
positions from four to seven located throughout eastern South Dakota.
The Farm Bill Biologist in Moody County signed up the nation's first
CRP State Acres For wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) contract and Pheasants
Forever Farm Bill Biologists played a critical role in program
promotion and sign-up for the SAFE program, enabling the state to fully
expend its original allocation of SAFE acres within the first 2 weeks
of the sign-up.
Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, and Idaho FBB Programs
In each of these states FBB programs have been implemented in 2010.
Staff will be working on FSA's Conservation Reserve Program and the
entire suite of NRCS conservation programs. State wildlife agencies are
valuable partners in many of the partnerships. It is expected that
FBB's in these states will provide assistance to landowners
participating in the upcoming CRP general sign-up. Conducting landowner
forums to provide information on how to submit competitive bids for CRP
will be a priority in all states FBB programs.
Program Administration
Program implementation involves distinct management and
administrative functions. Pheasants Forever's program implementation
team includes a coordinator with responsibilities for partner
coordination and new partner development, a manager with supervisory
and mentoring responsibilities, and an administrative team with
responsibility for project accounting, reporting, and HR.
Farm Bill Biologist Program administration is provided by Pheasants
Forever's Grant Department. The department is responsible for all
centralized financial and accounting functions. Grant administrators
track program payroll and monthly expenses, distribute expenses among
various funding agreements, invoice partners, submit progress and
financial reports, and conduct regular budgeting and cash flow
analyses.
Administrative Areas of Concern
Administratively, implementation of the NRCS Contribution
Agreements is a relatively straight-forward process. Pheasants
Forever appreciates the efforts of the Committee and NRCS to
address concerns we have raised previously related to year-to-
year program stability. We offer the following areas of concern
and ask the Committee and NRCS's assistance in addressing them.
1. Increased Funding for Conservation Technical
Assistance
NRCS funding for Pheasants Forever's Farm Bill
Biologist program typically comes from either direct
program technical assistance funds, or general
conservation technical assistance funding. Both sources
are important to meeting the needs and desires of the
nation's agricultural producers.
Conservation technical assistance funding in
contribution agreements provides the Farm Bill
Biologist the opportunity to holistically evaluate the
resource needs and landowner desires for the property--
independent of program availability. This initial
habitat planning process helps to ensure that the
biologist is addressing all resource needs instead of
focusing on those needs that can be efficiently
addressed by a single program.
Increased technical assistance funding provides not
only the opportunity to address the full suite of
resource needs for a specific property, but also helps
to provide the best value for the taxpayer. Pheasants
Forever's Farm Bill Biologist Program provides $3 to $5
in non-Federal funding for every $1 in Federal
investment.
2. Cash-flow
At current staffing levels, the budget for Pheasants
Forever's Farm Bill Biologist program exceeds
$3,500,000 annually. Although the grant department is
extremely efficient at invoicing partners--invoices go
out within 15 days of receiving monthly expense
reports--Pheasants Forever carries in excess of
$100,000 in federally reimbursable expenses associated
with the program at any given time.
Cash flow has become a primary factor limiting
program growth. Without advance funding from partners,
the organization is unable to outlay the necessary cash
to meet payroll and monthly expense needs of the
program. For all new partnerships, Pheasants Forever
requires sufficient advances from partners to ensure
neutral cash flow. Two potential options that could be
explored to address the cash-flow concern for Federal
funds include:
Provide a cash advance option in
Contribution Agreements.
Allowing cash advances equal to the estimated
expense for a 60 day
window would ensure neutral cash flow,
reducing the burden on part-
ners and allowing continued program
expansion.
Provide for pre-contracted hourly
rates in Contribution
Agreements. Providing an option for pre-
contracted billable rates in
Contribution Agreements would help expedite
the invoice process and
reduce the Federal portion of out of pocket
expense incurred by
Pheasants Forever.
3. Allowability of administrative expenses
Pheasants Forever's annual direct program
implementation expenses exceed $300,000. All
implementation expense burden to date has been born by
non-Federal partners--much of this from the state fish
and wildlife agencies and Pheasants Forever chapters
who have supported not only the administrative expense
associated with their portion of the agreement, but the
administrative expense associated with the Federal
share as well. Allowability of administrative expenses
in NRCS contribution agreements has not been
sufficiently clarified and in the absence of clarity,
has been denied. However it is critical to the
program's stability that administrative expenses
associated with the Federal share of the program are
born by the Federal agreement.
As Pheasants Forever pushes toward a decade of partnership on the
Farm Bill Biologist Program we ask that the Committee and NRCS continue
to pursue flexible opportunities to work with Pheasants Forever and all
your non-Federal partners to maximize ``on the ground'' benefits of
Farm Bill conservation programs in this cost-effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to address
two additional related and important issues. First, the final rules for
the Conservation Reserve Programs have not yet been published. These
rules are important to the overall implementation of the program and a
necessity prior to the upcoming general sign-up. Final rules will
implement many important changes from the 2008 Farm Bill including the
updating of cropping history requirements for CRP eligibility. It is
imperative that rules are published soon and that information
concerning eligibility and the Environmental Benefits Index be made
available in order to ensure an open and successful general sign-up.
Secondly, we are still awaiting implementation of the ``Open Fields''
or voluntary public access provisions of the farm bill. In this case
$50 million in funding is available for 2010-2012 and we are losing
valuable time as we wait for rules to be published. Any assistance the
Committee can provide in these areas would be much appreciated.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Manley?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT W. MANLEY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC., RIDGELAND, MS
Dr. Manley. Thank you all very much for having Ducks
Unlimited at the table here today to talk about the
conservation title of the farm bill. Just having a seat at this
table is definitely very important to us, and we appreciate it
very much.
Ducks Unlimited thinks that the farm bill is really the
most important piece of legislation in giving us a safe and
abundant food supply in this country, for sustainable
landscapes, and for agriculture and natural resources. It is
one very important piece of legislation, to say the least.
Ducks Unlimited is a not-for-profit wetlands and waterfowl
conservation group. We span Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. We
have over a million supporters across these three countries. I
am one of a team of directors for Ducks Unlimited whose
responsibility is to get our conservation programs delivered on
the ground.
I live in the South Jackson, Mississippi, and I primarily
oversee those 15 states of the Southeast, so there may be a
little southern flair to my comments here this morning.
The most important thing really is that Ducks Unlimited
thinks the current farm bill is actually very solid and
successful, and we have talked about a lot of the challenges
here today. I want to talk about some of the great things about
this farm bill that we have today.
I think it has a great balance between what we call working
lands conservation and restoration of natural communities. It
is just as much about working with the ag producers and
livestock ranchers as it is about putting wetlands and
grasslands back on the landscape.
One of the great examples of a working lands program, of
course, is EQIP. Ducks Unlimited is involved in water
conservation practices with EQIP and rice farmers down in Texas
and other parts of the country. And then another example is
Ducks Unlimited's involvement in delivering the Wetland Reserve
Program, which we did in a very large way leading up to the
2008 Farm Bill.
Again, the great thing about the farm bill today is it is a
great balance between what we call, Farm the Best--Restore the
Rest. It is very positive.
The landscape initiatives that Chief White mentioned
earlier, Ducks Unlimited also thinks they are extremely
important, very effective. The Ag Water Enhancement Program,
the Mississippi River Basin Initiative, these landscape
initiatives are definitely targeted at resource concerns and
landowner needs, and have been very effective as we move
forward.
Probably the thing that I think has been the most effective
in moving the farm bill and conservation programs forward is
really the state and local governance of programs. You know,
each state and each locale within a state has different
socioeconomic needs, different landscape issues. Every place is
unique. And if you allow the states and the locales to mold or
shape the rules of these programs to meet their issues and
needs, that is much more effective than an umbrella of rules at
a national level that just doesn't fit all cases and scenarios.
So that state and local governance of programs is extremely
important.
Certainly, there are still challenges to the farm bill as
we have it today. And we have heard it repeatedly within this
group here, we have heard it repeatedly from the floor, that
the technical assistance funds are not adequate to move all of
the great programs forward. These are technical assistance
funds that can be used for both the FSA and the NRCS and for
partnerships like Mr. Leathers and I have talked about,
partnerships where Ducks Unlimited or Pheasants Forever or
other groups help you get your programs delivered. Diversifying
this capacity through partnerships and through additional TA
funds will be the answer to getting these great programs on the
ground in the future.
I would like to give you a quick proof of the power of
partnerships. Up to the 2008 Farm Bill, there were 2 million
acres of WRP, Wetland Reserve Program, delivered in the whole
country. Half of that was delivered in the Southeast states.
And in almost every state you had an NGO or you had a state
conservation group that was partnering with the NRCS to get
that done. That is over half of the WRP acres.
The last thing is the very positive state and local
governance of programs is also one of the biggest challenges.
So I would like to see as much of the rules, regulations,
specifications that go with the delivery of these programs to
be left up to the states and locales, because that is where we
can make these things work in the future.
So, with that, I would like to close and just thank you for
a seat at the table here today. And I will defer over to Dr.
Burns. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Manley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott W. Manley, Ph.D., Director of Conservation
Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Ridgeland, MS
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) is pleased to testify before the House
Agriculture Committee on the successes of the ongoing Conservation
Title of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 2008 (i.e., Farm Bill).
We also appreciate the opportunity to provide general recommendations
for improved conservation delivery in the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill. The
farm bill is the most important legislation in assuring a safe and
abundant food supply for citizens of the United States and for
conserving our precious natural resources on which the strength of this
country has been built. We commend Congress for its focus on ensuring
the long-term strength and viability of this important legislation.
Ducks Unlimited is a nonprofit wetlands and wildlife conservation
organization with affiliates in both Canada and Mexico. I am one of a
team of Conservation Directors for DU with responsibility of building
and delivering on-the-ground programs to improve wildlife, water and
soil resources. In particular, I work in our Southern Region, which
covers 15 south-central states from Kansas to New Mexico east to the
Atlantic Coast. Our region hosts some of the most productive lands in
the United States for both agriculture and wildlife, including the
Lower Mississippi Valley, Gulf Coastal Prairies, and the Southern Great
Plains. It is in these fertile regions of the country that great
examples of farm bill successes and challenges are demonstrated.
Highlights of Success:
1. Balance of Working Lands and Restored Natural Lands--The current
farm bill has what I believe to be a good balance in programs
that conserve wildlife, water, and soil resources on working
production lands and programs that restore natural communities
such as wetlands, grasslands, and forest. A prime example of a
working lands program would include the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) while an example of a restoration
program would be the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Together,
these programs give landowners choices to address conservation
issues in light of what the land needs and in consideration of
what works in their agribusiness operations. Simply put, it
promotes DU's shared philosophy of ``Farm the Best--Restore the
Rest.''
2. Landscape Initiatives--Other highlights of success from the 2008
Farm Bill are the various landscape initiatives to address
targeted resource concerns. Examples include the Agriculture
Water Enhancement Program which allows producer and
conservation groups to address aquifer depletion concerns
throughout the southern region. Another example is the
Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI), encompassing the
floodplain throughout the Upper and Lower Mississippi Valley,
to address soil and nutrient loss leading to the hypoxia issue
in the Gulf of Mexico. DU will be working with several partners
to deliver an MRBI project in the Illinois River watershed this
coming year. This particular project will help restore and
enhance critical waterfowl and wildlife habitat while also
reducing nutrient runoff that would end up flowing into the
Gulf of Mexico.
And as we are aware, given the current human and ecological tragedy
involving the Deepwater Horizon spill, the fragile ecosystems
of the Gulf Coast will need additional resources to protect and
restore these essential marshes, not just for the millions of
migratory birds and other wildlife that depend upon them for
their survival, but for the people and communities that depend
upon them for their own economic survival. DU, working with
partners like the NRCS and the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, are responding. Working with these partners, DU
will focus on restoring and enhancing upwards of 20,000 acres
of wetland habitat on lands adjacent to or near Gulf Coast
marshes, in particular the Chenier Plain of Southeast Texas and
Southwest Louisiana.
These initiatives are invaluable in addressing specific resource
concerns that if left unchecked, would be devastating to
agricultural and wildlife resources, and also impact citizens
across the United States in the future.
3. The level of future interest in WRP enrollment in several
regions of the country, particularly the Great Plains and
Intermountain West, will hinge on the ability of NRCS to
implement a WREP reserved rights program that most importantly
is supported by working ranchers. WREP represents an
outstanding opportunity to achieve wetland conservation through
partnerships between ranchers and the wildlife community.
Reserving the grazing rights to the landowner with a reduced
easement payment will be critical to protecting and restoring
areas critical to wetland dependent wildlife. We commend NRCS
for its efforts thus far in implementing this and look forward
to working with them to make WREP a success.
4. State and Local Governance of Programs--In large part, the
various conservation programs in the 2008 Farm Bill are
governed and administered at the state and local levels. This
is critical to success, as resource needs, sociodemographics,
and economics of states and locales differ. These differences
can be an asset to programs given one has flexibility in
program implementation and administration. Conversely, the
differences can render a program ineffective with no
flexibility. A good example of success is the current state
governance over the appraisal process of easements values in
WRP. Each state is given latitude to develop values with
various appraisal techniques and offer easement purchases at
various prices across a state. This is great progress compared
to past practices of individual and complicated appraisals on
an easement by easement basis and has in part contributed to
the resurgence of this popular conservation program. Another
example of success is EQIP, where the various locales within a
state are responsible for developing practices that address
resource concerns, and applying those practices to conserve
natural resources.
Challenges to Address:
1. Capacities to Deliver--There are challenges remaining that if
addressed in the 2012 Farm Bill, would set the stage for this
country to make unprecedented strides in agricultural
conservation. One of the most important challenges is lack of
capacity to deliver conservation practices and programs on the
land. Overall, the actual conservation programs have ample
funding for practices (what we call Financial Assistance), but
do not have ample funding to administer and apply the practices
on the ground (Technical Assistance). This FA:TA balance is not
sufficient to help the people help their land. This is
evidenced by backlogs of conservation program applications and
unobligated FA funds at the end of the Federal fiscal year. We
believe a balance in funding must be restored.
2. Diversifying Capacity to Deliver--Once a balance is restored,
one must diversify sources of increased capacity. Certainly
adding staff within various USDA offices (e.g., Natural
Resources Conservation Service) is needed. But also, bringing
various conservation partners into the mix, including DU and
others, adds capacity and diversity. Partnerships and partner
organizations need the same technical assistance funding as do
our various agencies, as at the end of the day even a not-for-
profit must break even and be a not-for-loss. These partnership
organizations have the knowledge, skills, abilities,
experience, positive attitude, and landowner/producer trust to
make farm bill programs a success. Providing the avenues and
funding to diversify capacity to deliver programs is crucial to
helping people help the land.
3. Benefits of Partnerships--The following example demonstrates the
need to form conservation partnerships to deliver farm bill
programs. Through 2008 just over 2 million acres of wetlands
were protected and restored across the United States under WRP.
Just over half (1.1 M acres) were within the 15 states of DU's
Southern Region. Partnerships, either with Ducks Unlimited or
the state conservation agencies (e.g., Missouri), were present
in nearly every one of those 15 states. The states with
partnerships accounted for a significant portion (1.0 M acres)
of accomplishments leading to the 2008 Farm Bill. Capacity and
progress afforded by conservation partnerships cannot be
underestimated.
4. Administrative Flexibility--Beyond limitations imposed by
capacity to deliver, the other main challenge to success is the
need for more administrative flexibility within states and
locales. The very thing that has led to program success (state
and local governance) can still at times be limiting. Examples
include state's preclusions on rulings regarding WRP 7 year
ownership rule and Conservation Reserve Program county caps
blocking enrollments. We believe that to all degrees possible,
the states should be able to assess resource needs,
sociodemographics, and economics and make decisions to foster
success of programs. In the end, we must position ourselves and
our programs for conservation success.
On behalf of Ducks Unlimited, I want to thank you all for the
opportunity to address the successes of the 2008 Farm Bill and provide
general recommendations for improved conservation delivery in the
future. We are truly committed to conservation of wildlife, water, and
other natural resources, and believe in the motto--``Farm the Best--
Restore the Rest.'' The farm bill is the most important legislation in
assuring a safe and abundant food supply for citizens of the United
States and for conserving our precious natural resources--especially
the land that is the very foundation of both agricultural and wildlife
productivity--on which the strength of this country has been built. We
commend Congress for its focus on ensuring the long-term strength and
viability of this important Act.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Burns?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. BURNS, Ph.D., P.E., ASSISTANT DEAN,
AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT & PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
EXTENSION, KNOXVILLE, TN
Dr. Burns. Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the
discussion today.
For the past 7 years, I have led a national program that
certified technical service providers in the comprehensive
nutrient management area. So my comments today will really be
focused on opportunities we have to improve the efficiency of
program delivery using TSPs.
I would like to start by noting that I think NRCS should be
commended for their excellent work with conservation
programming. It is of critical importance.
Two points that I would like to bring up today, though, are
the need for increased policy consistency by NRCS at the
Federal, state, and local levels in regard to TSP programming,
and, second, there is a need for increased follow-up of actual
plan implementation after the planning stage. And this is
especially true with technical service providers.
One of the suggestions that I would make is that NRCS
should implement a national certification policy review
committee that reviews deviations from the national policy by
state NRCS offices. The current farm bill indicates that NRCS
should establish a national certification policy in regards to
qualifying third-party TSPs. But, in practice--there is such a
national policy, but, in reality, it is not enforced at the
state NRCS level. Many state NRCS offices have established
either different or additional certification criteria that do
not follow the national policy.
In the years that I ran the national certification program,
we made an effort to track these states that varied and
differed and didn't recognize the national certifications. In
May of this year, I came up with a list of a dozen such states
that deviate from the national policy.
Of even greater concern is the fact that NRCS, at the
national level, has not historically tracked or approved any of
these deviations that are occurring. So what is going on at the
state level is really unknown at the national TSP level. In
fact, the national TSP coordinator would call our program and
ask us if we knew what was going on in some of these states.
As you can imagine, as a TSP, this is very frustrating
because you gain a national certification and then find it is
not national in nature. So, specifically, I think NRCS should
implement its current national TSP certification policy and
effectively ensure that state NRCS offices comply. In addition,
this national TSP certification policy review committee I
believe that should be established tracks the state NRCS TSP
policy in a timely manner, and either approves or disapproves
these deviations.
Second, I would like to suggest that TSP qualification
requirements should be streamlined to reduce the time burden
required of TSPs to gain and maintain certification.
Because of these inconsistencies in policy, TSPs face
different criteria in many different situations. They face an
ever-changing set of certification requirements to remain
qualified to receive USDA funds for their efforts. In many
cases, TSPs are required to meet redundant qualification
requirements and training in different states, many times
states in the same region, to work within each of those states.
This current lack of NRCS policy oversight at the national
level in regards to TSP certification at the state level
results in different offices developing different policies for
the same programs. It has resulted in many qualified third-
party consultants electing to either not serve as TSPs, or
electing to stop maintaining their TSP certification as the
certification requirements become too burdensome. Again, I
think a national review committee to look at this and try to
streamline these could be very helpful.
Third, I believe that clear and specific standards for
conservation programming and technical assistance should be
established to ensure similar-quality deliverables are being
provided by NRCS employees and TSPs. Specifically, when working
with comprehensive nutrient management planning and preparation
across the U.S., it has become very apparent to me that the
quality of CNMPs being prepared by both NRCS employees and
third-party TSPs vary considerably. While there is a large
variation in the quality of the plans being done by both NRCS
and TSPs, it is my experience that generally the quality of the
CNMPs prepared by TSPs are higher than those that are prepared
by NRCS employees.
The current national NRCS CNMP guidance is essentially a
listing of components that should be included in the CNMP with
no specific guidance on how they should be prepared. So, at the
national level, NRCS should establish clear and specific
conservation program assistance examples to meet the minimum
quality requirements across the nation, so that people can see
what that is and we can meet that quality requirement
regardless of where we are.
And, finally, to close, I would like to comment about
improved follow-up and assistance with conservation planning
implementation. Conservation planning is just that; it is
planning. To implement those plans, we have to go back with
follow-up. NRCS does a good job of that, in my opinion, because
they are there on the ground in the counties. The technical
service provider system, however, provides no funds for those
consultants to do follow-up. And so, many times, without those
funds, the follow-up may or may not happen. And it is very
necessary, because if the plan is not applied, then we have not
made any positive benefit from a conservation standpoint.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Burns, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Dean,
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Resource Development & Professor,
University of Tennessee Extension Service, Knoxville, TN
Comments on USDA-NRCS Technical Assistance Delivery to U.S. Farmers
Overview of NRCS Conservation Program Technical Assistance Delivery
The conservation program technical assistance provided by USDA-NRCS
to U.S. farmers has been and continues to be of critical importance to
protecting the United States' soil, water, air, plant and wildlife
resources. In addition, the assistance provided by USDA-NRCS has played
a critical role in helping U.S. farming remain economically viable
while increasing environmental sustainability. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) should be commended for their excellent
work in delivering conservation programming to U.S. farmers both past
and present.
For most of its history, the NRCS has primarily depended on NRCS
employees (with some assistance from state and county Resource
Conservation & Development organizations) to deliver conservation
program delivery to farmers. Beginning around 2000, the NRCS
implemented a new approach that began the use of third party technical
service providers (TSPs) to also provide conservation program delivery
to farmers. Under the current program structure, farmers can elect to
receive conservation program technical assistance from either
Conservation District (county level) NRCS employees or independent
TSPs.
The third party TSP program has been operational for a decade now.
In many ways it has been successful, but it has also faced many
challenges, some of which continue to limit the effectiveness of the
program. I have been involved in assisting NRCS with Conservation
Program technical assistance delivery for the past decade. Specifically
I have worked with NRCS on Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
(CNMP) delivery. I have led state and national programs that certified
third party TSPs for USDA in the CNMP area, as well as provided CNMP
training to NRCS employees.
While I commend NRCS on their excellent work regarding CNMP
implementation, and other conservation programs, I respectfully offer
the following observations and suggestions that I believe could be of
assistance in further improving the effectiveness of USDA-NRCS
conservation program delivery.
Suggestions for Improved Delivery of Conservation Programming Technical
Assistance
Increased Consistency Needed Between NRCS Policy at the National, State
and County Levels
The current interpretation and implementation of NRCS conservation
program delivery could be improved by reducing NRCS policy
inconsistencies at the national, state and county levels. Because of
these existing policy inconsistencies, third party TSPs encounter
different certification and qualification requirements in different
areas, the standards and format of conservation programming
deliverables varies by location, and the type and quality of assistance
that farmers receive is highly variable by location.
NRCS Should Implement a National Certification Policy Review Committee
That Reviews Deviations from the National Policy by State NRCS
Offices
The current farm bill indicates that NRCS should establish a
national certification policy in regards to qualifying third party TSPs
to be eligible to receive USDA funds for providing conservation
practice technical assistance. While a national certification policy
does exist, in reality it is not enforced at the state NRCS office
level. Many state NRCS offices have established either different or
additional certification criteria that do not follow the national
policy. The result is that TSPs must follow the state NRCS policies if
they wish to work in these states. The number of state NRCS office that
have developed policies that do not comply with the national policy has
increased over the past few years. From 2003 to 2010, I led a TSP CNMP
Certification program that was recognized as meeting the national USDA
CNMP certification requirements under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with NRCS. As a service to TSPs, my team tracked states where the
state NRCS policy was in conflict with the national NRCS policy. Over
the past few years, the number of states that do not follow the
national NRCS policy has continued to increase. By 2009, a dozen states
did not follow the national NRCS CNMP certification policy. Of a
greater concern, is the fact that NRCS at the national level does not
track or approve the deviations from national policy that are occurring
at the state level. In October, 2009 the USDA-NRCS developed new TSP
Certification requirements for the CNMP areas that are documented
within NRCS's ``General Manual Title 190 Part 405.11''. These new
requirements replaced the ``General Manual Title 180 Part 490.10''
requirements. The new NRCS Title 190 Part 405.11 policy states that
``in addition to the general requirements, the State Conservationist
will establish certification requirements specific to elements of a
CNMP.'' I believe that the wording in the new Title 190 Part 405.11
policy could result in even more state NRCS offices developing policies
in conflict with the national NRCS certification policy.
The lack of adherence to the national NRCS policy by at least a
dozen state NRCS offices, coupled with a new policy that provide the
state NRCS offices more latitude in deviating from the national NRCS
CNMP certification policy (without any tracking or approval at the
national level) makes it unrealistic for any third party group to offer
a workable national TSP certification program for TSPs at this time.
The NRCS should implement its current national TSP certification
policy and effectively ensure that state NRCS offices comply. In
addition, a national TSP Certification Policy Review Committee should
be established that tracks state NRCS TSP policy, and in a timely
manner reviews and either approves or disapproves any deviations from
the national policy requested by state NRCS offices.
TSP Qualification Requirements Should be Streamlined to Reduce the Time
Burden Required of TSPs to Gain and Maintain Certification
Due to the lack of uniformly implemented national TSP certification
requirements, and a lack of oversight of state NRCS TSP certification
and qualification requirements at the national NRCS level, TSPs
currently face an ever changing set of certification requirements to
remain qualified to receive USDA funds for their efforts. In many
cases, TSPs are required to meet redundant qualification requirements
and trainings in different states (many times states within the same
region) to work in each state. The current lack of meaningful state
NRCS policy oversight by NRCS at the national level in regards to TSP
certification results in each state NRCS office developing independent
(and many times duplicative) requirements. The current environment is
one where state NRCS offices continue to add new requirements such that
qualified and certified TSPs must continually spend unrealistic amounts
of time and money to maintain the ability to serve as TSPs. This has
resulted in many qualified third-party consultants electing to either
not serve as a TSPs, or electing to stop maintenance of their TSP
certification as the certification requirements become too burdensome.
In addition, the current NRCS certification policies assume that
all TSPs have equal skill and experience and the current system
requires that all TSPs complete all certification steps regardless of
experience. A more flexible certification policy that allowed TSPs with
higher experience levels decreased requirements would help streamline
the TSP certification process without sacrificing the quality of
deliverables.
A national NRCS TSP Certification Policy Review Committee should be
established that is charged with reviewing both national and state NRCS
TSP certification policy, with the goal of reducing unnecessary or
duplicative TSP certification requirements.
Clear and Specific Standards for Conservation Programming Technical
Assistance Should be Established to Ensure Similar Quality
Deliverables are being Provided by NRCS Employees and TSPs
In working with CNMP preparation across the United States, it has
become very apparent to me that the quality of CNMPs being prepared by
both NRCS employees and third party TSPs vary considerably. While there
is a large variation in the quality of plans being prepared by
different NRCS employees and different TSPs, it is my experience that
generally the quality of CNMPs prepared by TSPs is higher than that of
CNMPs being prepared by NRCS employees.
The current national NRCS CNMP guidance is essentially a listing of
the components that should be included in a CNMP, with no specific
guidance on how these components should be prepared. While it is true
that every state is unique, the basic components that should be
included in a CNMP are national in nature. All farmers, regardless of
location, deserve to be provided the highest quality conservation
program technical assistance that can be provided by USDA. This is true
whether the assistance is provided by NRCS employees or third party
TSPs.
The national level NRCS should establish clear and specific
conservation program assistance examples that meet the minimum quality
requirements across the nation. Specifically, meaningful example CNMPs
should be established for beef, dairy, swine, layer and broiler
enterprises that establish minimum content and quality levels.
Improved Follow-up and Assistance with Conservation Planning
Implementation
Technical assistance with conservation programs, whether provided
by NRCS employees or third party TSPs, is planning assistance. Many
times there is a disconnect between preparing the plan and implementing
the plan at the farm level that is never bridged. In my opinion this is
a larger issue for conservation planning assistance provided by TSPs
for the simple reason that no funds are currently provided to TSPs for
continued plan follow-up.
Funds Should be Made Available to Cover the Cost of Follow-up by TSPs
to Assist Producers With Planned Conservation Programming
Implementation
Conservation planning assistance that is not implemented, or not
implemented correctly fails to provide the planned conservation
benefits. In many cases TSPs develop plans that are not implemented at
all, or not implemented as planned on the farm. Continued interaction
and follow-up by the plan provider and the farmer increases the
probability that conservation planning assistance will be implemented
in an effective and timely manner. Currently TSPs are not provided with
funds to complete meaningful post planning follow-up regarding plan
implementation.
Funds should be made available to cover the cost of providing
extended follow-up assistance with conservation planning implementation
to farmers who have received conservation planning technical
assistance.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Dlugosz?
STATEMENT OF STEVE DLUGOSZ, CERTIFIED CROP ADVISOR AND LEAD
AGRONOMIST, HARVEST LAND CO-OP, MADISON, WI; ON BEHALF OF
INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED CROP
ADVISER PROGRAM; AND AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
AGRONOMY
Mr. Dlugosz. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Dlugosz. I am
a Certified Crop Advisor from Indiana, and it is a pleasure
being here. I represent the Certified Crop Advisor Program and
the American Society of Agronomy.
I think it is kind of providential I am following Dr. Burns
here. Many of my comments will be of a similar thread as I go
through my testimony.
Currently, there are approximately 13,000 certified crop
advisors in the United States and Canada, with new programs
actually beginning in India and Argentina. The qualifications
required to become certified includes two comprehensive exams,
education, experience, and signing a code of ethics. We
maintain our certification through continuing education hours,
of which we require 40 over 2 years.
CCAs are committed to working with their grower customers
in adopting best management practices that are both
economically and environmentally sound. The CCA is considered a
business partner with the grower. Both of us have a lot to gain
and a lot to lose, depending on how the recommendations are
made.
CCAs are currently recognized by NRCS as technical service
providers in nutrient management, pest management, and tillage
practices. CCAs are also recognized by the Risk Management
Agency as agricultural experts related to crop insurance
claims.
I actually represent a large percentage of the current TSPs
that are practicing, and an even larger pool of potential TSPs
for somewhere down the road.
I would like to share with you two areas of concern that we
have expressed by CCAs who are currently TSPs: number one, the
ability and knowledge of the county-based staff as it relates
to production agriculture; and, number two, the inconsistency
of paperwork and requirements between states and counties.
Bottom line, the relationship at the county level between
CCAs and that local NRCS staff is critical to the success of
the TSP program. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity
between some county offices. Some DCs are very receptive to the
concept and work closely with their CCA to implement the
program. In those counties, more nutrient management plans were
adopted and implemented.
In one example, it went as far as the DC actually asking
the CCA to help promote and sell the program to other growers.
As a result, they had more plans, and all of the participating
farmers have EQIP contracts. Unfortunately, in the neighboring
county, the exact opposite was true.
We always know there will be a degree of difference between
individuals and how they perform their job functions, but the
degree of difference that exists today is far too wide to be
effective.
We would like to propose a two-part solution. First, to
improve the ability of local NRCS staff at the county level and
gain consistency between states and counties, NRCS should
require that all agronomy-focused staff become certified crop
advisors or certified professional agronomists. NRCS already
requires professional certification or licensing for engineers,
land surveyors, and other professional staff, so this would be
very consistent to include the current agronomy staff. We
believe it would help to improve the overall performance and
delivery of conservation practices.
The second part of the solution would be to allow county-
based personnel to cross county lines, so if you have someone
who is very motivated and highly active in this area, they
could move freely between counties and get those programs
going. Currently, we are limited to where we live and where we
work.
The other area I mentioned was the inconsistency of
paperwork requirements. There appears to be a gap between
paperwork required between states and even between counties
within states, as reported by many of our CCAs who are TSPs. A
potential solution would be to standardize the paperwork across
county and state lines. We would suggest bringing together a
group of CCAs who have experience being a TSP, bringing
together some NRCS personnel who also have experience in TSP,
and let them work together to design a standard set of
documents and forms. It would save time and money in the long
term.
In summary, the relationship between the CCA and county
NRCS staff is very critical to the successful delivery of
conservation practices on the ground. CCAs have a longstanding
and trusted business relationship with the farmer. CCAs know
and understand crop production practices. There is a great
potential to expand conservation through this partnership
approach, and ASA and ICCA are willing and able to be partners
with USDA to do so.
We appreciate the time to speak today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dlugosz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Dlugosz, Certified Crop Adviser and Lead
Agronomist, Harvest Land Co-op, Madison, WI; on Behalf of International
Certified Crop Adviser Program; and American Society of Agronomy
The International Certified Crop Adviser (ICCA) Program is a
voluntary professional certification program of the American Society of
Agronomy (ASA). Of the many individuals starting the certification
process, only 62% are successful and become Certified Crop Advisers.
Currently there are approximately 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers (CCAs)
throughout the United States and Canada, with new programs beginning in
India and Argentina.
A CCA provides both agronomic advice and information as well as, in
many cases, agronomic inputs to growers. Being a CCA separates us from
those who simply supply (sell) crop production inputs, as we provide
services and make recommendations for the appropriate inputs. Over 85%
of the CCAs work for an Ag Retail or Farm Cooperative type business,
while others may have their own business providing only services, or
work for USDA NRCS, Cooperative Extension, or state/local government
agencies.
Qualifications required to become and remain a CCA:
1. Exams:
Pass two comprehensive exams covering four primary competency
areas:
a. nutrient management.
b. soil and water management.
c. integrated pest management.
d. crop management.
2. Education and Experience:
a. Bachelors of Science (BS) degree in Agronomy or a closely
related field with at least 2 years of experience; or
b. Associates Degree (2 years) in Agriculture with minimum of
fifteen credits in agronomy related course work with 3
years of experience; or
c. A degree that does not relate to agronomy or no degree post
high school with at least 4 years of experience.
3. Ethics:
Every CCA must sign and agree to uphold the CCA Code of Ethics,
pledging to do what is in the best interests of the land owner.
Violation of this code could lead to de-certification.
4. Maintenance:
To maintain their certification, a CCA must earn forty hours of
continuing education every 2 years. There must be at least 5
hours in each of the four primary competency areas: nutrient
management; soil and water management; integrated pest
management; and crop management.
A CCA is committed to working with their grower customers in
adopting the best management practices that are both economically and
environmentally sound. A CCA is considered a business partner to the
grower because both have a lot to gain or lose based on the
recommendations that are made. A large producer survey conducted by
Purdue University's Center for Food and Agriculture Business indicated
that farmers ranked honesty and technological competence as the top two
characteristics of their suppliers. The ICCA Program strives to ensure
that CCAs meet both requirements through the code of ethics and
continuing education standards.
CCAs are recognized by USDA-NRCS as Technical Service Providers
(TSP) in nutrient management, pest management and residue management or
tillage practices. There are 1,220 TSPs throughout the United States;
of those, 353 TSPs (29% of the total) identify as CCAs. (numbers
provided by NRCS). CCAs are also recognized by the Risk Management
Agency (RMA) as agricultural experts related to crop insurance claims.
For a CCA to become and maintain a TSP standing:
1. A CCA registers with USDA-NRCS through their online TechReg
site. A CCA must provide their CCA number which is verified by
ASA. The categories that the CCA plans to work under are self
identified during the registration process. The MOU that ASA
ICCA signed with USDA-NRCS requires that the CCA maintain their
CCA status and register with NRCS every 3 years.
2. Depending on the state's interpretation of the TSP rules, the
state NRCS office may require the CCA to complete additional
training. However, this is not supposed to be the case since
the 2008 Farm Bill standardized the registration process.
3. Maintenance requires registering every 3 years and keeping their
CCA designation active.
Early on in the TSP Program, there were approximately 2,200 TSPs
throughout the U.S., 51% of which were CCAs. As the program matured,
rules were changed and states enacted state-specific requirements, in
essence ignoring the MOU standards. This led to many of the CCAs
dropping out of the TSP program and a precipitous decline in the number
of private sector CCAs involved.
The ICCA Program and ASA have worked with USDA NRCS to evaluate the
TSP system and have proposed changes for the future. Those changes were
developed by a group of CCAs and NRCS staff with experience working
directly with the program. The new system was `pilot tested' in eight
states. Although the volume was low, the overall recommendation was to
implement the new system nationally. Unfortunately, to date, that has
not been done.
Experiences from the field:
Overall, in the beginning of the TSP Program, CCAs viewed it as a
business opportunity to become ``more partnered with the grower'' and
more completely serve their customer base. It was viewed as a way to
get better nutrient management planning and quicker adoption of new
technologies done in a way that might increase farm revenue or avoid
increased production costs. As time progressed it became more of a
challenge than it was worth, yielding a high drop-out rate by private
sector CCAs. There have been changes made to the system that have
helped improve it. Not-to-exceed rates were discontinued and payments
were supposed to take into account local market conditions, while
farmers were allowed to select the TSP.
County Level Technical Assistance
The relationship between CCAs and local county office NRCS staff is
critical to the success of the TSP Program. Unfortunately, there is a
wide disparity between NRCS county offices as far as the ability and
understanding of the local staff. Some District Conservationists (DC)
were very receptive to the concept and worked closely with CCAs to
implement the program. In those counties, more nutrient management
plans were adopted and implemented. In one example, it went as far as
the DC asking the CCA to help ``sell'' nutrient management planning to
farmers. This resulted in more plans and all participating farmers
having EQIP contracts. In a neighboring county, the DC was not in favor
of having TSPs. They were very defensive and dismissive to the point of
discouraging involvement by CCAs, resulting in a very low
implementation rate of nutrient management plans by farmers.
There will always be a degree of difference between individuals in
how they perform their job functions, but the degree that exists today
is far too wide to be appropriate. It is exaggerated by the lack of
agricultural background and knowledge at the county position level. The
skill or knowledge level is also typically based on traditional NRCS
practice work, specifically engineering related practices. There is, at
times, a component of engineering that is required such as storage
structures or earth moving, but nutrient management planning is not
only engineering focused. The land application of manure does not
require an engineer. It requires a Certified Crop Adviser, Certified
Professional Agronomist or Certified Professional Soil Scientist who
understands agronomic production practices. The same can be said for
pest management planning.
One of the original goals of TSP was to take advantage of the
private sector professional in the field that already had the
relationship with the farmer and understood what production practices
were in place so there would be quicker adoption of new practices to
improve conservation implementation. Farmers know and trust their CCAs.
They have a long standing business relationship with them. Farmers do
not on average want the government telling them what to do or in many
cases even know what they are doing. The CCA is more knowledgeable and
understands agronomic production practices better. For example, a DC
told the grower that they needed to lime their fields but the nutrient
management plan developed by a CCA based on soil sampling
recommendations did not call for lime. Lime was not needed based on the
science but lime is considered a soil amendment and lime payments are
based on ``traditions''. The CCA argued that based on the science lime
was not needed and would be a waste of money. The DC would not release
the payments to the farmer until the farmer applied lime.
Solutions: There are two parts. First, to improve the ability of
local NRCS staff at the county and state levels and gain consistency
between states and counties, requires that all agronomy focused staff
become Certified Crop Advisers or Certified Professional Agronomists.
The ICCA Program first qualifies a person through examination and
credential review. Then they grow their knowledge and skills through
the continuing education requirements. NRCS already requires
professional certification or licensing for engineers, land surveyors
and other professional staff. Why not include agronomy and soils
focused staff? It would help improve the overall performance and
delivery of conservation practices. The second part to the solution
would be to allow county based personnel to cross county lines so if
there is a highly interested and talented individual in nutrient
management planning for example, allow them to work in multiple
counties and focus on their strengths.
Finding qualified agronomy professionals is a challenge for
everyone in agriculture today. There is a growing demand for the
professionals but fewer students are taking up the study. ASA is
currently working with other scientific associations and industry
organizations to try to attract more individuals to the profession.
Inconsistency on Paperwork Requirements
There appears to be a gap between what paperwork is required
between states and between counties within states as reported by TSPs
who are CCAs.
Solution: Standardize the paperwork across county and state lines.
Bring together a group of CCAs who have experience of being a TSP and
have them work with local NRCS employees who also have experience
working with TSPs to design a standard set of documents and forms.
Summary:
The relationship between the CCA TSP and the local county level
NRCS staff is very critical to the successful delivery of conservation
practices on the ground. A positive and mutually supportive
relationship yields a higher adoption rate of practices on the farm
which ultimately should lead to improved environmental conditions in
that local area. NRCS should capitalize on the existing MOU they have
with ASA to fully implement the TSP program and fully engage the CCAs
working in the private sector. CCAs have a long standing and trusted
business relationship with the farmer. CCAs know and understand plant
and soil-based production agriculture. NRCS should utilize CCAs to
expand their delivery of technical assistance and the adoption rate of
conservation practices. At the same time, by requiring professional
certification for all staff that deliver or evaluate technical
assistance, NRCS will increase their internal capabilities and
expertise. This is not a new concept for NRCS since they already
require it of other non-agronomy or soil science related staff. There
is great potential to expand conservation through this partnership
approach and ASA and the ICCA Program are ready and willing to partner
further with USDA to do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Braford?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. BRAFORD, CONSULTING
FORESTER, BLUECHIP FORESTRY, NATURAL BRIDGE
STATION, VA; ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN FOREST
FOUNDATION
Mr. Braford. Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss my experiences with the
administration and delivery of the USDA conservation programs,
specifically focusing on delivery to America's over ten million
family forest owners.
My name is Bill Braford. I am a consulting forester and a
certified forester with the Society of American Foresters. I am
retired from the Virginia Department of Forestry and working
with my father as a beef cattle farmer and doing forestry
consulting at the same time. In addition to some of my
experiences, I am one of the only two consulting foresters in
Virginia who are currently registered as a technical service
provider through the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Today, I would like to focus my testimony on three key
areas that I think are of great importance to the delivery of
the conservation programs to family forest owners: first of
all, the potential impact of conservation programs on family
forest owners in Virginia and throughout the U.S.; second, the
capacity for conservation program delivery to family forest
owners in Virginia; and, last, the NRCS Technical Service
Provider program as it relates to forestry assistance.
As far as the impact, I would kind of like to give an
illustration. When I started with the Virginia Department of
Forestry around about 1975, there were some bark beetle
problems, and a lot of the landowners that I found myself
servicing had just done a lot of harvesting. At that time, I
was concerned because there wasn't any cost share. But the
forestry incentive program developed by the USDA came along,
and those amounted to a lot of good work.
As a matter of fact, if you go back to 1974, those trees
have grown. They have been thinned once or twice. They are now
35 years old. Those trees, being higher-quality pine, in
eastern Virginia, are servicing some sawmills. Mr. Ken Morgan
in Red Oak, Virginia, has put a lot of investment in
infrastructure in the last 4 years, in spite of the recession,
adding jobs. And these trees are going to be what he needs to
keep his mill going, especially with this economic situation.
Second, if you look at the capacity for conservation
programs delivery to family forest owners in Virginia, if I
kind of go back to my career as a service forester, we were
trying to get 50 forest management plans per year. I found it
difficult to do that. For one thing, with all the other
programs that were going, it seemed like the forest management
plan was the most difficult for me to do. I found it very
helpful when I had another forester come in and just take on
that specific program. That seemed to work well, and I think
the same thing applies to technical service providers and
consultant foresters.
We also had the Forest Stewardship Program for the last 4
or 5 years that paid consultant foresters to do forest
management plans. That seemed to work quite well and served the
same purposes I had needed when I was a county forester.
From the technical services provider program, I found it
was somewhat difficult to go through the process. I was very
impressed with all of the Internet information. That gave me
pretty good experience, but it took a lot of time. I think
maybe that is the reason we only have two out of about 150
consultants that actually have signed up as a technical service
provider.
I guess I am at the end of my part of it. But I would like
to summarize by saying that, number one, I think forestry is a
long-term investment that needs to be looked at. If we have the
ebb and flow of different incentive programs, we are likely to
end up with low reforestation in a period of 10 years, which
could have results 30, 40 years from now.
Second, I am excited about the partnership between, not
only TSPs and the agencies, but all the agencies working
together. For example, the American Forest Foundation has put
together a brochure that explains some of the USDA farm bill
programs, which I found quite helpful.
And last, I might suggest that, due to the complexity of
the TSP program, maybe we could jump-start that program with
some type of different cost share, maybe a little bit more
streamlined with more involvement of consultant foresters.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Braford follows:]
Prepared Statement of William L. Braford, Consulting Forester, Bluechip
Forestry, Natural Bridge Station, VA; on Behalf of American Forest
Foundation
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss my experiences with the administration and delivery of the
USDA conservation programs, specifically focusing on delivery to
America's over ten million family forest owners.
My name is Bill Braford and I'm a consulting forester certified by
the Society of American Foresters, an American Tree Farm System
inspecting forester, and a tree and beef cattle farmer, based in
Natural Bridge, Virginia. I've been a consulting forester for almost 8
years now, having retired from the Virginia Department of Forestry
(DOF) in 2002. At DOF, I served in numerous positions including as a
service forester, a supervising forester, and as a forest water quality
specialist, so I have extensive experience working with family forest
owners.
In addition to this experience, I am one of only two consulting
foresters in Virginia who are registered as Technical Service Providers
through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Today, I'd like to focus my testimony on three key areas that are
of great importance to the delivery of the conservation programs to
family forest owners:
(1) The potential impact of conservation programs on family forest
owners in Virginia and throughout the U.S.
(2) Capacity for conservation program delivery to family forest
owners in Virginia.
(3) The NRCS Technical Service Provider program as it relates to
forestry assistance.
Potential Impact of Conservation Programs on Family Forests
The Commonwealth of Virginia is blessed with tremendous forest
resources, over 63% of which are owned by roughly 373,000 families and
individuals, not corporations or the Federal or state government.
Annually, Virginia's forests provide over $27.5 billion in economic
benefits to the state, including $23 billion from the forest products
industry alone.
Many of the Commonwealth's family forest owners are just like
farmers, some produce timber or other products, but most are interested
in passing their land on in their family and having a place to hunt and
fish and enjoy. Virginia family forest owners hold an average of 75
acres of forest.
Given the extensive family forest ownership in Virginia, there is
great potential to utilize the USDA conservation programs to accomplish
conservation goals and address the pressing challenges facing our
forests.
As required in the 2008 Farm Bill's forestry title, the Virginia
Department of Forestry just completed an assessment and strategy around
the Commonwealth's forest resources--Federal, state, and privately-
owned.
The DOF identified a number of challenges for Virginia's forests in
the coming years, including increasing wildfire threats, encroaching
development placing pressure on forest owners to convert their forest
to non-forest uses, sustainable management of forests as new markets
emerge, and declines in reforestation rates.
Landowners that I work with are primarily interested in maintaining
healthy forests that provide for future income along with other
benefits such as wildlife habitat and just good shade to walk under on
a hot summer day. Landowners in my area have stands of hardwoods that
are nearing maturity and that are beginning to slow in growth.
Landowners ``east of the Blue Ridge Mountains'' have both pine and
hardwood forests. The pine component in eastern Virginia is mostly
planted loblolly pine. The hardwoods develop naturally following timber
harvests. The actual harvest of timber is forestry's primary tool for
managing forests whether for wildlife, forest health or immediate
income. Both long term and short term forest management planning are
crucial in forest management. In 1975 I helped landowners in eastern
Virginia reforest their cutover lands with the Forestry Incentives
Program (FIP). These trees have been thinned once or twice and are now
nearing maturity. Some have been harvested and replaced with younger
trees. Conservation programs that provide some type of cost share have
proven to be critical to offset the long term horizons in forestry
investments. These programs need to be constant over time to maintain a
good distribution of forest types and age classes. Healthy, growing
forests are less vulnerable to insect and disease attacks.
As a forester with experience working in both the public and
private sectors, I've seen the ebb and flow of conservation assistance
for family forest owners and the challenges it presents to implementing
these programs and helping landowners. I was excited to see the
improvements this Committee made in the farm bill, to provide family
forest owners with access to the various conservation programs, just
like farmers. This has great potential, given that farm bill program
dollars are often more stable than relying on state program budgets.
In fact, mostly with the effort of DOF and the NRCS in the state,
great progress has been made in implementing these programs. In the
first year of implementation, the Farm Bill Conservation Programs
provided roughly $3.4 million in funding for forest projects in the
state and enrolled 23,000 acres of forests in the Conservation
Stewardship Program. Nationally, over $143 million in EQIP funding
alone, was spent on forestry practices.
Even with all this progress, I see a significant challenge ahead,
in terms of delivery of these programs: the necessary capacity to truly
serve family forest owners throughout the state does not exist in the
Federal or state government agencies.
Capacity for Conservation Program Delivery in Virginia and Nationwide
As a consulting forester, I have learned how much landowners value
the ability to have a resource professional walk with them on their
property and help them achieve their vision for their forest. Federal,
state and private sectors all have important roles in providing the
infrastructure that delivers technical assistance to forest landowners.
Even as great progress has been made in implementing and delivering
conservation programs to forest owners in the state, this progress is
limited by the capacity in the Federal and state agencies. The task of
providing assistance to the over 300,000 forest owners in Virginia, let
alone the over ten million nationwide, is daunting to say the least.
Most of the assistance that's been delivered so far has come through
the DOF, which is facing severe budget challenges.
Nationally, both the U.S. Forest Service and the National
Association of State Foresters have expressed concern over the lack of
capacity to fully serve America's family forest owners, so they can
continue to provide the values and benefits we all gain from their
forests.
In my view, the needed growth in capacity will have to come from
non-governmental organizations and the private sector--through
consulting foresters like myself. It will not come from larger agencies
or more state and Federal programs because of both limited funding and
the political limits on the number of government personnel.
There are roughly 150 consulting foresters in Virginia, many of
whom are interested in helping deliver the conservation programs to
forest owners, if they are able to at least break even on this.
An additional challenge for delivery of conservation programs to
forest owners is the current lack of outreach on the program
opportunities to forest owners in Virginia. While NRCS, DOF, and
Extension have done some outreach, they simply do not have the capacity
to engage significant numbers and make them aware of the opportunities.
Engaging the consulting forester community in a meaningful way on this
enables a win-win for the consultant and the agencies.
Another challenge I see is the relative complication of these
programs for forest owners. While the programs may also be complicated
for farmers and ranchers, I think this issue is compounded by the fact
that there are not many within the agencies that understand the
programs and how they apply to forests, making it even more difficult
for the landowner.
With my TSP certification, I have begun to talk with landowners
about the program opportunities. At this point, only two owners have
been interested in developing forest management plans, which are funded
through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These landowners
were interested in developing a management plan because they wanted to
get started on a plan to improve their forest. They also were very
interested in getting started with a cost-share program, both to
complete the plan and implement recommendations such as tree planting.
I contracted with one of these landowners, to develop a management plan
on about 15 acres of their forest. I was able to combine the initial
visit with the field work which required about 5 hours. The parcels I
examined were part of a subdivision of similar-sized wooded lots. The
land was gently rolling with an oak-hickory forest type. The landowner
specifically wanted a plan that would help improve wildlife habitat,
maintain forest health, and improve the productive capacity of the
forest.
The office process, completing all the required paperwork and
details for the program, took me much more time than the field visit.
Currently, I have had no additional request for forest management
plans. I had anticipated additional work to justify my TSP processing
time.
I did have an opportunity to sign up another landowner who was
interested in managing his forest for timber, wildlife and recreation
as well as qualifying for land use taxation. After suggesting the NRCS
EQIP cost-share funding for the development of his forest management
plan, we mutually decided that the process was too complex. I completed
the plan for him with a bill for my time. He did not apply for cost
share and I'm not aware of any practices he's completed to implement
the plan.
The NRCS Technical Service Provider Program As It Relates to Forestry
Assistance
One of the keys to successfully engaging the private sector in
delivering conservation programs is the NRCS's Technical Service
Provider (TSP) Program. It is my understanding that this program was
designed to engage the private sector, consulting foresters like me, in
delivery of the conservation programs.
Well, I'm here today as one of only two consulting foresters in the
Virginia that is a TSP--meaning landowners who wish to use a consultant
to participate in the program, have only two foresters that they can
engage. I may be efficient, but I certainly can't service the hundreds
of thousands of landowners that could use some of the assistance under
the programs. I also know the other consultant who is a TSP and he
would face the same limitations.
The lack of consulting foresters that are participating in the TSP
program is not for lack of interest. There are significant challenges
with the Program that are evidenced by my experiences with becoming a
TSP.
I've had experience with these kinds of programs in the past, and
have seen them work successfully. For example, Virginia has utilized
the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Stewardship Program in the past to
provide cost-share assistance to landowners who wanted forest
stewardship plans written by consultant foresters. Consultant foresters
and DOF provided the outreach. Many consulting foresters were trained
to write stewardship plans and the direct contract funding seemed to
work.
For training and qualification as a Technical Service Provider with
NRCS, the process was much more involved. After a visit to the Farm
Service Agency office, an address conflict and a few phone calls I
successfully created and activated USDA eAuthentication account during
November 2009. Several times each week I logged onto the TechReg
website and navigated to the various resources pages including the USDA
AgLearn site (usually in 2 hour sessions). I finally completed all of
the online training in February 2010. Some of the TSP orientation
training was good.
Certified foresters (who already have extensive training and
expertise) should not have to go through the forest management
training. It was a good snow-covered winter to go through the process
but I don't think I would have invested the time during a normal
Virginia Winter. When I first signed up I was surprised to find out how
little information there was about the Forest Management Plan 106
practice at the local NRCS offices. I fear that the outreach is not
there because of the lack of TSP's and the TSP's are not there because
of the lack of outreach (and the lack of potential for appropriate
compensation).
Even as the TSP program faces significant challenges, I've heard
from several national forester organizations that NRCS Chief Dave White
has pledged his support and commitment to making the TSP program work
for consultants, so TSPs become a viable option for landowners. He has
instituted a streamlining team to improve the certification process and
make the TSP program more workable and he has established two more
positions on the TSP staff to help improve this program.
In a survey of consulting foresters that have gone through the TSP
process, it took an average of 48 hours over a 4 month period to
complete certification with current computer access and requirements.
One hundred percent of the respondents rated the process as difficult
to very difficult. Remember, this is all non-billable time to a
consultant. Most consultants agree that some orientation to the
conservation program requirements is very appropriate and are willing
to attend a day long workshop or similar orientation that is time
efficient.
I think it would be very appropriate for NRCS to rely on the
existing, very credible forester certification programs provided by
organizations like the Society of American Foresters or the Association
of Consulting Foresters for verifying a forester's qualifications.
Currently, while NRCS has MOUs with these organizations, there is no
streamlined process for foresters who are already proven to be
exceptionally qualified foresters.
Another issue is the payment rates for TSPs. While it is
technically correct that a resource professional can charge more than
what is listed on the ``Not-to-exceed rate'' for services posted on the
Internet-based TechReg website, this is impractical. In reality, the
landowner who sees these rates feels that this is the maximum rate
anyone should ever have to pay for such services, as stated by the
government. We need to look for another way of expressing the cap on
the maximum government contribution for services.
Payments funneled through the landowner as reimbursements make the
landowner sometimes unable to fund the work. Contracting directly with
NRCS would provide a more direct and responsive mechanism for
participation by both the TSP and the landowner. We suggest that NRCS
continue to explore expansion of bundling services through cooperative
agreements and requests-for-proposals. Larger consulting firms might be
attracted to provide technical assistance through such requests.
There have been other problematic issues with the TSP program as
well throughout the country. In some cases, states encouraged foresters
to become certified, which they did, only to decide later that they
would not offer forestry practices, leaving the consultant hanging
after investing time and resources.
While there are many challenges with the current TSP program, I
don't believe they are insurmountable. Consulting foresters truly do
want to help landowners accomplish conservation objectives on their
land and manage their land sustainably and are willing to work hard
alongside Federal and state employees to make it happen.
In conclusion, I hope I've provided the Committee today with some
valuable insights regarding the current delivery of the conservation
programs to Virginia's family forest owners, based on my experiences
and the experiences of others with whom I have spoken. The 2008 Farm
Bill provided tremendous opportunities for improved conservation on
family forest lands, in addition to agricultural lands. It's no
surprise that this significant shift in direction of the programs has
led to some bottlenecks and issues with respect to program delivery.
Successful implementation and delivery to family forest owners is
possible, if improvements are made to engage the nation's consulting
foresters, who stand ready and willing to assist in this important
effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lohr, you said your proposal would allow NRCS employees
to spend 75 percent of the time in the field. How much time do
you think they spend in the field now compared to the office?
Mr. Lohr. It is probably, in my situation, observing my
office in Greensburg, it is probably close to that now. But,
again, I would have no way to measure that exactly.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Leathers, you said you come across new opportunities
every week. Do you care to expand on what those opportunities
are and what can we do to help you take advantage of them?
Mr. Leathers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
You know, various partners have come to us and asked us to
help with their initiatives. For example, the Pennsylvania Game
Commission came to us to ask for help with the two CREP
initiatives.
As we move forward with those programs, what is important
is just that we have available CTA funding so NRCS can come on
as a partner in those states, as well.
The Chairman. When you talk about the Pennsylvania
situation, that is moving money from the western CREP to the
Lower Susquehanna?
Mr. Leathers. I believe so. There are two different CREP
initiatives, sir, and we are looking for the amendment that
fully funds the Susquehanna, yes, and the Delaware CREP.
The Chairman. Yes. I am familiar with that. I also just
want to mention, I do have producers concerned about what that
will do to rental prices, too. So we have to be careful and
take a good look at that.
Director Manley, do you care to address any new
opportunities that you have come across that we can help you
with?
Dr. Manley. I think as we move into this implementation of
the 2008 Farm Bill, if we could--we have a staff that has all
the engineers, biologists, administrative folks. I mean, we can
turnkey big blocks of conservation delivery for you guys.
I think if there was a way that the funding, both FA and TA
funding, and projects could be bundled and assigned to us in
large blocks to make big differences for the state NRCS
offices, that those administrative barriers could be removed
where we could be used in that degree.
The Chairman. Dr. Burns, you talked about the
inconsistencies at the national, state, and local level. You
talked about it a great deal, but you mentioned six states. Can
you elaborate--I don't think you mentioned the name of the
states, but six states. Is that the model we should be
following? Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Burns. I mentioned about a dozen states that are
currently not following the national certification.
And I guess it is important to realize that, first, NRCS is
not in the certification process. They have looked to third-
party groups, such as the CCAs, such as universities, to
actually certify and educate and qualify the technical service
providers to do this work.
The situation in the environment now with this lack of
consistency is that it is very difficult to actually operate a
national certification program because it is not national. In
fact, the decision was made at Iowa State University, the
program that I led, we closed it at the end of June of this
year. We ended the program because we said we cannot serve a
national audience because the national certification is not
being enforced or followed.
So that is why I think the recommendation that there
actually be some more emphasis put on the policy at the
national level, that it be enforced, it be followed, that a
committee be established to look at what is going on in the
states. Chief White mentioned that they are looking hard now as
new requirements come, but it is important to recognize there
is already a lot of water over the bridge and many, many states
that don't operate following that national policy.
And all states are unique, but if they want to have groups
do this certification and not do it themselves, they are going
to have to give us an environment that we can function within.
Because we receive no funding from NRCS of any form to do this
certification; it is a fee-based program. So when our program
does not have enough value for the TSPs to come to, because it
doesn't work in enough states anymore, then we can't draw the
numbers to continue it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Braford, welcome. We are delighted to have you from the
beautiful Rock Ridge County area, and we appreciate your being
willing to come to Washington and testify for us.
As I am sure you are aware, Virginia's forest industry is
struggling, especially due to the recent Franklin International
Paper Mill being shut down. Also, many smaller facilities in my
district are going through some very tough times.
What impact does the loss of these mills have on Virginia's
forest owners and their ability to keep their forests healthy?
Mr. Braford. Well, it is just a matter of markets. They
need to have the outlook of knowing that their forest can be a
profitable investment. I think that the need for incentives to
invest, reinvest in the future is at a, kind of, a question
mark right now. So, incentives can continue with that long-term
investment.
Mr. Goodlatte. The further they have to look to find
markets for their wood, the further they have to ship it, the
less attractive that investment is and the less resources they
have available to maintain a healthy forest. Is that correct?
Mr. Braford. That is correct.
Mr. Goodlatte. And how can the conservation programs that
we have been talking about here today, which can provide some
resources to help improve forest management, fill some of the
void left by the loss of markets?
Mr. Braford. I guess I could pretty much repeat the other
parties. The main thing would be to invest, with the idea that
they will gain profits in the long term. Forestry has the
disadvantage of being longer-term than agriculture.
Mr. Goodlatte. And based on your testimony and experiences,
it appears that you are not hearing a lot of demand for the
conservation programs from forest owners in Virginia. This
could be because Virginia forest owners don't have a need for
the programs. But, based on my experience, talking with my
constituents, they have their share of management challenges,
like gypsy moth infestations and wildfire risks and complying
with state water quality requirements.
Why do you think landowners are not eager to participate in
these programs?
Mr. Braford. Well, I think the participation is there when
they need it. The bad part is that, when insects and disease
happen after the fact, then they need to react proactively. And
when they have to do salvage cuts, then that is less than
ideal.
I think that some of the loggers are actually taking
advantage of some of these conservation programs on BMPs. And
so we may not see the activity from the landowners, but it is
there in the third party, because they are working with loggers
on those same conservation items.
Mr. Goodlatte. You mentioned that you are both a forester
for the tree farm program and a tree farmer yourself. And I
know these programs have had success in reaching out to
Virginia's landowners and encouraging forest conservation and
good management, with the support of the Virginia Forestry
Association.
Do you think there are opportunities for the NRCS to
partner more with organizations like this to do the landowner
outreach and assistance in Virginia?
Mr. Braford. I do. The experience I have had as a TSP is a
good indication that we need more than just promotion from the
NRCS. For example, I have only had one request for a forest
management plan. I think, with the cooperation of consultant
foresters of Virginia Tech, Virginia Department of Forestry,
which is actually quite good right now, is essential for
outreach.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, let me just throw out one more question to
whoever on the panel would like to respond to this.
In the next farm bill, we may have to make some very tough
choices on program funding. Can an improved TSP program help
save administration costs, but still increase on-the-ground
conservation? Can we make these programs work more efficiently
and save some money and still do more good?
Mr. Dlugosz. I guess I would weigh in. The certified crop
advisors, we have 13,000 certified crop advisors currently out
there. Not all of them, this is not necessarily their area of
expertise, but just name whatever percent you want, that is a
lot of people.
I think if we could kind of empower those people, kind of
encourage them to clean a few details up, that might be a
pretty good pool that exists right now. And they are anxious to
help add value to the farm.
Mr. Goodlatte. Anyone else? Dr. Manley?
Dr. Manley. Yes, sir, I would like to add that, just with
the same budget that you may have today, if we were to be able
to allow the flexibility of the financial assistance funds and
TA assistance funds to make sure that no funds overall were
left on the table at the end of a fiscal year, that type of
flexibility would make a big difference in many states.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you again.
Mr. Lohr, you have a suggestion in your testimony that farm
and conservation programs can be delivered more effectively and
efficiently. Perhaps my thought arises in response to Mr.
Goodlatte's question. I am interested in hearing more about
that suggestion.
First, how does your suggestion translate into savings for
the Federal Government?
And then, second, if you are a producer, a farmer, or a
rancher, how will the way that you sign up for those farm
programs change? In other words, would you walk me through the
process that a farmer would sign up for the program, how would
it be different than how we do that today?
And, third, can any of this be done with the current
computer system that USDA has in place?
Mr. Lohr. I will try working from number three backwards,
and maybe you can prompt me with the other ones as I get there.
The current IT system in place, as was mentioned earlier,
is an antiquated system. And we feel that the MIDAS project and
the NRCS's streamlining initiative are critical in getting that
done.
I go back 30 years in this business and saw this work in
the first half of my career with conservation programs, where
NRCS was the technical agency and FSA was the administrative
agency in those situations. And we believe that that can work
again.
The software platform or the IT platform is basically the
same. We are on the same computer network and system. So some
software enhancements would be necessary to make that kind of
thing work. Our staff is already trained, as is NRCS, in GIS
software. Unfortunately, we have different platforms. They have
Tool Kit; we have ArcGIS. So that needs some work. So that
would be probably my response for the third question.
Could you prompt me on the second?
Mr. Moran. Yes. The other two questions related to what
savings could government expect, the Federal Government expect,
from your proposal?
Mr. Lohr. Well, we did some searching for numbers that
shows that, in Fiscal Year 2009, the salary and expense
appropriation for FSA was a little over $1 billion, and we
delivered almost $17 billion in farm program benefits. And that
works out to be a little less than 7 cents on the dollar to
deliver programs, and we feel we would bring that efficiency to
the table.
Additionally, we just see so much redundancy out there in
terms of program application. Producers really need to
determine early on if they are going to be eligible from the
standpoint of actively engaged in agriculture, conservation
compliance, adjusted gross income. And we think we can bring
that to the table also, in terms of producers making
applications and determining early if they are going to qualify
for these programs.
Mr. Moran. The final question was about how it would affect
a farmer. Would the process for sign-up, participation, would
it be different?
Mr. Lohr. Sure, it is going to be different. We hope that
the automation will help with that.
It has been mentioned here about online capabilities.
Unfortunately, the real world out there shows that many farmers
don't have that capability. They are still going to have to
visit our offices to make those applications. And, as I
presented in my testimony, we feel that we have the staff in
the office continuously to service the farmer and help them
make those applications.
NRCS needs to be in the field, and we feel we can provide a
better service to clients.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Robinson, do you have any response or
commentary upon what Mr. Lohr had to say?
Mr. Robinson. Well, from the conservation districts
standpoint, we want what is best for conversation on the
ground. If you will allow me, I will answer it from a producer
standpoint. And I realize, I am the only one sitting at the
table that is a producer.
My experience has been that, to go in--and I did have the
opportunity at one point, a couple years ago, that I had two
projects. One went through NRCS, one went through FSA. I
constructed them at the same exact time, went through both
processes at the same time.
I felt, as a producer, the NRCS process was a little more
streamlined, a little easier. When I turned in the bills, the
check came quicker than through the FSA process. Not to say
that something hasn't changed in the last 2 years in the
computer world, but that was my experience at that time.
Mr. Moran. Thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate
being able to hear what you have to say.
And I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their
courtesy today.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
And I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and written responses from the witnesses to
any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Representative in
Congress from Missouri
June 16, 2010
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer,
Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congressman Luetkemeyer:
Thank you for your letter of April 28, 2010, regarding the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) construction of shallow water habitat
for the pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River and the possible threats
to the river ecosystem.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 Amendment to the ``2000
Biological Opinion of the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem
Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River
Reservoir System'' requires the USACE to construct 20 to 30 acres of
shallow water habitat per river mile in the lower reaches of the
Missouri River as part of the recovery efforts for endangered species.
The primary means of accomplishing this habitat restoration is through
the construction of chutes and backwater habitat, which results in the
intentional discharge of the dredged sediment directly into the river.
Prior to human intervention, the Missouri River was an
uncontrolled, active river meandering from bluff to bluff and
constantly cutting new channels resulting in tremendous quantities of
river-borne sediment from the channel and bank erosion. However,
alteration of the main stem of the Missouri River has reduced sediment
delivery to the Gulf of Mexico by limiting the natural erosion
processes. This has caused a chain effect of impacts, including the
Federal listing of three species (Pallid Sturgeon, Piping Plover, and
Least Tern) and a significant loss of coastal wetlands. The value of
this sediment, if deposited correctly, in forming coastal wetlands that
act as ``shock absorbers'' during hurricanes is now widely recognized.
It is highly unlikely that the relatively insignificant temporary
discharge of sediments and nutrients from chute and backwater
restorations has had any significant bearing on the hypoxia issue in
the Gulf of Mexico, especially considering that it is the significant
reduction in the transport of sediment that appears to be the root
cause in the degradation of coastal wetlands.
The proportion of discharged sediment to sediment already in the
stream is also an important consideration. A recent chute restoration
project involved the dredging and discharge of 350,000 cubic yards of
sediment. The 10 year daily average suspended sediment load at Nebraska
City was approximately 200,000 cubic yards per day, so the discharged
sediment was equivalent to only 1.5 days of sediment discharge.
Therefore, sediment discharged into the river from chute restoration
projects is a small fraction of the total yearly sediment carried by
the river. Moreover, sediment discharges from restoration activities
are a one-time event, so the short-term impact is likely well worth the
long-term gain in shallow water aquatic habitat for a wide array of
fish and wildlife species.
Again, thank you for writing. I appreciate your concern and assure
you that the Department of Agriculture is working to protect the
natural resources in the Missouri River Basin. If I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Vilsack,Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
______
Submitted Statement by Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, Agriculture
Conservation Policy Analyst, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jennifer Mock
Schaeffer and I am the Agriculture Conservation Policy Analyst for the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I am a professional wildlife
biologist with a B.S. in Agriculture and an M.S. in Range and Wildlife
Management. One of my responsibilities is to work with the state fish
and wildlife agencies to enhance delivery of biological technical
assistance available to USDA and to America's farmers, ranchers and
forest land owners. The purpose of my testimony is to provide more
insight into the diversity, depth and roles that state fish and
wildlife agencies play with their conservation partners in delivering
biological technical assistance to USDA and its clients.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association)
represents the state fish and wildlife agencies' interests in fish and
wildlife management including the Farm Bill. The Association's mission
is to protect state authority and support provincial and territorial
authority for fish and wildlife conservation; promote sound resource
management; and strengthen Federal, state, territorial and private
cooperation in conserving fish, wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest based on scientific principles. The Association
represents and assists all 50 states and territories in working toward
the accomplishment of their individual fish and wildlife goals and
objectives.
Mr. Chairman we appreciate and thank you and the Subcommittee for
your strong support of the comprehensive array of conservation programs
as demonstrated through reauthorization. The health, perpetuation and
prosperity of our nation's fish and wildlife resources depend
substantially on these conservation programs and their effective
delivery on the ground.
Because approximately 70 percent of the land in the US is privately
owned, the Farm Bill is the single most important piece of legislation
for fish and wildlife habitat conservation on private lands. U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs have broad-
reaching affects on fish and wildlife populations and conservation of
their habitats. Many state fish and wildlife agencies have specialized
divisions that focus on delivering biological technical assistance on
private lands to help meet landowners' and operators' conservation
goals and objectives while also enhancing habitat for public trust
wildlife resources. Some of these private lands divisions in the
Midwest and Southeast date back to the 1970's and have a long history
of successfully working with private landowners and USDA, while other
private lands programs were initiated more recently in the 1990's.
Regardless of how long state fish and wildlife agencies' private lands
divisions have been working with USDA and landowners, they continue to
grow in emphasis and demand. Through state fish and wildlife agencies'
conservation efforts in partnership with conservation non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and USDA, implementation of past and current farm
bill conservation programs has resulted in significant fish and
wildlife conservation benefits provided through landscape level
conservation actions.
Since FY 2002, the amount of financial assistance the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides has grown by 376 percent
and the emphasis on wildlife habitat within the conservation title has
grown significantly. Since FY 2005, the number of NRCS full time
employees (FTEs) providing technical assistance through the
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Program has unfortunately
decreased 13 percent, and the number of NRCS biologists has declined by
about 21% in the last 2.5 years. Together this means that there are
fewer people on the ground to deliver biological technical assistance
at a time when demand for such assistance continues to grow, and it is
pivotal to delivering financial assistance into the hands of producers.
This has increased the workload on NRCS staff and required more diverse
fish and wildlife expertise than ever before. These trends have caused
NRCS to stretch its technical staff to provide assistance outside of
their areas of expertise and to look for alternative solutions to a
shortage in technical staff. We currently see a snowball affect
occurring--every year more contracts are signed, more landowners are
enrolled, and more practices are planned but implementation,
compliance, and restoration activities are not keeping pace. We believe
NRCS is approaching an insurmountable workload that continues to
accumulate from past enrollments because there is not enough boots on
the ground providing the technical assistance needed for follow-through
and project completion. Unfortunately, this means projects are not
completed, contracts fall through and the funds this Subcommittee
fought so hard for during the reauthorization becomes de-obligated and
sent to the US Treasury instead of farmers, ranchers and private forest
landowners. There are too many natural resource challenges across the
country for this trend to continue and the only way we see to reverse
the aforementioned ``snowball affect'' and avoid a critical tipping
point is by increasing the technical assistance boots on the ground.
As a result, many state fish and wildlife agencies with their
nongovernmental conservation partners are sharing the increased
workload and providing much needed biological technical expertise to
USDA and landowners/operators. Currently, we believe there are more
partner biologists working in NRCS offices than there are NRCS
biologists, helping to deliver biological technical assistance and to
relieve some of the workload. Delivering biological technical
assistance on private lands is critical to helping state fish and
wildlife agencies conserve their public trust wildlife resources and
meet their conservation objectives, which is why they are dedicating
staff capacity to working with USDA and their clients. The services
that state fish and wildlife agency private lands divisions and partner
biologists provide to landowners/operators and USDA range from
conducting field tours/days, wildlife habitat and initiative workshops,
and landowner and USDA training sessions on conservation planning, data
entry, compliance checks, application and practice assistance, and
inspections, to name a few.
As these difficult economic times continue with state budgets being
cut 10-60% on top of hiring freezes, FTE caps, and ongoing unfilled
vacancies, it is becoming increasingly difficult for some states to
meet Federal match requirements. For some states the funds they are
able to contribute to help pay for USDA biological technical assistance
is dwindling, but states continue to shoulder a growing workload even
though NRCS does not have the funds needed to fully reimburse
cooperators for USDA work performed. This trend will continue at the
expense of state fish and wildlife agency budgets unless steps are
taken to provide more technical assistance funding to deliver
conservation programs.
To compensate for the decline of state budgets and continue
priority work with USDA, state fish and wildlife agencies have
increased the number and diversity of conservation partnerships to
provide the biological technical assistance that USDA needs and that
landowners and operators want and deserve. Collaborative efforts to
deliver biological technical assistance continue to grow between state
fish and wildlife agencies and organizations such as Pheasants Forever,
Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, conservation
districts, Intermountain West Joint Venture, and Playa Lakes Joint
Venture, to name a few. Together we assemble the resources to put
``partner biologists'' in USDA service centers and local FSA and NRCS
offices. The arrangements for partner biologists vary greatly from
state to state regarding who pays for salary, benefits, travel,
supervision, hiring, and training, but often partner biologists are
supervised by the state fish and wildlife agency and work in an NRCS
office. By pooling our financial resources and expertise, these
``partner biologists'' provide valuable knowledge, expertise, and
resources to private landowners participating in voluntary, incentive-
based farm bill conservation programs that are essential to achieving
local, state, regional and national fish and wildlife conservation
objectives. Without all of the partners involved, many producers'
biological technical assistance needs would go unmet. Together we
leverage our diverse but specialized expertise to the benefit of USDA,
producers and the wildlife resources we manage. Ultimately, the tax
payer benefits from the leveraged funds that partners bring to USDA
because it makes technical assistance funds go farther. Annually and
collectively the state fish and wildlife agencies alone contribute
millions of dollars and thousands of hours to delivering biological
technical assistance because there is growing evidence that utilizing
partner biologists results in more wildlife habitat on the ground and
higher quality wildlife habitat long term.
Partner biologists accelerate private land benefits through farm
bill programs by bringing specialized fish and wildlife knowledge and
habitat management skills to numerous tasks and duties: conservation
planning; outreach, education, marketing the fish and wildlife aspects
of conservation programs and benefits of practices to farmers,
ranchers, and other private landowners; facilitating timely
implementation of planning, contracting, and practice implementation
follow-through necessary to bring habitat projects to fruition; and
being locally involved and thereby maintaining landowner trust.
We believe Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funds are needed
for holistic conservation planning, so whole farm operations and their
conservation objectives can be addressed from a landscape perspective
and not just through the lens of one particular conservation program.
In addition to more CTA funds, more flexibility between the amount of
financial assistance and technical assistance in program funds is
desperately needed. Some restoration activities such as wetlands and
in-stream work require more intensive planning, permitting, engineering
and expertise which have a higher cost of technical assistance. Because
inadequate technical assistance funds are provided through CTA and
conservation programs to complete these integral and vital components
of restoration, contracts sit idle or become de-obligated, work goes
undone and the backlog of restoration activities continues to grow.
State fish and wildlife agencies work directly with USDA to put
partner biologists on the ground to effectively and efficiently deliver
conservation programs and biological technical assistance. These states
include Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. Specific examples of these partner biologists and their work
are provided below.
North Carolina_North Carolina Wildlife Resources Division has co-
located 3 biologists in NRCS offices since January 2005, and they
primarily provide advice and guidance on WHIP, EQIP, CRP, WRP and
occasionally other programs. These co-located biologists are directly
involved in technical guidance on 10,000-15,000 acres of contracts each
year.
Missouri_Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) has had a strong
private land presence since its inception. By the 1970's there were 12
state Field Service Agents who were dedicated to private land efforts
throughout the state, working closely with USDA at that time. In 1981,
MDC started an expanded private land pilot program, one aspect of which
was the very first ``area biologist'' position. That was expanded to
two positions by 1983, and by the close of the pilot period (1986)
resulted in direction to place an area biologist in each of the NRCS
area offices. The old Field Service Agent position (now renamed) also
remained.
The value of the area biologist concept was quickly realized when
USDA rolled out CRP in 1986. Area Biologists also provided critical
assistance in implementing Swampbuster provisions of the farm bill, as
well as WRP. 1992 the first agreement with NRCS was crafted, and in
1993, MDC agreed to provide a Wetland Biologist at the NRCS state
office to assist with efforts to apply WRP and EWRP (1993 flood).
Initially conceived as a temporary position, it soon developed into a
permanent position. In 1995 the Wetland Emphasis Team (WET) concept was
developed, most with converted area biologists, and four WETs were
added in the state. This also coincided with a decrease in the number
of area offices in Missouri.
The Private Land Division was created within MDC in 1999. This
effort resulted in multiple benefits:
Expanded the old ``Field Service Agent'' concept from 12
statewide to its current staffing of 49 Private Land
Conservationists, dedicated to working with private landowners
on fish/forest/wildlife conservation.
3 Community Conservationists--working on urban planning
issues.
4 WET biologists focused on WRP and CRP wetland
projects.
4 Area Biologists working on farm bill and fish/forest/
wildlife planning with USDA.
1 Private Land Program Biologist, who supervises the WET
biologists and provides farm bill assistance to NRCS state
office staff.
1 Private Land Programs Supervisor.
The MDC-USDA partnership for delivering biological technical
assistance has provided tremendous return on our investment and here
are some of our accomplishments:
135,000 acres of WRP (5th highest in the nation), and
poised to add another 9,200 acres this year. Pioneered the
macrotopography concept in restoration.
1.4 million acres of CRP, including 26,000 acres of
CREP. MO has the 3rd highest allocation of CP33 acres in the
nation (currently enrolled 31,218 as of 3/31/10).
MO has just received another $1 million of EQIP funding
aimed specifically at forestry resources, bringing the total
forestry pool this year to $2.2 million, which is one of the
highest in the nation. Not counting FY10, MO has averaged $1.27
million encumbered on fish/forest/wildlife practices FY06-FY09.
For WHIP, MO has encumbered an average of $907,000 FY06-
FY09.
MDC has spent about $3 million on cost-share through
CREP ($2 million) and general CRP to promote the use of native
grasses.
In Missouri, 93% of the state is in the hand of private landowners.
They are the stewards in charge of the vast majority of Missouri's
fish, forest and wildlife resources. As a group they have also
indicated an overwhelming interest in the proper management and
conservation of those resources--and have inundated MDC with requests
for assistance in managing the natural resources on their property.
USDA farm bill programs provide a vital resource to enable them to meet
their personal goals for the management of these resources. The MDC has
partnered with USDA for over 28 years to jointly tackle the effort of
providing technical assistance to Missouri's private landowners on
fish/forest/wildlife management.
Texas_Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has had a liaison
position with Texas NRCS from 1998-2009. Placement of the single TPWD
farm bill coordinator in the state NRCS office led to an increase in
wildlife focused farm bill program modifications originating in Texas
that have been adopted by other states. This includes the creation of 6
EQIP Wildlife Resource Areas targeting at-risk species and amounting to
over 600,000 acres of habitat restoration worth over $11 million in
landowner Financial Assistance from 2003-2009. These EQIP focus areas
were created and informed through workshops with landowners and have
been well accepted as evidenced by their enrollment and participation.
Texas EQIP Wildlife Resource Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Contract Avg. $/ Avg. Cost/
Area Contracts Acres $$ Contract Acre
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attwater's Prairie Chicken/Bobwhite 36 73,511 $2,846,777 $79,077 $38.73
Lesser Prairie72hicken/BT97,745ie Do$1,622,562 $22,536 $16.60
Longleaf Pine/15 Woodpecke1,164WQ $229,814 $15,321 $197.43
Rolling Plains BWQ/Grassland Birds 124 221,708 $4,758,660 $38,376 $21.46
Black-capped Vireo 8 5,518 $331,501 $41,438 $60.08
Trans-Pecos Pronghorn Antelope 14 208,981 $1,409,923 $100,709 $6.75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................ 269 608,627 $11,199,237 $41,633 $18.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the EQIP areas, the state liaison position worked
with NRCS to align WHIP with the state wildlife action plan and
coordinate T&E species and other trainings for NRCS field staff.
Idaho_Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has 3 partner
biologist positions (farm bill coordinators) co-located in NRCS
offices. IDFG has had agreements with NRCS since 2007 to work on CRP
contracts as well as review all brush management projects funded under
EQIP and WHIP. IDFG staff has been responsible for writing many of the
plans for Idaho's SAFE program, they are also focusing on mid-contract
management of CRP, and working with landowners on the new NRCS Sage-
Grouse initiative.
Kentucky_Kentucky started sharing partner biologists with NRCS in
1998. Currently, there are 14 partner biologists and 2 biological
technicians that are shared with NRCS. These partner biologists share
the same workloads as their NRCS colleagues and work with landowners
from beginning of an inquiry to the inspections and compliance checks
that follow post-project completion.
South Carolina_Since 2003, the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR) has had a contribution agreement with NRCS to fund
three farm bill Biologist positions in NRCS offices located in key
geographic regions for priority wildlife species in South Carolina.
SCDNR is providing 100% of the cost of salary and fringe benefits for
these three employees through state and Federal funds (non-NRCS funds).
NRCS provides office space, training, computers, network access, and
vehicles for these employees as in-kind contributions.
Since 2003, these three positions combined have written
approximately 205 Conservation Plans totaling over 150,000 acres.
Landowner contacts have equaled or exceeded the total number of
Conservation Plans. These farm bill Biologists were largely responsible
for South Carolina's success in delivering over 6,000 acres of CP33
buffers, resulting in measurable increases in northern bobwhites and
priority grassland bird species. Landowners have been extremely
satisfied with the level and quality of service offered by the FB
biologists, with many returning for additional technical or program
assistance.
Since 2003, SCDNR has invested over $350,000 of combined state and
Federal dollars in the farm bill Biologist program. We see this as the
greatest opportunity we have to facilitate delivery of technical
information and financial assistance to the benefit of priority
wildlife species and habitats. It works because SCDNR provides
biological expertise in NRCS field offices, where it may otherwise be
lacking, and their biologists function as full NRCS team members,
shouldering significant workload which would otherwise be handled by an
already-stretched NRCS staff.
Due to budgetary constraints in SCDNR which have restricted
available state match dollars, one position has remained vacant since
2008 and two positions vacant since January, 2009. To date, SCDNR has
received no direct financial assistance (cash) from NRCS for these
positions. Additional similar positions throughout the state are needed
to address needs of priority wildlife species and habitats.
Florida_Florida entered into their first agreement with NRCS in
2003, for two private lands biologists that worked exclusively on Farm
Bill Conservation Program delivery, and primarily WHIP. In 2004, they
entered into a separate Cooperative Agreement that funded an additional
three biologists. In 2008, a new contribution agreement now funds six
biologists. Half of these positions are currently co-located in NRCS
offices, and we are working on co-locating the balance in NRCS offices.
About half the work performed is conservation planning and half is
conservation program delivery for primarily WHIP, EQIP, WRP and to a
lesser extent CSP.
State fish and wildlife agencies are collaborating with NGOs and
USDA to put partner biologists on the ground to help deliver
conservation programs and biological technical assistance because of
the declining state budgetary climate. These states include Virginia,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska,
and New Hampshire to name a few. Specific examples of the partner
biologists contributions to conservation program delivery follows.
Kansas_Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) private lands
technical assistance began in 1973 when wildlife biologist were hired
to work directly with private landowners to improve habitat. The Kansas
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), the first private land
habitat program in Kansas, began in 1974 and continues today. Since the
implementation of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (Farm Bill) of
1985, KDWP private land biologists have taken on an ever increasing
role in delivering conservation programs. As new programs and
initiatives are developed, KDWP has entered into agreements and
partnerships with several partners to broaden the impact of the
Departments commitment to improve habitat on private lands, which make
up 97% of the state.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--KDWP has been involved
delivering CRP, the largest habitat improvement program, since its
beginning in 1985. The Conservation Assistance Program was developed in
1988 by KDWP to encourage farmers to enroll CRP practices most
beneficial to wildlife. Through this program, liaison efforts of Kansas
WHIP and KDWP's working relationship with NRCS, Kansas has enrolled
more acres in native grasses than any state in the nation. To increase
enrollment in Continuous CRP buffer practices KDWP developed a
partnership in 2001 to hire temporary employee's to work in local USDA
offices and promote buffer enrollment. Through this program and the
efforts of KDWP biologists' working directly with NRCS, Continuous CRP
enrollment has increased to over 108,000 acres; nearly half of those
acres are wildlife practices CP33 and CP38E.
Cooperative Agreement with NRCS--KDWP entered into a MOA with the
NRCS in 1994 to provide six Wildlife Biologist to work 3 days per week
in NRCS Area Offices. The impetus for this agreement was a need to
assist NRCS in complying with the wetland provisions of the Food
Security Act and assist with delivery of conservation programs to NRCS
staff. Since 1994 the Area Biologists have assisted NRCS with thousands
of wetland determinations. In the past 5 years NRCS personnel devoted
to making wetland determination has decreased from ten to five,
strengthening the importance of the Area Biologist role with NRCS. Area
Biologists have assisted with Wetlands Reserve Program delivery
beginning in 1995. Kansas has 171 WRP agreements on 17,410 enrolled
acres.
Since 2003 the Area Biologist program has been under a Cooperative
Agreement with NRCS. The Cooperative Agreement has provided the
salaries of six Wildlife Biologist Technicians which work in Area
Biologist's districts providing technical assistance and helping to
deliver USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). Cooperation
between KDWP and NRCS remains strong and this continues to be an
excellent program for both agencies, furthering the ability to deliver
USDA programs in a manner consistent with improving wildlife habitat
throughout the state.
Contributory Agreement--NRCS--In July of 2003, KDWP entered into a
contributory agreement with the NRCS to assist with administration and
delivery of the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). The delivery
of WHIP within Kansas is being accomplished by 16 District Biologists
and 10 Biologist Technicians (five bio-techs funded through the
cooperative agreement and five funded through the contributory
agreement). The success of this contributory agreement has allowed for
the hire of an additional five unclassified Biologist Technicians to
aid in the delivery of WHIP and provide technical assistance to
landowners. Since the beginning of this agreement over 1,000 Federal
WHIP contracts have been completed, improving wildlife habitat on
nearly 130,000 acres, and providing over $4.7 million dollars in
Federal funds to landowners (Table 1).
Table 1_KDWP Federal WHIP Delivery
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program--NRCS-KDWP Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year No. of Contracts Acres Dollars Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 101 14,483 $456,994
2004 148 17,914 $593,861
2005 171 18,269 $596,122
2006 182 27,733 $790,547
2007 133 16,540 $500,581
2008 151 13,721 $820,796
2009 116 20,005 $979,200
-----------------------------------------------------
Totals:......... 1,002 128,665 $4,738,101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KDWP has been working directly with private landowners to develop
habitat since 1973. By promoting sound wildlife management practices
and providing technical and financial assistance to landowners for over
11 years before the first farm bill was enacted, relationships were
built and the groundwork laid that made possible the delivery of the
myriad of farm bill programs that we have today. KDWP will continue to
be the leader in providing assistance to landowners who have a desire
to develop habitat and will work with our partners to help develop and
deliver programs beneficial to wildlife in Kansas. As more emphasis is
placed on wildlife in all farm bill programs and special initiatives
are developed to address our greatest conservation needs, it will be
critical that funding is made available to strengthen existing
agreements and partnerships that deliver conservation programs and
provide for biological technical assistance.
Colorado_Colorado has had four partner biologists NRCS since 2003.
These partner biologists provide wildlife-related technical assistance
and expertise in the development and implementation of Farm Bill
Programs. Biologists stationed in NRCS office throughout the state
develop NRCS habitat conservation management plans, provide technical
guidance and training on wildlife habitat concerns to NRCS staff and
landowners, and establish partnerships between government agencies and
local stakeholders. The technical and program support focuses primarily
on the wildlife habitat conservation aspects the of Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program (WHIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP). The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), NRCS, and the Rocky
Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) are working with NRCS to facilitate
farm bill program delivery as part of Colorado's Private Lands
Biologist (PLB) Program. The RMBO also employs a program coordinator to
support the partner biologists.
Nebraska_Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) maintains a very
active private lands division and shares partner biologists with
Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited and NRCS to deliver conservation
programs and biological technical assistance. NGPC has funded and
shared partner biologists in local USDA offices (both FSA and NRCS)
since the 1990's. After the buffer coordinators of the 1990's, the
agencies added CRP technical assistance to the list of duties and two
partner biologists housed in NRCS offices beginning in 2002. NGPC
private lands staff continue working with USDA local offices to provide
more biological technical assistance for USDA programs, staff and
clients. Specifically, NGPC private lands staff played a huge role in
promoting and enrolling landowners in CP38 within a two county area of
the state that resulted in enrollment of close to 50% of the state's
SAFE acres. Together, NGPC private land staff and partner biologists
completed the conservation plans, seeding sheets, and the paperwork
necessary to put habitat on the ground and dollars in landowner'
pockets.
Ohio_The Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODOW), Pheasants Forever, and
the Ohio NRCS have utilized three different contribution agreements
since August 2008. These agreements facilitate partner biologists to
work on CRP Mid-Contract Management Assistance as well as WRP
monitoring and marketing assistance. For CRP Mid-contract management,
ODOW assists NRCS with the assessment of vegetative cover on fields and
wetlands enrolled in the CRP through required mid-contract management
(MCM). These assessments include walking these fields and completing a
form which records the vegetative diversity, grassland/forb
composition, amount of bare ground, contract violations, and grass
density of the stand. Initial field assessments commence during years
4-7 of a 10 year CRP contract. The forms are then utilized during
meetings with the landowners to review and recommend appropriate
practices (e.g., light disking, prescribed burning, interseeding forbs,
etc.) that will improve the wildlife cover. From 8/13/08 through 6/30/
2010, partner biologists completed 875 CRP fields assessed covering
8,993 acres and attended about 75 landowner meetings to review the
field assessments and provide cover management recommendations. For WRP
monitoring, three interns annually complete a comprehensive restored
wetland monitoring report for lands enrolled in the WRP across Ohio.
Monitoring includes recording such data as current vegetation quality/
conditions within the wetland and associated buffer, wildlife use,
restoration activities, wetland class, hydrology, and management issues
as well as involves a landowner interview, recording of GPS coordinates
of the wetland area and easement boundary, and noting any violations of
the easement. Ohio currently has approximately 350 WRP sites and the
goal of this project is to complete monitoring on 90-100 wetlands
annually until all have been completed. From 6/15/2009 through 10/15/
2010, these interns will monitor 97 WRP sites covering 5330 acres.
Furthermore, beginning in the fall of 2009, Ohio NRCS was given the
goal of enrolling 11,000 acres of WRP by the end of October 2010. Ohio
entered into a contribution agreement in which the DOW provided a part-
time biologist to NRCS to assist with marketing WRP to the public. The
DOW private lands biologists have developed a network of contacts
through with conservation organizations and hunting clubs that would be
able to market WRP to landowners and farmers across the state. This
biologist worked closely with NRCS county staff, other DOW employees,
and wetland teams to utilize the media and publish information
documents that were sent to landowners. To date, NRCS has collected
8,000 acres worth of applications in a 6 month period associated with
this partner biologist position.
Finally, the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) has developed
a Capacity Grants Program and brokered new partner biologist positions
in Wyoming, Nevada, California, and Oregon to facilitate focused
habitat work through farm bill conservation programs for sage-grouse,
migratory waterfowl, and shorebirds. The IWJV continues to seek new
partnerships and opportunities to deliver conservation programs and
biological technical assistance.
Conclusion
The state fish and wildlife agencies are thoroughly committed to
and vested in assisting USDA by providing biological technical
assistance to both the Department and the private agriculture, grazing
and forest landowners to fulfill effective delivery of farm bill
conservation programs that are vital to the sustainability of the
Nation's fish and wildlife resources and the habitats on which they
(and our citizens) depend. Successful partnerships between the state
fish and wildlife agencies, USDA, and NGO partner organizations need to
be encouraged, enhanced and supported with adequate Federal funding to
match partner state and NGO funds. This collaboration is particularly
critical as demand from landowners for these popular conservation
programs increase, but USDA capacity to deliver these programs fails to
keep pace or even worse, declines. The Association and the state fish
and wildlife agencies remain committed to working with the Committee to
ensure the on the ground conservation success of these vital programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this Statement for the Record.