[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

IMPLEMENTING THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF
2014: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 11, 2015

__________

Serial No. 114-17

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

____________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-134 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MIKE BOST, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi

______

Scott C. Graves, Staff Director

Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New
STEVE KING, Iowa Mexico, Ranking Minority Member
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
MIKE BOST, Illinois

(ii)
C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New
Hampshire, opening statement................................... 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2

Witnesses

Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Submitted questions.......................................... 55
Dolcini, J.D., Val, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Submitted questions.......................................... 67
Van Dyke, Brent, First Vice President, National Association of
Conservation Districts, Hobbs, NM.............................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Allen, William ``Buddy'' H., Member, Conservation Committee, USA
Rice Federation; rice producer, Tunica, MS..................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Martynick, Hon. Karen L., Executive Director, Lancaster Farmland
Trust, Strasburg, PA........................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Inglis, James E., Governmental Affairs Representative, Pheasants
Forever, Inc. and Quail Forever, Upper Sandusky, OH............ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43

IMPLEMENTING THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2015

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Gibson,
Allen, Bost, Conaway (ex officio), Lujan Grisham, Kuster,
Nolan, DelBene, Kirkpatrick, and Peterson (ex officio).
Staff present: Jackie Barber, Josh Maxwell, Matt Schertz,
Mollie Wilken, Patricia Straughn, Skylar Sowder, Faisal
Siddiqui, John Konya, Anne Simmons, Evan Jurkovich, and Nicole
Scott.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry to review
implementing the Agricultural Act of 2014: conservation
programs, will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing. Since 1985, Congress has
created over 20 farm bill conservation programs to address
specific natural resource concerns. With this piecemeal
approach over the past 30 years, we were left with programs
that started as regional initiatives and were duplicative of
national approaches. And many programs had overlapping
functions and goals.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 reversed this trend by looking
at conservation programs in a more comprehensive way. The 2014
Farm Bill made significant reforms by streamlining and
consolidating 23 conservation programs into 13, while still
maintaining the core function and goals of conservation
initiatives. These reforms are estimated to not only save the
American taxpayer over $6 billion but were also intended to
improve conservation delivery. Through assistance and
incentives provided by farm bill conservation programs, our
farmers and ranchers have voluntarily reduced soil erosion,
protected wetlands, improved water quality and quantity, and
preserved farmland and wildlife habitat. These environmental
gains they have achieved are testimony to our producers who
truly are the most dedicated conservationists.
Today, we will hear from Chief Jason Weller of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Administrator Val Dolcini of
the Farm Service Agency, whose agencies have spent the last
year and half implementing the many reforms and changes found
in the conservation title of the farm bill. I will be
interested to hear about the status of implementation for each
program and hear the Administration's view on how consolidation
has impacted program delivery.
Since June 1, the deadline for producers to file their AD-
1026 form has recently passed. And it is very timely to receive
feedback on issues related to conservation compliance, with
crop insurance. And I appreciate both gentlemen taking the time
to be here today.
We are also going to hear from a panel of stakeholders who
are directly impacted by the implementation of these programs
and the changes made by Congress. Consolidation of programs was
necessary for funding and administering the programs. But we
need to make sure it actually works on the ground. These
stakeholders will be able to give us their perspectives on how
they feel implementation is going and how the different
programs are working. I look forward to hearing about our
witnesses' experiences with the newly created Regional
Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP in the acronym world.
RCPP is an innovative approach to targeting conservation
initiatives and leveraging funds. In the initial roll out, RCPP
funded 115 projects across all 50 states and matched $370
million in program dollars with $400 million with partner
contributions. Important programs like EQIP and CSP had
relatively small changes in the Agricultural Act of 2014.
However, they remain integral tools in conserving our natural
resources.
The longest-standing conservation program, the Conservation
Reserve Program, CRP, saw a significant reduction in the
maximum acres allowed to be enrolled in the program. But in
exchange the the 2014 Farm Bill afforded landowners more
flexibility, especially for haying and grazing. It will be
interesting to see the impacts the reduced acreage cap has had
on the CRP program. And I am intrigued to hear our witnesses'
opinions on it.
Easement programs are an important conservation tool in my
region. I would like to personally welcome Ms. Karen Martynick,
who is representing the Lancaster Farmland Trust in Strasburg,
Pennsylvania. The consolidation of farmland, grassland, and
wetland easement into one program, the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program, ACEP, will streamline delivery
as well and has provided permanent baseline funding for future
conservation programs.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for taking the time
to be here today. I look forward to hearing each of your
testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing to review the
implementation of conservation programs in the Agricultural Act of
2014.
Since 1985, Congress created over 20 farm bill conservation
programs to address specific natural resource concerns.
With this piecemeal approach over the past 30 years, we were left
with programs that started as regional initiatives and were duplicative
of national approaches and many programs that had overlapping functions
and goals.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 reversed this trend by looking at
conservation programs in a more comprehensive way. The 2014 Farm Bill
made significant reforms by streamlining and consolidating 23
conservation programs into 13 while still maintaining the core
functions and goals of the conservation initiatives.
These reforms are estimated to not only save the American taxpayer
over $6 billion but are also are intended to improve conservation
delivery.
Through assistance and incentives provided by farm bill
conservation programs, our farmers and ranchers have voluntarily
reduced soil erosion, protected wetlands, improved water quality and
quantity, and preserved farmland and wildlife habitat.
These environmental gains they have achieved are a testament to our
producers who truly are the most dedicated conservationists.
Today, we will hear from Chief Jason Weller of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Administrator Val Dolcini of the
Farm Service Agency whose agencies have spent the past year and a half
implementing the many reforms and changes found in the conservation
title of the farm bill.
I will be interested to hear about the status of implementation for
each program and to hear the Administration's view on how consolidation
has impacted program delivery.
Since the June 1 deadline for producers to file their AD-1026 form
has recently passed, it is very timely to receive feedback on issues
related to conservation compliance with crop insurance. I appreciate
both the gentlemen taking the time to be here today.
We will also hear from a panel of stakeholders who are directly
impacted by the implementation of these programs and the changes made
by Congress.
Consolidation of programs was necessary for funding and
administering the programs, but we need to make sure it actually works
on the ground.
These stakeholders will be able to give us their perspectives on
how they feel implementation is going and how the different programs
are working.
I look forward to hearing about our witnesses' experiences with the
newly-created Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).
RCPP is an innovative approach to targeting conservation
initiatives and leveraging funding. In the initial rollout, RCPP funded
115 projects across all 50 states and matched $370 million in program
dollars with $400 million from partner contributions.
Important programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) had
relatively small changes in the Agricultural Act of 2014; however they
remain integral tools in conserving our natural resources.
The longest-standing conservation program, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), saw a significant reduction in the maximum acres allowed
to be enrolled in the program, but in exchange, the 2014 Farm Bill
afforded landowners more flexibility, especially for haying and
grazing.
It will be interesting to see the impacts the reduced acreage cap
has had on the CRP program, and I am intrigued to hear our witnesses'
opinions on it.
Easement programs are an important conservation tool in my region.
I would like to personally welcome Ms. Karen Martynick who is
representing the Lancaster Farmland Trust in Strasburg, Pennsylvania.
The consolidation of farmland, grassland and wetland easements into
one program--the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)--
will streamline delivery as well as provide permanent baseline funding
for future conservation programs.
Again, thank you to all of the witnesses for taking time to be here
today. We look forward to hearing each of your testimony.

The Chairman.I am pleased to yield for an opening
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. KUSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ms. Kuster. Good morning. I am pleased to be here today for
the Subcommittee's first in-depth look at the implementation of
the Agricultural Act of 2014's Title II conservation programs.
I want to thank Chairman Thompson and our Ranking Member,
Ms. Lujan Grisham, for holding this important hearing and for
their leadership on this Subcommittee. The 2014 Farm Bill made
reforms to the conservation title in order to make conservation
programs more efficient, effective, and user-friendly for
producers. These programs serve as important tools that our
farmers and ranchers use to improve water quality, mitigate
drought, and improve soil health.
From New Mexico to New Hampshire, conservation programs
like the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental
Quality Incentives Programs, EQIP, are helping farmers and
ranchers endure drought conditions and allowing rural families
to remain on their land and ranches. In fact, New Mexico is one
of the leading states in CSP with close to 1 million acres
enrolled and funded through this program. In addition to these
traditional conservation programs, New Mexico has also
benefited from the Regional Conservation Partnership Program,
which is one of the new conservation programs the farm bill
created.
The RCPP aims to encourage innovative partnerships through
a Federal/non-Federal cost-share in order to accomplish
important conservation work at a watershed level. New Mexico's
four RCPP projects are going to help the state prevent
wildfires, combat invasive species, and preserve traditional
communal irrigation systems. I am disappointed that our
conservation programs have endured some cuts that will
ultimately mean fewer resources for farmers and ranchers. But I
am looking forward to hearing how this Committee can continue
to support these programs which are vital in protecting
rangelands, wildlife habitat, and water quality.
I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here with
us today and share their testimony and expertise. And on behalf
of Representative Lujan-Grisham, I want to extend a special
welcome to Brent Van Dyke from New Mexico on the second panel.
I look forward to the discussion. And with that, Mr. Chairman,
we yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I am actually pleased
to acknowledge the presence of our full Committee Chairman who
I understand does not have an opening statement. But I want to
wish him a very happy birthday today.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

Mr. Conaway. Well I thank the Chairman. I appreciate that
and yield back. I appreciate the birthday wish. Thank you.
The Chairman. I appreciate you sharing your birthday with
the Subcommittee.
Mr. Conaway. Actually I am sharing it with a baseball team
tonight. That is our secret weapon. To win the Congressional
baseball game tonight is my birthday present to myself, and it
will be a victory by the Republicans. I yield back.
The Chairman. I am pleased to recognize the full
Agriculture Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, for an
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Mr. Peterson. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for holding this hearing. And I want to thank the folks from
the Department and their hard work and the other witnesses that
are here. And Chief Weller, I thank you for the work you have
done on the RCPP in our part of the world. We appreciate that.
And we continue to work on implementing that. So that has been
very much appreciated.
I just want to bring up a couple concerns that I have heard
too. I haven't looked into this as much, but I have been having
farmers talk to me here the last month or 2 that they are not
able to qualify to get back into the CSP. I don't know exactly
what is going on, if it is a limitation on the dollars or what
it is. But I have had two or three of them talk to me about it.
Mostly, I want to discuss the CRP a little bit.
A history lesson for those that haven't followed farm
policy since 1985, which is a long time ago, the original CRP
program was not a conservation program. The original CRP
program was to reduce production because prices had collapsed,
we had to get land out of production because we had too much
production. And so we set up the CRP as a production control
mechanism. Back in the 1950s, we had the forerunner, the Soil
Bank. And back in those days, in my area, my home county, we
had pheasants and ducks all over the place. And then
Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson, came in, got rid of it. And I
have been around too long.
And we today haven't got a pheasant or a duck in that
county. And the reason is we lost the Soil Bank and we never
got it back in. Because by the time we reestablished the CRP
program, that land had become too valuable. And it is all being
farmed. So what I am concerned about is that we have added
environmental factors into the CRP as we have gone along. Back
in 1996, the one thing that was positive in the 1996 Farm Bill
was that I convinced Chairman Roberts to raise the cap on CRP
to 36 million acres. What that did is it spread out CRP all
over the country. And it put in a lot of big tract CRP, which
is the main reason why wildlife really responded to the CRP
program. Because we had big tracts of half a section or a
section where you could spread the predators out and they
weren't able to zero in and wipe out all the wildlife like they
do on the wildlife management areas in these 40 acre tracts and
so forth. So that was really positive.
But as we have gone forward, we keep putting more and more
restrictions on the CRP. And we are narrowing where this can
be, where people can get in. And I am concerned that where we
are heading with CRP is going to really erode the wildlife
benefits of the program. And we still have in the statute that
\1/3\ of this is supposed to be wildlife benefits, which are
supposed to be one of the primary reasons for the CRP.
So I am somewhat disappointed and I have had discussions
with the Secretary about the fact that we are not having a
general sign-up this year. They have extended the contracts
another year. And there is going to be a sign-up, as I
understand it, probably the 1st of December, which, for
Minnesota, that means nothing happens until the year after
this. So I am concerned about the fact that we are not doing it
this year. And there was an announcement made, there is going
to 800,000 acres targeted. And, frankly, I am a little bit
concerned about that. Because what we are doing, once again, is
pushing all of these targeted programs which are okay to some
extent. But \1/2\ of the 800,000 acres is going to go to be
SAFE acres which are basically controlled by the state DNRs.
And they have their agenda.
And there is another 300,000 acres for nesting habitat
which, apparently, you have to be able to prove that you have
nesting pairs of ducks in your field in order for you to
qualify. I am not that familiar with it. But that is what I
have been told. And then we have the wetland restoration which
makes you plug ditches and allow the wetlands to be restored
which, I guess, means you are going to have wetlands on your
land from that time forward, which has caused some controversy.
And so these targeted programs have contributed to people
setting up folks to help get people into these programs. And so
in North Dakota, we have a big controversy that has developed
because Ducks Unlimited have put a whole bunch of biologists in
the FSA offices in North Dakota. And part of the criticism is
that we have not funded the technical assistance, so this is
necessary. But what is happening is they are pushing people
into these other programs and now there is a backlash going on
in North Dakota where they want to have a, they are talking
about having a bill to tell them they can't have Ducks
Unlimited people involved. So it has created some controversies
out there.
So I am a little concerned about where we are headed with
all this. And I just think as we get to the next general sign-
up, I just hope that we can ramp down some of these
environmental things so that we can still have big tract CRPs
spread across the country and get these wildlife benefits, in
addition to the environmental benefits. So with that, Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back. And, again, I appreciate you
having this hearing.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back. The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony, to ensure there is ample time for questions.
The chair would like to remind Members that they will be
recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members
who were present at the start of the hearing. After that,
Members will be recognized in the order of arrival. I
appreciate the Members' understanding.
Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral presentations to
5 minutes. All written statements have been distributed ahead
of time and will be included within the record.
I would like to welcome our first panel witnesses who are
at the table. Chief Jason Weller, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Administrator Val Dolcini, Farm
Service Agency. Thank you, gentlemen for being here today and
for your leadership. And Chief Weller, please begin whenever
you are ready.

STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Weller. Well good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Lujan Grisham. Nice to see you. And I appreciate very
much the opportunity to be here before the Committee this
morning. And if nothing else, I just want to express the
gratitude and how grateful I am for the authorities and the
resources this Committee provides to USDA and the stewardship
you provide for America's private lands incentive-based
conservation programs.
Through the 2014 Farm Bill, what you provided, what you
crafted in that bill provides USDA enormous flexibilities and
authorities to go out, in partnership with farmers and
ranchers, deliver real results for agriculture, to help them
maintain, if not boost their production, but also then help
them manage their natural resource challenges in a way that is
really effective. And in that farm bill, as you know, you have
streamlined a lot of programs. You have maintained
flexibilities, even enhanced flexibilities, and then really
emphasized the value and the importance of partnerships.
And so with these authorities, on behalf of NRCS, we have
been able to deliver very significant results just in the last
year alone. But also looking back over previous farm bills too,
there are some very significant results across America that I
would like to talk about very briefly this morning. The bottom
line is you can be extremely proud of the work that is being
done in partnership with producers through the programs and
authorities that you have authorized and funded through your
hard work in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Speaking of birthdays, Mr. Chairman, our agency celebrated
our 80th birthday 2 months ago. So 2 weeks after Black Sunday
in April 1935, President Roosevelt, in partnership with
Congress, enacted and put into law what created the Soil
Conservation Service. So 80 years of history working in
partnership with farmers and ranchers, on a collaborative
voluntary basis, working with soil and water conservation
districts, state agencies and other private partners across
America. I am very honored to represent the 10,000
professionals that work at NRCS, work in field offices across
America, in state offices, in centers, and in national
headquarters. These men and women are true professionals. They
do a lot of unheralded work that, in my view, is very honorable
and is very valuable. And it is truly on behalf of America's
farmers and ranchers. I am very honored to represent NRCS and
hopefully convey a little bit about the results we are helping
to deliver in partnership with producers.
So, first, let me talk a little bit about some of the soil
benefits. In the Chesapeake Bay region alone, since 2006,
producers have put in place effective conservation practices to
reduce sediment loss from their crop fields, upwards of 62
percent. That translates into over 15 million tons of sediment
that no longer flows in the Chesapeake Bay estuary. That is
enough sediment to fill 150,000 train cars which would stretch
from D.C. to Albuquerque, New Mexico every year.
In terms of soil health, Mr. Chairman, you hosted and
invited us to participate in a soil health briefing last year.
And we heard from producers like Mr. Groff from Pennsylvania on
how they have experimented and put in place soil health
management practices. In the case of Mr. Groff, he manages 225
acres in Pennsylvania. He has put in place soil health systems
going back decades. And he reports yield boosts of upward of
ten percent above local averages because of cover crops and
wise tillage practices he has in place.
Well since 2012, NRCS, through your programs, has put in
place 3.7 million acres of cover crops, to help farmers put in
place 1.7 million acres of no-till practices, to help protect
the soils. And in periods of drought, back in 2012, when
producers were surveyed in the heartland states, this one
practice alone, cover crops, produces a reported yield benefits
of 12 to 15 percent for corn and beans above conventional
farmers that did not incorporate cover crops as part of their
rotation.
In terms of water, sometimes there is too much, sometimes
there is too little, and sometimes we need to protect the water
we have. In terms of water protection, because of the programs
that you have authorized, we have partnered with producers in
Arkansas to focus results. And because of that collaborative
approach to protect water resources, the State of Arkansas is
going to be able to de-list two waters from the section 303(d)
impaired lists in Arkansas. And in Mr. Lucas' home State of
Oklahoma, since 2007, the state, NRCS in partnership with
Oklahoma Conservation Commission, de-listed upwards of 40
streams and river segments in the state, 900 miles of stream
segments taken off 303(d) lists because of positive proactive
conservation on behalf of farmers.
In terms of water conservation, the Ogallala Aquifer
Region, in over 4 years we have put in place an effective
irrigation efficiency practice with farmers that we estimate
save 1.5 million acre feet of water. That is enough water to
supply drinking water for 3.3 million households every year, an
incredible quantity of water that is sustaining the healthy
aquifer, maintaining productivity in the agricultural
heartland, and also allowing for industry and municipalities to
have access to that important water.
Sometimes it rains too much like in Oklahoma and Texas.
Because of wise investments that this Committee has made in
previous decades, we estimate we have helped protect and
prevent $130 million worth of flood damages that would have
occurred but for the infrastructure. This Committee, in the
2014 Farm Bill, invested in the rehab programs to help protect
that infrastructure investment. And because of the wise
investments, we were able to protect hundreds of thousands of
families, communities, homes, public infrastructure, railways,
bridges, schools, and hospitals, because of the hard work this
Committee put in place.
One final example, in terms of animals, just incredible
benefits on wildlife. And, oftentimes, wildlife can be the best
indicator. When you manage your forests, your grasslands, your
crop fields effectively, nature will respond. Just 2 weeks ago
with the Louisiana black bear, Secretary Jewell, Governor
Jindal proposed removing the Louisiana black bear from the
endangered species list, because of investments through private
lands conservation easements.
In Louisiana alone, over 217,000 acres were put in place
through the Wetlands Reserve Program. And because of wise
targeting and partnership with the state, we helped put in
place a network of habitat that is good for protecting
farmlands, protecting the values of those lands, but also
protecting wetland resources, migratory bird resources. In this
case, the Louisiana black bear.
North in Montana, the Arctic Fluvial Grayling was taken off
the candidate list because of actions of producers, of
ranchers. In Oregon, the Oregon chub, was the first fish in
history to be taken off the list not because it was extinct or
extirpated, but because it came back. Conservation investments
through your authorities brought the Oregon chub back from a
population of less than 1,000 fish, today over 140,000 fish and
growing.
And then, most recently, the bi-state population of sage
grouse on the border between California and Nevada, taken off
the candidate list. Again, because of proactive investments
through private lands conservation and the partnership of
private landowners, ranchers, making a difference on their
operations, going to keep them intact, keep them operating,
keep them on their land, but also, in this case, keep the bird
off the endangered species list.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here
today. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss implementation of the conservation programs authorized by
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The continuing support
of this Subcommittee for voluntary private lands conservation is making
a critical difference. Farm bill conservation programs provide
America's farmers, ranchers and others with technical and financial
assistance to enable conservation of natural resources while protecting
and improving agricultural operations. Seventy percent of the American
landscape is privately owned, making private lands conservation
critical to the health of our nation's environment and ability to
ensure our working lands are productive.
Farm Bill Implementation
The 2014 Farm Bill was signed into law on February 7, 2014. The new
farm bill delivered a strong conservation title that makes robust
investments to conserve and support America's working lands and
consolidates and streamlines programs to improve efficiency and
encourage participation. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has the privilege of administering many of these programs,
including the: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP), Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), and Voluntary Public
Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP).
Enacted in early 2014, the 2014 Farm Bill initially allowed NRCS to
continue to serve customers using existing program rules. As a result,
FY 2014 service proceeded seamlessly and NRCS enrolled approximately 20
million acres in voluntary conservation programs and obligated nearly
$3 billion. At the same time, NRCS moved swiftly to draft rules,
program guidance, and policies to support full implementation of the
new and modified programs. The following provides an overview of 2014
Farm Bill implementation activity:

Since the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) started in
2009, the program has become a major force for agricultural
conservation, and it continues to inspire action to enhance
America's natural resources. In FY 2014 NRCS enrolled about 9.6
million acres and now CSP enrollment exceeds 60 million acres,
about the size of Iowa and Indiana, combined.

The CSP Interim Final Rule was published in November 2014,
reflecting statutory changes to the acreage enrollment cap,
stewardship levels, contract modifications, and CRP and certain
easement land eligibility. Public comments were accepted
through January 20, 2015. NRCS received nearly 500 individual
comments; most related to access to the program, minimum
payments, contract rates, and stewardship thresholds. We are
working to address the public comments and expect to publish
the final rule in Summer 2015.

Through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
producers addressed their conservation needs on over 11 million
acres in FY 2014; over $928 million was obligated in nearly
40,000 contracts to support this conservation work.

The EQIP Interim Final Rule was published in December 2014,
reflecting the statutory changes to incorporate the purposes of
the former Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and address the
payment limitation and waiver authority, advance payments for
historically under-served producers, and preferences to certain
veteran farmers and ranchers. Public comments were accepted
through February 10, 2015. NRCS received over 330 individual
comments; most related to the irrigation history, confined
animal feeding operations, EQIP plan of operations, program
administration, payment rates and limitations, application
selection, and funding levels for wildlife practices. The final
rule is targeted for completion in early Fall 2015.

Conservation Innovation Grants--In September 2014, NRCS
awarded $15.7 million in CIG to 47 organizations that will help
develop and demonstrate cutting-edge ideas to accelerate
innovation in private lands conservation. The FY 2015 Funding
Announcement was released in January 2015 offering up to $20
million. Project selection is targeted for late Summer 2015.

Landowners participating in the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP) enrolled an estimated 143,833 acres of
farmland, grasslands, and wetlands through 485 new ACEP
easements (88,892 acres in Ag Land Easements, and 54,941 acres
in Wetland Reserve Easements) with the $328 million in FY 2014
funding. These easements will help preserve important
agricultural lands and agricultural viability while they create
and protect habitat for migratory birds and other important
species.

The ACEP Interim Final Rule was published in February 2015,
reflecting statutory changes to consolidate the purposes of
FRPP, GRP (easement component only) and WRP and address the
certification process for ACEP-ALE; authority to subordinate,
modify, or terminate an easement; grasslands of special
environmental significance; and the agricultural land easement
plan. Public comments were accepted through May 28, 2015. NRCS
is evaluating public comments presently and developing
recommendations for the final rule.

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) created
a new platform for engaging partners and leveraging the Federal
conservation investment. The first RCPP announcement of over
$370 million in program funding was rolled out on May 27, 2014.
Following a rigorous two-stage competitive process, 115 high-
impact projects across all 50 states and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico were selected in January 2015. Partners brought
forward an estimated $400 million in their own contributions
for a total investment of nearly $800 million that will go to
improve the nation's water quality and supply, support wildlife
habitat and enhance agricultural production and the
environment. The FY 2016 funding announcement was released in
May 2015, making available up to $235 million for new
agreements. This round of RCPP will have an even greater
emphasis on partnerships, leveraging, and diversity to achieve
innovative solutions to locally identified issues.

The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program
(VPA-HIP) assists states and Tribes to increase public access
to private lands for wildlife-dependent recreation, such as
hunting, fishing and hiking. In FY 2014, NRCS made $20 million
available for VPA-HIP awards and was able to fund ten of the 30
proposals received. In February 2015, NRCS announced the
availability of $20 million for VPA-HIP projects. Project
selection is targeted for Summer 2015.

The Mitigation Banking program provision will be implemented
directly through an announcement of program funding. The
implementation approach is being finalized with an expected
announcement in Summer 2015.

In addition to the major rule changes discussed above, minor
statutory changes to Technical Service Providers; State Technical
Committees; Healthy Forests Reserve Program; Small Watershed Program;
Regional Equity; Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives
Program, and Agricultural Management Assistance were published in a
consolidated Interim Final Rule in August 2014. The few public comments
received were addressed in the final rule published in April 2015.
Farm Bill Conservation Programs Deliver
With the tools and resources provided through the 2014 Farm Bill,
USDA and its partners are positioned to help agriculture make a major
difference in the lives of farming and ranching families and the
quality of natural resources. While these programs work well
independently, they are a family of tools that are providing
comprehensive landscape-scale solutions and benefits. Below are a few
highlights of how farm bill conservation programs are achieving natural
resource results in balance with productive agriculture.
The right conservation practices put in the right places are an
effective means to achieve cleaner more abundant water for farmers,
ranchers, communities, and wildlife. Using farm bill programs through
the Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI), NRCS has invested
significantly in high-priority water quality projects in the Basin
delivering on the ground benefits. For example, as a result of MRBI
conservation efforts, Arkansas was able to remove two stream segments
from the State's Clean Water Act 303(d) impairment designation. Working
with partners and using farm bill tools, farmers, ranchers and other
landowners have helped remove nine more streams from Oklahoma's 303(d)
list of impaired streams in 2014. Oklahoma ranks second in the nation
for EPA-recognized water quality success stories. And in the region
overlying the Ogallala Aquifer in the Central Plains, farm bill
programs have allowed NRCS to partner with farmers to install water
conservation practices that conserved an estimated 1.5 million acre-
feet of groundwater over 4 years, or enough water to provide annual
water needs for about 3.3 million households.
If the widespread drought has shown us anything, it is the value of
crop resilience through good soil health management systems. Using farm
bill programs, NRCS has been accelerating adoption of soil health
practices and helping producers build resilience in their production
systems. Soil health management systems help increase organic matter,
reduce soil compaction, improve nutrient storage and cycle and increase
water infiltration and water availability to plants. These benefits
lead to greater resiliency to adverse conditions but also boost yields.
For example, a national survey of farmers documented an increase in
yields of nine percent for corn following cover crops and ten percent
for soybeans after cover crops.
The StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity initiative targets
farm bill programs in persistent poverty communities to assist farmers
and ranchers achieve economic and environmental objectives. Since 2010,
NRCS and other USDA agencies have focused assistance and outreach in
over 880 counties, parishes, boroughs, and Census areas, and in Indian
reservations in 22 states. In FY 2014 alone, NRCS invested $286 million
in partnership with producers in high-poverty communities to help their
operations be more economically successful and environmentally
sustainable. For example, NRCS in partnership with Tuskegee University
has invested about $1 million to help nearly 40 producers in Alabama
StrikeForce counties to incorporate innovative practices on their
farming operations, including retro-fits for current irrigation
systems, new wells, solar powered wells, and drip irrigation systems
that will make their operations more productive and sustainable.
Farm bill programs and conservation efforts of farmers and ranchers
have had major positive and measurable impacts on wildlife species. For
example, the August 2014 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to not list the arctic fluvial grayling under the Endangered
Species Act was a direct result of voluntary conservation work done by
30 landowners on more than 150,000 acres. The February 2015 decision to
de-list the Oregon chub is another success story, with farm bill
programs helping producers improve their operations at the same time
delivering benefits to fish habitat. In April 2015, USFWS announced its
decision to withdraw the proposal to list the bi-state population of
greater sage grouse in California and Nevada as threatened under the
ESA, based on the success of voluntary conservation efforts to recover
this species and its habitat.
Voluntary conservation efforts are improving air quality in
California's San Joaquin Valley. In April, EPA published a revision to
California's State Implementation Plan that for the first time credits
producer actions in clearing the air. Farmers and ranchers, with
assistance from NRCS, have replaced aging diesel engines used for
agricultural purposes with new, lower exhaust-emitting engines. Since
2008, NRCS has co-invested more than $100 million in this effort with
producers and offset the equivalent of emissions from one million cars.
The agriculture sector achieved its air quality improvement target 3
years ahead of the schedule mandated by state regulations--the only
regulated sector to do so. Farm bill Programs are demonstrating how the
voluntary actions by producers can translate to quantified air quality
improvements in California's San Joaquin Valley.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee let me conclude by
saying that our nation's farmers and ranchers have a tremendous track
record of success in conserving our nation's soil and water resources.
Through the work of this Subcommittee in providing the programs of the
2014 Farm Bill, NRCS has the tools to continue assisting these stewards
to achieve their production and operational goals in balance with
natural resource objectives that benefit rural communities and the
nation as a whole. Voluntary conservation is working, and the programs
and authorities provided through The Agricultural Act of 2014 are
providing the programs and services that help strengthen agriculture,
the environment, and rural economies. Thank you for the opportunity to
be here today and update the Committee on our Agency's efforts to
effectively implement the 2014 Farm Bill. I would be happy to respond
to any questions at this time.

The Chairman. Chief, thank you so much. Thanks for the
insight on those southern black bears. I thought they only
liked my corn farmers' fields.
Administrator Dolcini, please go ahead and proceed with
your 5 minutes. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF VAL DOLCINI, J.D., ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Dolcini. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss FSA's
implementation of the farm bill's conservation title. Like
Chief Weller, I would like to thank this Subcommittee and the
full Committee in this Congress and in past Congresses for the
support that you have shown our programs, our people, and our
resources. And like Chief Weller, I want to call out the hard
work of 15,000 FSA employees in 2,124 service centers across
this country, along with the 7,000 or so farmer-elected county
committee men and women that support the work of FSA. They are
our competitive edge. It is not the work that I do here in
Washington, it is the work that is done in the field every day.
And to stay on the birthday band wagon, I will start my
testimony with a note that the Conservation Reserve Program
turns 30 this year. And so we are celebrating all year long the
30th anniversary of conservation achievements across the
American landscape. CRP is a voluntary program that allows USDA
to contract with farmers and ranchers so that environmentally
sensitive lands and lands with wildlife benefits are not farmed
or ranched, but, instead, are used for conservation benefits.
Participants establish long-term covers, such as approved
grasses or trees, to control erosion and water quality. And, in
return, we provide participants with rental payments, cost-
sharing, and other incentives for the period of the contract.
CRP restores habitat for ducks, pheasants, deer, and other
wildlife. And in doing so, it spurs hunting, fishing,
recreation, tourism, and other forms of local economic
development. We have a large number of partners who work
collaboratively with FSA and contribute to these achievements,
including our sister agency, NRCS, as well as numerous non-
Federal partners that you will hear from later this morning.
Currently, 24.3 million acres are enrolled in CRP
contracts, including 18.1 under general sign-up authority and
6.2 million under continuous sign-up authority. CRP contracts
on 1.9 million acres will expire at the end of this fiscal
year. With the enactment of the farm bill, the total number of
CRP acres that can be enrolled nationwide has been reduced from
32 to 24 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2017. And as a
result, we anticipate that CRP will increasingly focus on the
most sensitive acreage and that the sign-ups will be
increasingly competitive. To target this high-benefit acreage,
Secretary Vilsack announced on May 29 that an additional
800,000 acres would be available under certain continuous
authorities, including, as Congressman Peterson pointed out,
300,000 acres for duck habitat, 100,000 acres for wetlands, and
400,000 acres for the SAFE acre program.
He also announced that the next general enrollment period
will begin on December 1 and will conclude on February 26 of
2016. Participants with eligible CRP contracts that expire this
fiscal year will be provided an option on a 1 year extension.
USDA also restarted continuous enrollment activity in the
Transitions Incentive Program, the TIP program. This encourages
transfer of expiring CRP lands to beginning and socially-
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Other farm bill provisions,
such as changes to haying and grazing, tree thinning and
grasslands, require rulemaking and National Environmental
Policy Act analysis. Both of these efforts are underway and
both are nearing completion.
The 2014 Farm Bill also requires compliance with highly-
erodible land and wetland conservation requirements in order to
be eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies. While most
farmers have a certification form on file, I would say many
farmers do, USDA conducted informational meetings and training
sessions all across the country for those who may not. And we
reached tens of thousands of stakeholders to ensure that
affected producers who filed their form by the June 1 deadline
can remain eligible for premium supports during the 2016
reinsurance year.
In light of recent natural disasters, such as the serious
flooding we have seen in Oklahoma and Texas and continued
drought conditions in California and elsewhere in the West, I
would like to also reemphasize the importance of our Emergency
Conservation Program. ECP provides emergency funding and
technical assistance to help farmers and ranchers rehabilitate
farmland damaged by natural disaster. It also helps livestock
producers enhance water supplies during severe drought. And we
are standing by to assist states in need with that program.
Mr. Chairman, Members, as you have noted, our nation's
farmers and ranchers are dedicated stewards of land
conservation. For 30 years, their participation in CRP has
prevented billions of tons of soil from eroding, reduced
nitrogen and phosphorus run-off significantly, sequestered
millions of tons of greenhouse gasses, and has protected about
170,000 miles of streams and creeks throughout this nation.
Last month, we also reached the 1 million acre milestone in the
SAFE acre program. And throughout the course of the year, we
will be highlighting success stories from all over the nation
to mark 30 years of successful CRP conservation work.
Farmers and ranchers are doing great things to conserve the
environment in your Congressional districts and to build
habitat. And they can count on FSA's support in those efforts.
This concludes my testimony. And I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dolcini follows:]

Prepared Statement of Val Dolcini, J.D., Administrator, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to provide information on the Farm Service Agency's (FSA's)
implementation of the conservation programs of the Agricultural Act of
2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill).
CRP and the Road to 24 Million Acres
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) first appeared in the 1985
Farm Bill and is one of USDA's largest conservation programs. CRP
allows USDA to contract with landowners so that environmentally
sensitive land is not farmed or ranched, but instead used for
conservation benefits. Participants establish long-term, resource-
conserving cover and, in return, FSA can provide participants with
annual rental payments, incentive payments, and cost-share assistance.
Contract duration is between 10 and 15 years. CRP improves water
quality, reduces soil erosion, and restores habitat for ducks,
pheasants, turkey, quail, deer and other wildlife. In doing so, CRP
spurs hunting, fishing, recreation, tourism, and other economic
development across rural America.
Currently, 24.3 million acres are enrolled in CRP contracts,
including 18.1 million acres under general sign-up enrollment authority
and 6.2 million acres under continuous sign-up enrollment authority.
CRP general sign-up is a competitive process conducted on a periodic
basis. The last general sign-up occurred in the spring of 2013. CRP
continuous sign-up occurs on a continuous basis throughout the year and
does not involve a discrete sign-up period. CRP contracts on 1.9
million acres (combined general and continuous) are set to expire on
September 30, 2015.
The 2014 Farm Bill reduces the cap on overall CRP enrollment
authority incrementally from 32 million acres to 24 million acres
starting in Fiscal Year 2017. As a result of the enrollment cap and
expected increase in demand for CRP due to lower commodity prices, we
expect general enrollments to become more competitive in the future and
the environmental benefits achieved per acre of CRP will potentially
increase. We will also continue to pursue continuous enrollments to
target the most environmentally-sensitive acreage to help address
national, regional, state, and local resource concerns.
To mark the 30th anniversary of CRP, Secretary Vilsack announced an
effort on May 29 to target the most valuable conservation land by
increasing acreage allocations under certain continuous wetland and
wildlife initiatives by 800,000 acres. This increase was offset by a
combination of cost savings and efficiencies and includes 300,000 acres
for duck nesting habitat (doubling the available acres); 100,000 for
wetland restoration initiatives; and an added 400,000 acres for State
Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE). In addition, the Secretary also
announced that the next CRP general signup offer period will begin on
December 1, 2015, and extend through February 26, 2016. We will enroll
sufficient CRP acreage to closely meet as possible, but not exceed, the
statutory acreage limits set in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Program participants with contracts expiring September 30, 2015,
and less than 15 years in duration, have the option of a 1 year
extension. Those with continuous sign-up contracts are eligible to re-
enroll in CRP.
FSA is proud of the vital impact that CRP has had on the landscape.
Since its inception, we estimate that CRP has prevented more than 8
billion tons of soil from eroding and reduced nitrogen and phosphorous
runoff by 95 percent and 85 percent, respectively, on enrolled lands.
In addition, CRP has sequestered an estimated 43 million tons of
greenhouse gases annually, which is equal to taking eight million cars
off the road.
Future CRP Actions and Activity in 2014
In addition to reducing the CRP acreage cap, the 2014 Farm Bill
made other changes to the program. For example, it mandated that non-
easement functions of the repealed Grassland Reserve Program be carried
out under CRP, with enrollment of up to 2 million acres authorized.
These enrollments count against the statutory CRP acreage cap. In
addition, the 2014 Farm Bill mandates changes to routine, prescribed,
and emergency grazing, managed harvesting frequency, tree thinning
payments, and other provisions. Our rulemaking to implement those
changes is well underway, as is the process to complete the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements.
Some 2014 Farm Bill provisions could be implemented without
regulatory changes and these provisions were implemented early in the
summer of 2014. For example, continuous sign-up was re-started on June
9, 2014 after ceasing on September 30, 2013, when enrollment authority
ended. Since sign-up re-started, roughly 600,000 new continuous sign-up
acres have been enrolled.
Similarly, the Transition Incentives Program (TIP) was also re-
started on June 9, 2014, which provides 2 additional years of payments
for retired farmers and ranchers who transition expiring CRP acres to
socially disadvantaged, veteran, or beginning farmers and ranchers who
make conservation and land improvements, begin the certification
process under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, or return the
land to sustainable grazing or crop production. TIP was first
introduced by the 2008 Farm Bill, and the $25 million funding provided
in the 2008 Farm Bill was completely expended. The 2014 Farm Bill
increased TIP funding, providing up to $33 million through 2018. For
2014 CRP contract expirations, nearly $9 million of TIP funding was
obligated.
The 2014 Farm Bill also allows termination of a CRP contract during
Fiscal Year 2015, if the contract has been in effect for a minimum of 5
years and certain other conditions are met. Preliminary data indicate
contracts associated with only about 90,000 CRP acres have been
terminated to date in Fiscal Year 2015.
Emergency Assistance through non-Title II Conservation Programs
Given the increasing incidence of serious natural disasters, the
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) is of heightened importance. This
program, which was first enacted in the Agricultural Credit Act of
1978, provides emergency funding and technical assistance to farmers
and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters and
for implementing emergency water conservation measures during periods
of severe drought. FSA has allocated $6 million over the past year to
California farmers and ranchers to enhance livestock water supplies.
With recent flooding in Texas and Oklahoma, we stand ready to provide
ECP funding, within our available resources, to farmers and ranchers in
those states to restore livestock fences and conservation structures,
remove flood debris, and rehabilitate farmland.
2014 Farm Bill Conservation Compliance Provisions
The 2014 Farm Bill re-established the link between Highly Erodible
Land and Wetland Conservation provisions and crop insurance subsidies.
To be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2016 Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation reinsurance year (which runs from July 1, 2015 to June 30,
2016), producers purchasing crop insurance were required to file form
AD-1026, ``Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland
Conservation (WC) Certification'' with their local FSA office by June
1, 2015. This form is already required for participants in most FSA and
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, so an AD-1026
will already be on file for these producers.
Producers who are most likely to need to file an AD-1026 for the
first time are specialty crop farmers who may not participate in other
USDA programs. To reach these and other producers, FSA, NRCS, and the
Risk Management Agency (RMA) have worked closely over the past several
months on a coordinated outreach effort. We've deployed a variety of
informational documents and online resources including news releases,
fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and brochures to help farmers
understand what they need to do. We have also coordinated with groups
that helped us reach affected producers, and conducted informational
meetings and training sessions for nearly 6,000 stakeholders across the
country.
FSA could not implement our conservation programs without the
extremely valuable assistance provided by our inter-agency and non-
Federal partners. NRCS and the Forest Service, as well as non-Federal
providers, have for many years provided technical assistance associated
with CRP implementation. Since 1985, we have worked closely with NRCS
to implement conservation compliance provisions. The 2014 Farm Bill has
intensified our interaction with RMA, particularly in areas of data-
sharing to run FSA's farm programs, and we look forward to seamless
interaction regarding conservation compliance implementation as well.
This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you
may have.

The Chairman. Thank you, Administrator.
And I will take the liberty of the first 5 minutes of
questioning. And thank you for your leadership of, really of
implementing the farm bill that we worked on so diligently in
this Committee. I appreciate your leadership with
implementation. I have a question regarding, I know that
conservation compliance was something that was in the farm bill
and specifically impacting--I have a question related, probably
mostly about specialty crop growers and possibly some, I am
hearing maybe this impacts livestock as well.
In order to be eligible, there was a requirement to submit
by June 1, which date has come and gone, the AD-1026. My
understanding is the agencies have very aggressively tried to
communicate and get the word out that in order to be eligible
for the subsidy, crop insurance subsidy, you were going to be
required to submit this form. And if they don't, then basically
they would lose the subsidy. And they may not know that until
the bill comes due in October. So a bit of a delay here. I
wanted to see, and I appreciate what has been described as your
aggressive notification process. Any estimate in terms of
actual completion or perhaps those who have not submitted by
that date, and what type of follow-up measures to make sure
that, specifically specialty crop and, again, possibly
livestock producers.
Mr. Dolcini. Sure, Mr. Chairman, I will take the first
crack at that answer. I appreciate the fact that you have noted
that we have done a pretty good job, thus far, with
implementation. Implementing a farm bill is a real team effort.
And at the Department of Agriculture, we work hand in glove on
a variety of different issues, but mostly in the conservation
compliance realm with our sister agencies, the Risk Management
Agency, as well as the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
to make sure that we are reaching everybody who potentially
would be able to participate in that RMA program. Our primary
goal is to make sure that farmers and ranchers, our customers,
have as much access to information as they possibly can in
order to make well-educated decisions about programs that they
may or may not want to participate in.
And so in the case of conservation compliance, which was
obviously re-linked in this last farm bill, the need to comply
with highly-erodible land and wetland requirements and
receiving Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. I would
also add, sir, that many of our farmers already have AD-1026s
on file. If they participated in our marketing assistance loan
program or disaster assistance, perhaps other USDA programs,
they already have an AD-1026 on file. We really went the extra
mile, beginning last year, sending mail notifications,
postcards by the Farm Service Agency. We held tens, if not
hundreds, of public meetings around the country with specific
commodity organizations. We participated in a conference call
before that June 1 deadline to make sure their membership knew
what the requirements were and that they needed to get an AD-
1026 into the office by June 1. We did special outreach
activities in every state, particularly those that grow
specialty crops, like my home State of California. I traveled
to California and conducted some meetings myself to make sure
that commodity organizations and specialty crop growers and the
affected industry, the insurance industry, knew about the June
1 deadline and that they would have as much access to FSA and
USDA information as we possibly could make available. We are
reconciling those numbers now, sir. And I don't have definitive
numbers for you this morning, but we will certainly share those
with the Subcommittee when we have completed that process. But
I do want you to know that from the perspective of this three-
agency effort, we really feel like we left no stone unturned
when it came to making certain that people knew about the
program and the deadline.
The Chairman. Thank you. My second question, and probably
by the time I get done asking it, I will have run out of time.
But let me ask it and then look forward to getting some type of
follow up on it. I want to follow up on the Ranking Member's
issue that he had raised. And it seems to me there is certainly
a benefit of what the agency has done perhaps on its own
initiative of creating or broadening a public-private
partnership, of bringing biologists and individuals in from
some great organizations that are involved in habitat and
wildlife. But I would really like to get a feel nationwide how
many individuals do we have now that are working within our
agencies, that are perhaps from organizations, great
organizations like Ducks Unlimited or National Wild Turkey
Federation. I am not sure what organizations may be involved.
How many, what the role is, and also what are the
safeguards, because we need to make sure that obviously, first
and foremost, that this is driven by, for our farmers and
ranchers. We know the wildlife benefit, as Members of this
Committee, quite frankly, as a sportsman myself, but I want to
see what are the safeguards, make sure we are avoiding any kind
of conflict of interest within those roles. I think those are
important lines to define. And the Ranking Member had those
concerns. And I have heard from folks that are raising kind of
the same questions. So it would be good to get the information
out. With that, my time has expired. And I am pleased to
recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chief
Weller and Administrator, thank you very much for being here. I
agree, the entire Committee, appreciates your efforts and
diligence. And the update of that, how we are proceeding and
updating the latest investments and new authorities in the farm
bill. Chief Weller, in your testimony and in your written
testimony as well, you have mentioned the importance of the
conservation programs and investments and their impact on
yields and endangered species listings. Specifically today you
talked about two, the Louisiana black bear and the Oregon chub.
I really appreciate that because in that context, that is what
we all want those positive end results, but I continue to hear,
of course, concerns in my state and district from landowners
and the industry about how listing of a species impacts their
livelihood and their businesses. And I also hear, frankly and
interestingly enough, those same concerns from environmental
and conservation groups on how species population numbers and
those critical habitats continue to shrink.
It is clear to me that both these groups may have a
different means to an end, but they are concerned, quite
frankly, about the very same things. They want to protect
species. And they want to prevent listings. And I have seen
stakeholders from many different backgrounds, frankly, come
together and work toward this goal very successfully. And I
will give you an example. In 2011, the oil and gas industry in
my state was very concerned about the dunes sagebrush lizard
listing that would eliminate drilling in the Permian Basin
which produces 20 percent of all the oil in the lower 48
states. Now, as you might imagine, this has a significant set
of consequences not only for my state and district, but for the
entire country. Now, thankfully, the listing was avoided
because landowners in New Mexico and Texas proactively took
steps to remove the threats to the listing on 600,000 acres
which covered 88 percent of the lizard's habitat. What I would
love to do is replicate those efforts as often as I can. And I
believe, of course, that NRCS is in a position to encourage
real innovation.
What I worry about, however, is that stakeholders continue
to tell me they don't have the information or the resources
that they need to adequately participate in the conservation
programs or to collaborate effectively so that they can have
those kind of results. So I would love it if you would walk me
through and describe what kind of outreach is going on, how are
we educating and engaging landowners in the conservation
programs. And as you do that, how you are encouraging them, as
you reach out to that group of stakeholders, to have
relationships with the environmental community, not only in
their communities and their states but around the country so
that you achieve the successes that you identified in your
testimony and I identified in my question.
Mr. Weller. Thank you for the recognition of the
contributions that the USDA programs are providing for wildlife
or, in this case, to also help producers be productive and stay
on their lands. In my view and the view of my colleagues at
NRCS, the common thread between the environmental interests,
the wildlife interests, and agriculture, at the end of the day,
it is in everyone's interest to keep working lands working. You
have to keep people on the land. You want them working the
range. You want them working the crop field. You want them
working the forests. When those lands are either abandoned,
like in the West where you then lose the forests to wildfire
threats because those are no longer managed or fire is not
allowed to be part of the ecosystem. Or when lands are
developed, they are converted to other economic uses. It has an
impact on wildlife, it has an impact on the agricultural
economy and the integrity of that economy, and has impacts on
waters. So in terms of how we are doing the outreach, it first
starts with our partnership with agricultural groups. At the
end of the day, a farmer or rancher can be our best salesperson
on the value of conservation.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Can you give me a little more
specificity about that partnership, I have about 40 seconds
left, really looking at how I help my folks know exactly what
to do.
Mr. Weller. So often, for example, like in Wyoming, it is
with the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, they are avid
proponents for the value of easements, the value of range
conservation. And with them, we have partnered with the Wyoming
Stock Growers Association to put in place, in my view, one of
the most effective sage step conservation efforts, frankly, in
history, to help address concerns with sage grouse. But, in
this case, it is also about keeping intact Wyoming ranching
operations. It is also working through local soil and water
conservation districts. They know, they have the local networks
of relationships with producers. They can then have the
networks and partnerships with agricultural groups at the local
level, can help get the work out about opportunities, about how
to work better with NRCS, but other opportunities that may be
available through the state or other private groups.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Now I am pleased
recognize Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And perhaps for a
moment before we get into a lot of the details, considering the
80th anniversary of the founding of the NRCS's predecessor not
many days ago, the 30th anniversary of CRP, we almost need to
take a victory lap here, consider the progress and the great
accomplishments of your predecessors out there, gentleman, over
the course of the last 80 years. And, for that matter, our
predecessors here. In my region of the country, in the last
4\1/2\, 5 weeks have had 22" of rain. I average 24-28" a year
on the farm where I live. In 2011, we had 14" for the entire
year. It came at the wrong time of the year. And for the first
time in my memory or the memory of any senior members of my
community, we actually had substantial amounts of native
grasses in the pastures die from dry freezes in the wintertime.
We have bounced back and forth through these weather patterns.
And in this last calendar year, another 14" of rain.
The fact that we could go 5 years in the Southwest region
of the country, where the Chairman and I are from, through
those kind of conditions and not have the most amazing dust
storms, not have the most amazing environmental collapse is an
amazing compliment to the work of your predecessors and to the
work of our predecessors on this Committee, absolutely amazing.
And then to have Mother Nature change course and drop 22" of
rain where I live in 4-5 weeks and not have massive flooding,
massive loss of human life, massive degrading of the
environment, the wildlife up and down those streams is a
statement once again about the work of all of our predecessors.
The upstream flood control programs, the rehab programs, all of
those things. So in the very cynical world that we live in, it
is worth acknowledging for just a moment we have done some good
stuff together here in the course of 80 years. And it gives us
a tremendous foundation to build forward.
The Ranking Member alluded to the CRP situation. And he is
exactly right. CRP, in its earlier reincarnation, was a
creation, was the Soil Bank of the 1950s, a response to the
price issues facing production agriculture. An acknowledgment
that the programs from that period back to the AAA Act of 1933
had not always been cost effective or effective in providing
relief. The Soil Bank, at least from the perspective of my
predecessors in the early 1960s came to an end because it began
the dramatic depopulation of the southern plains. You put your
farm in the program, you sold your equipment, you moved to
wherever the kids lived. We re-encountered that in the 1985
program. But that said, the effect that it has had on the
environment, on the wildlife, on a variety of things across the
country is without measure. At the time, the Ranking Member and
I in this Committee worked to put the 2014 Agricultural Act
together, we had $7 corn for much of that period. CRP, being a
voluntary program, 7 million acres approximately, we predicted,
would come out. And under the Budget Act of 1974, which I am
not as impressed with as I have been impressed with all our
conservation actions of the last 80 years, we were compelled to
reduce the number of authorized acres to reflect what the
market decisions were being made in order to preserve that
revenue stream to be able to do the farm bill, as the Ranking
Member well knows. We don't have $7 corn anymore. We have
amazing weather patterns around the country.
At some point, as a Committee, we have to reassess our CRP
situation. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Ranking Member? We have to
reassess that. But that said, we have a vehicle that is both
good for the farm economy generally and good for wildlife
generally that we can work with. And that is the legacy of the
2014 Agricultural Act. It has built off the good work for
generations. If I get a little wound up, understand that I come
from and live in that region on the east side of the Rockies,
in the southern part of the plains, it was so miserably
horrible in the 1930s, thanks to Mother Nature and thanks to,
in many cases, bad policy decisions. That same area that went
through the drought of the 1950s, that same area that went
through the horrible economic bust of the 1980s. Once again,
many bad policy decisions. I just encourage all of us at this
hearing to think not only about the circumstances now, but 5,
10, 20, 25 years down the road, to build off of the work that
has been laid for us, to make sure that by accident or
intention, we never have another 1930s or 1950s or 1980s. That
is our responsibility. Again, gentlemen, thank you for your
good work. And, Mr. Director, everything that you can do when
it comes to the issue of the AD-1026s that Chairman Thompson
referenced. We, as Members who spend a lot of time at home, may
be about to discover that a lot of farmers perhaps didn't pay
quite as close attention to their mail as they should have. And
we will have to address that when the time comes. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to
recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dolcini, do you
have any idea at this point what, the amount of acres you are
going to be looking at with the general sign-up December 1?
Mr. Dolcini. Sir, I don't have a specific number of acreage
that might get enrolled in that general sign-up. As you pointed
out earlier, the Secretary announced about 800,000 acres in the
continuous part of CRP. We have authority for 1.9 million acres
that we may be able to enroll. But it will be a very
competitive process beginning in December. And we are hopeful
that we get a lot of good applications for participation in the
program----
Mr. Peterson. Well, what I can tell, apparently you can
have 25 million acres in Fiscal Year 2016. And you have to go
to 24 in Fiscal Year 2017. So you could go into 25 million
acres in this sign-up from what I can tell. Am I right about
that?
Mr. Dolcini. Sir, I don't know the exact number of acreage,
of acres that may be----
Mr. Peterson. Anyway, it looks like if the whole 800,000
acres are signed up, given what is expiring, it would be 22
million acres and potentially, so you might have, if you went
to the maximum, you might have 3 million acres you could
enroll. I doubt you are going to do that. I understand that.
So, anyway, one thing I am concerned about is, with the $7
corn, as Mr. Lucas pointed out, we had people tearing out CRPs
all over the country, including my area, taking out shelter
belts and plowing up land that should not be farmed because
they could make a little money renting it out and whatever. And
now with what is going on, all of a sudden, as I tried to tell
them at the time, now some of them are not so sure they made
the right decision. So now they are looking at how am I going
to get back into the program and so forth. It is going to be
competitive and it has all these requirements. And I understand
that.
But we have gotten carried away with some of this stuff. I
don't know if any other Members here have tried to establish
CRP but I have. And it is not easy to do. One of the things
that bothers me about what we have been doing is in order to
get back into the program, you have to plow up what you have
basically. If you don't and re-seed, you are not going to get
enough points to get in. That is just the reality of what the
situation is. In some cases, that is the right thing to do. In
some cases, the CRP is not in good shape and needs to be
redone. But in a lot of cases, it is fine. And when you plow
that stuff up, you stir up a weed situation in a lot of cases.
The weeds have been there for 20 years laying under the ground.
And all of a sudden, you have a mess depending on what happens
if you got a drought or wet or whatever the situation is. And
then you make it worse with this pollinator stuff, which I also
have experience with because I tried to put in 2.3 acres under
the CSP. And basically what I got out of that, I spent $350 an
acre and I got a weed patch. That is what a lot of people have
experienced with the pollinator. I support trying to get this
out there. And I have bees on my property. But this is not
easy. And so I just think, I have had more complaints from
farmers that are interested in getting back in about this idea
that they got to plow out. I just think that somehow or another
we have to have some kind of recognition of a good quality CRP
that is established in this process. And so we don't force
people to plow up what shouldn't be plowed up and cause maybe a
deterioration in the habitat. Is anything being done to look at
that situation?
Mr. Dolcini. It absolutely is, sir. And I appreciate your
comments and your support over the years of CRP. You have
really been a stalwart in trying to develop programs that USDA
can use to enhance wildlife benefits around the country, as
well as environmental and other program benefits. CRP has
changed quite a bit since 1985 when it was first signed into
law by President Reagan. And we are always trying to make what
is a good program an even better program, particularly in this
year that we are celebrating its 30th anniversary. I was just
in Howard County, Maryland last week talking with a farmer who
has CREP land and is interested potentially in a pollinator
strip but doesn't want to just put in something that he thinks
might be a weed patch. So we are trying to work locally with
farmers around the nation on doing things that make sense for
their communities and for their landscape. This fall, I am
going to be in Otter Tail County and would love to come out and
meet with you or your staff or your constituents and really
work through some of the local issues that you have identified
there. But we are doing that all over the nation, sir. And the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which is an element
of CRP, has been a success in Minnesota and elsewhere. I think
we now have 47 projects in 34 states. So we are trying to look
at the continuum of what CRP offers and how it was refined in
the 2014 Farm Bill to make a good program, one that has been a
very successful conservation program throughout the American
countryside, a better one. And I would love to continue to meet
with you and your staff to work on those issues.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to
recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
appreciate you holding this hearing. I appreciate your work at
USDA and conservation. I have worked with a few of my
constituents that are working on the CRP opt-outs. And I want
to let you know that I appreciate you all working with me on
that. And it sounds like we have had a lot of folks who maybe
have opted out of that program. Is there, how many folks have
opted out of the CRP programs? And has it been just
concentrated in areas? Because I represent the 12th District of
Georgia. Where has the concentration been and how many opt-outs
have you all seen in that program?
Mr. Dolcini. Sir, I will provide a more detailed responses
to your office and to the Subcommittee with that answer.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Okay. That would be great.
Mr. Dolcini. With regard to the issue that you and I have
been working on and that our staffs have been working on, I
really want to say that we are continuing to explore options. I
think our Office of General Counsel at USDA determined there
was a certain path that we couldn't really go beyond.
Unfortunately, that wasn't really transmitted to you or to your
constituents in a very clear way.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Right. Exactly.
Mr. Dolcini. But I want you to know that I am happy to
continue to work with you to explore options there. And with
regard to the detailed response, we can get that back to you
and the Subcommittee.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Well, I really appreciate and yes,
you have been very diligent in responding and working with our
office and our clients. I appreciate everything you are doing
for us there. And we look forward to resolving that issue.
Another comment is we have about 14.3 million acres of
Georgia's forestland and it is owned by 504,000 families and
individuals. Several of the conservation programs are important
to provide these family forest owners with tools to do
conservation practices on the ground, from tree planting to
firebreaks to improvements for wildlife habitat and water
quality. Given that the technical assistance needed to work
with forest owners may be different from other producers, what
is NRCS or FSA doing to continue to encourage coordination with
the forest agencies at the state and local levels?
Mr. Weller. I will take the first stab at that, sir. In
part, in Georgia, but also along the Southeast, we are really
focused with private landowners on the Longleaf pine ecosystem
as one of the areas. And we have put a lot of assistance on the
ground, partnering with other Federal agencies, like the
Department of Defense, as well as Forest Service, but,
crucially, with local landowners and locally led associations
to really try and protect, but also recover and restore the
Longleaf pine ecosystem. Just in the last 4 years, for example,
we have helped put in place forestry management practices on
about 260,000 acres of the Longleaf pine ecosystem, in a
targeted fashion though, for example, around military
installations, to provide an operating buffer around military
bases, to reduce the pressure, development pressures, so the
military can keep doing what they need to do to train, make
sure they are prepared and ready, but also to offset some of
the environmental pressures the bases themselves feel with ESA
constraints and really provide a safety valve, a cushion around
military installations.
So it is everything from, as you said, forest stand
improvements, replanting, firebreaks, prescribed fire burns, a
lot of different types of practices that, at the end of the
day, empowering private landowners to better manage their
stands for timber protection, but also to keep those stands
intact from an ecosystem protection standpoint.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. And we are coordinating those with
the local forestry groups and the local county agencies and
whatnot?
Mr. Weller. Absolutely. So we work with the State Foresters
and local forestry groups as well. At the county level, we work
with local communities and counties to really focus, because we
don't have enough resources to do it by ourselves. It is truly
a network of folks bringing the expertise, the forestry
expertise, a little bit of financial assistance to help
producers and landowners put in place the practices they need.
But we are just, at the end of the day, a small component of a
much bigger network of groups helping with forestry management
in Southeast.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. They know the land. They know the
habitat. And they know the conservation needs. And so thank you
for coordinating with them locally. Did you have any comments?
Mr. Dolcini. I do, sir. And I have an answer to the
question that you first posed about how many acres have opted
out. It is 266,000. But we will get a more fulsome letter back
to the Committee with some details around that.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Okay.
Mr. Dolcini. With regard to Longleaf pine, we have
established about 250,000 acres of Longleaf pine and have a CRP
practice devoted to the Longleaf pine that has created a lot of
habitat for a variety of different species there. And we are
doing it in consultation with local and regional partners.
After we publish the CRP rule, which will happen in the near
term, we will be able to implement some tree thinning
provisions and other management activities to enhance these
stands as well. I think that a good practice will be made a
better one.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Good. Great. Thank you very much. I
yield back the time I don't have.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to
recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for having this hearing. And I first want to take a
moment just to thank my colleagues, Representative Lucas from
Oklahoma and Representative Peterson from Minnesota, for their
leadership on this Committee. And it just really shows that
when we come together in a thoughtful, commonsense way, we can
enact policy that makes our country better. And I just want to
publicly thank them for their leadership and their example that
they set for us as Members of this Committee. My mother's
family were ranchers in Arizona. I have always said that
ranchers are our original conservationists. Because healthy
land means healthy cattle means healthy people. And the same
thing can be said for our farmers. Healthy land means healthy
crops means healthy people. And so I thank you for the work
that you have done, especially in Arizona. We have two
projects, two Regional Conservation Partnership Programs that
have brought about $6 million to rural Arizona in purchase of
materials, hiring local contractors, recreational activities.
And that is great. Arizona Game and Fish tells me they have
been excellent programs and they have worked really well. You
have probably heard me say on this Committee before that I
represent 12 land-based Tribes. And so my question to you, both
of you, today is what incentives do we have for Tribes in terms
of management of their land, their conservation efforts, their
natural resources? And what can we do to make sure that they
see the same economic benefits that we are seeing on non-Tribal
land?
Mr. Weller. It begins, again, at the local level as we
talked about with Mr. Allen. In this case, working with the
Tribal community and the Tribal government, and, first, truly
understanding what is it they need and what is it they want to
have happen on their lands, on their reservation? And that can
be both a formal consultation. But, more importantly, it is
really the day-to-day informal interaction we have. And more
often than not, we actually co-locate, like in Arizona, we have
field offices on the Navajo Nation, where we have employees who
work full-time doing nothing but partnering with the Navajo
Nation and members of the nation to, first, identify what their
agricultural production goals are and then what assistance can
we bring to help the nation be more efficient with water, to
recover the range, to improve pasture, put in place low-cost
infrastructure to help them irrigate. So there are examples of
that across Arizona, but really across the United States.
We really start from the local level of the Tribe,
listening, and then helping them identify what are some
practices, whether they are culturally specific, to help them
grow food that is appropriate for their nation or what are some
of the expertise, whether it is engineering expertise, range,
agronomy expertise, forestry expertise, at the end of the day,
managing their Tribal land for productive purposes. One
example, and it is actually from New Mexico, working with the
Pueblo. It is a much smaller community. But it is an example,
and this is the Santo Domingo Pueblo near Albuquerque. I had an
opportunity to visit with the Pueblo and understand the value
of what our assistance really means. In this case, they were
using what they called Indian ditches which had been in place
for centuries. And these ditches were worn out, really
inefficient. And they were losing land, arable land. And you
want to talk about producing food in a food desert, they
literally are growing food in a desert. So they were very much
concerned about maintaining the culture and the integrity of
the Pueblo. And they wanted to be able to attract members back
to the Pueblo, young families who were leaving because they
didn't have economic opportunity.
Well, then NRCS came in, and we retrofitted their ditches,
put in gravity pressurized subsurface pipes, and what used to
take days, literally, for the water to flood irrigate a field,
we can now irrigate in a matter of hours. They are able bring
to bring back 200 acres into production, growing native
culturally specific foods as part of their healthy diet, and I
talked to veteran farmers who just had serviced the nation by
defending us, had returned to the Pueblo solely because they
had an economic opportunity.
It is examples like that where we are working with Tribal
governments, Tribal communities to help them benefit from their
lands and also do a better job of resource stewardship.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Chief. I have about 30 seconds
left to hear from the Administrator, just your thoughts about
that.
Mr. Dolcini. Our approach is much the same as NRCS when it
comes to reaching out to folks all over the country, including
in Indian Country. We worked through the Council of Native
American Farming and Ranching that I sit on and others around
the nation do to make sure that our programs are open,
accessible, understood, and available. And I spent a lot of
time working one-on-one with individuals that have had
challenges, but I also talked with larger groups and
organizations about things that are going right with our
relationship with Native American farming organizations around
the nation. So we have a lot of work yet to do, Congresswoman,
but we are on the right path.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Great. I think it is a real opportunity
for our Tribes in terms of economic development but also in
terms of health opportunities, so I thank you, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize my
colleague from New York, Mr. Gibson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panelists as well and agree with some of the sentiment
expressed by my colleagues earlier. This is an issue area where
we have worked together. I think it is really a great news
story. I appreciate the leadership of the Administration on
that score.
I do want to echo some of the concerns about the
information flow and the June 1 deadline, and I would like to
perhaps address another facet of that, which is the challenge,
of course, that you are having in completing all these and
getting it back out. And I just want assurances that for those
that did get their paperwork in prior to June 1, that if they
have some inaccuracy on their application, they still get
credit for having been sent in by June 1?
Mr. Dolcini. I can give you those assurances, sir. For
forms that need to be perfected, and it might be a transposed
number or a name that is misspelled, we will use that period
after the 1st of June to make sure that those corrections are
made appropriately.
Mr. Gibson. Very well. That is reassuring. And then how is
it going as far as just addressing the backlog?
Mr. Dolcini. With regard to the receipt of the forms in FSA
offices around the nation, it is going reasonably well. It is a
big chunk of paperwork, to be sure, coming at a time when we
are doing a lot of other important office work throughout our
nation's field office infrastructure.
But I am hearing good things thus far about the way things
are going. I think the fact that we really beat the drum so
loudly over the course of the 2 or 3 months leading up to June
1 got people into the offices a little bit earlier than they
might have otherwise. Certainly there is going to be a flood of
activity towards the end of a deadline period. That is true for
all of our programs, but we felt good about getting people in
the door prior to June 1, and just really made the point to
them that you have to get us your form, it has to be at least
postmarked by the 1st of June in order for you to continue to
receive these RMA crop insurance premium subsidies, and that
was a message that most everyone heard loud and clear.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you. I want to move now to the
administration of the Forest Legacy Program, and I am curious
on your feedback on this proposal. I guess it has been a little
over a dozen years now, and I am just interested in the
feedback in general about an important facet of a conservation
program.
About a little over a dozen years ago there were a series
of reports that really led to a policy change in pulling up to
the state level, the management of easements as it relates to
Forest Legacy. From my listening to folks, and I am from
upstate New York, and then also listening to folks in LTA, it
appears that the conditions may be set now where we could allow
for states to make a decision as to whether or not we want land
trusts to manage the easement.
The arguments that are propounded is that they have the
resources to better manage these easements, and they make the
case that they actually can get more benefit, more usage and
benefit of the potential program. I am just curious what the
thinking is at USDA of that potential policy proposal?
Mr. Weller. Well, sir, the NRCS does not administer the
Forest Legacy Program, and so you can talk a little bit about
our experiences of working through our portfolio, and I would
be more than happy to take back any concerns or ideas to my
counterpart Chief Tidwell at the U.S. Forest Service, as the
Forest Service administers the Forest Legacy Program.
But through the Committee's programs, the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program, which is the main farm bill
working lands focused program, there are two components, one of
which is a little bit analogous to the Forest Legacy Program,
and that is the Agricultural Land Easement Program, and truly
is a partnership with land trusts.
The second panel is going to be one of our partners in
Pennsylvania is going to be testifying, and through this
program, we provide financial assistance actually directly to a
partner, whether a state agency or through a land trust
organization or conservancy, and they are the ones, at the end
of the day, that close the deal, that work with the landowner,
negotiate, enter into the easement, and they are really
responsible for the long-term stewardship and management of
that conservation easement.
So there are examples of this that the Committee supported
where that locally-led approach through a partner like a land
trust has been very effective, and together, in a partnership,
we have been able to protect over a million acres of these
easements, working land easements across the United States.
Mr. Gibson. Well, I thank you, and I think that, in
general, that empowerment at the local level is one that we are
going to find that benefits all. There has to be quality
control, obviously, but I am looking at that proposal, and I do
appreciate if you could take that back.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I thank both the
Chief and the Administrator for taking time out of a busy
schedule and coming and being here. We look forward to
continue--the Subcommittee and the full Committee--we look
forward to continuing to work with you as we provide our
function of oversight, and your leadership and work in terms of
the implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill, so I appreciate your
testimony, and we will dismiss you gentlemen, and I will call
up our second panel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dolcini. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. As we make the transition here, I would like
to welcome our second panel of witnesses to the table. Mr.
Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President of the National
Association of Conservation Districts from Hobbs, New Mexico.
Mr. Buddy Allen, rice producer, USA Freedom--or USA Rice
Federation. That was a legislation a couple of weeks ago, I
guess. USA Rice Federation.
Ms. Karen Martynick, Executive Director of Lancaster
Farmland Trust from Strasburg, Pennsylvania. I thought it was
probably Starsburg when I read it the first time. When it says
Strasburg, I am thinking that has to be Starsburg but maybe
there is a little township I don't know about in Lancaster
County. And Mr. Jim Inglis, Governmental Affairs
Representative, Pheasants Forever and the Quail Forever from
Upper Sandusky, Ohio.
And our panelists are all in place. Thank you so much for
being here to each of you. And Mr. Van Dyke, please begin when
you are ready.

STATEMENT OF BRENT VAN DYKE, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, HOBBS, NM

Mr. Van Dyke. Well, thank you very much, and good morning,
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to come
before you to testify this morning on conservation programs in
the 2014 Farm Bill.
I am Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President of the National
Association of Conservation Districts, and as a retired
agriculture teacher and FFA advisor for 31 years, my wife and I
farmed, irrigated alfalfa and Coastal Bermuda hay in Hobbs, and
also run a commercial and registered cattle operation in
southeastern New Mexico.
NACD in America represents 3,000 soil and water
conservation districts and 17,000 elected government officials
that take conservation to the local level. The conservation
districts are local units of government established under state
law to carry out natural resource management programs at the
local level.
Conservation districts work with cooperating landowners and
operators in all 50 states as well as U.S. territories to help
manage and protect land and water resources on private lands as
well as lands of the United States. Our nation's farmers and
landowners deserve to have long-term certainty to effectively
and efficiently manage their land. Locally led conservation is
critical for America's long-term environmental and economic
stability.
Not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role
in supporting clean air, clean water, and productive soils,
they also help producers avoid unnecessary regulation and
promote our nation's food security and sustainability.
NACD appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee in
crafting a successful conservation title in the 2014 Farm Bill.
We worked closely with the Committee throughout the process in
developing the bill and strongly supported its final passage.
Since that time, we have remained focused on successful program
implementation to ensure programs work efficiently and
effectively for landowners. We thank USDA for moving programs
forward with an efficient and aggressive implementation
process.
In the inaugural year of Regional Conservation Pilot
Program, conservation districts are one of the most highly
represented entities among the selected proposals. In New
Mexico, RCPP is allowing for us to forge new partnerships with
other Federal agencies and allowing ranches with Forest Service
and BLM permits to do landscape scale projects and management
and improvements of their entire operation.
The checkerboard ownership that has made this kind of
watershed projects impossible in the past, but this year, last
month, as a matter of fact, I met with NRCS Chief Jason Weller
in Espanola, New Mexico, where we toured the oldest acequia in
the nation. And acequia is a traditional water management
system dating back to the Spanish colonial times.
The program has helped fund acequias and other critical
irrigation systems through RCPP. This is just one example of
the successful projects being implemented at local levels
thanks to this new program.
Local soil and water districts also remain key partners
within NRCS to efficiently and effectively enroll landowners
into two key programs that enable them to best manage their
resources on their land, the Conversation Stewardship Program,
CSP, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, better known
as EQIP. The 2014 Farm Bill made a historic commitment to
maintaining and repairing infrastructure associated with the
nation's thousands of small watershed structures. Some of these
structures are decades past their original design lifespan. The
small watershed program benefits to rural and urban communities
across the country add up to stronger infrastructure, better
water management, and national disaster mitigation.
Increasing funds for conservation technical assistance
remains a top priority for conservation districts in Fiscal
Year 2016 agriculture appropriation funding. Districts are
uniquely positioned to work with NRCS technical service
providers and other partners to expand CTA capacity to get more
conservation to the ground. In New Mexico, CTA has been
expanded thanks to partnerships that matches Federal funding
with state funding.
Before I close, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member for sponsoring the Concurrent Resolution 30, which
recognizes the value of locally led soil and water conservation
and the role of conservation districts within those efforts
across the nation.
The Senate unanimously agreed to the resolution last month,
and we look forward to working with you to move it forward in
the House.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the nation's conservation districts and their state and
territory associations. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Dyke follows:]

Prepared Statement of Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President, National
Association of Conservation Districts, Hobbs, NM
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
this morning on Conservation Programs in the 2014 Farm Bill.
I am Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President of the National
Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), and a retired Agriculture
Education teacher and FFA advisor. I am a life-long resident of New
Mexico, where my wife and I farm irrigated alfalfa and coastal Bermuda
hay in Lea County and run a commercial and registered cattle operation
in Southeastern New Mexico. I have worked with USAID for more than 15
years on projects in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
NACD represents America's 3,000 conservation districts and the
17,000 men and women who serve on their governing boards, as well as
their respective state and territory associations. Conservation
districts are local units of government established under state law to
carry out natural resource management programs at the local level. They
serve as the local component of the Federal, state, and local
government and private sector conservation delivery system in this
country. Conservation districts work with cooperating landowners and
operators in all fifty states as well as the U.S. territories to help
manage and protect land and water resources on private working lands
and many public lands in the United States.
The association was founded on the philosophy that conservation
decisions should be made at the local level with technical and funding
assistance from partners in Federal, state, and local governments and
the private-sector. As the national voice for all conservation
districts, NACD supports voluntary, incentive-based natural resource
conservation programs that benefit all citizens.
Our nation's farmers and landowners deserve to have long-term
certainty to effectively and efficiently manage their land, resources
and businesses for the years ahead. Locally-led conservation is
critical for America's long-term environmental and economic stability.
Not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role in
supporting clean air, clean water and productive soils, they also help
producers avoid unnecessary regulation and promote our nation's food
security and sustainability.
NACD appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee in crafting a
successful conservation title in the 2014 Farm Bill. We worked closely
with the Committee throughout the process of developing the bill and
strongly supported its final passage. Since that time we have remained
focused on successful program implementation to ensure programs work
effectively for landowners, and we thank USDA for moving programs
forward with an efficient and aggressive implementation process.
I would like to briefly touch on some of our specific priority
areas for farm bill implementation, starting with the new Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). In the inaugural year of RCPP,
conservation districts were one of the most highly represented entities
among the selected proposals. More than 200 conservation districts are
directly involved in over 100 projects selected for state, national or
Critical Conservation Area RCPP funding. We also recognize that many
additional districts will be involved as partners as projects are
implemented within their jurisdiction.
It is no surprise that districts are so heavily represented in
these projects. After all, locally-led partnerships are what we are all
about. Districts have a strong history of engaging with a variety of
stakeholders at the local level to enact meaningful conservation on the
landscape.
RCPP is about empowering local project sponsors in designing and
delivering solutions that benefit natural resources where they live and
work. As trusted and respected sources for conservation planning and
assistance at the local level, conservation districts are well
positioned to be leaders in these projects. We appreciate USDA's
commitment to this locally-led approach to natural resource
conservation.
Through its flexible, public-private partnership approach, RCPP is
empowering partners to come together to deliver practical and effective
solutions to address local communities' specific resource concerns. By
leveraging Federal and private dollars, all stakeholders are closely
invested in the project resulting in a stronger return on our combined
conservation investment. In addition, RCPP's ability to utilize other
program funds such as EQIP, CSP and ACEP not only increases the overall
effectiveness of the program, it will help states to fully utilize all
of their allocated funding.
It has always been our philosophy that ``every acre counts.'' RCPP
allows us to reach beyond the traditional scope of partners and
projects. The program expands our opportunities to reach a higher level
of commitment to conservation delivery on the working landscape in
America.
In New Mexico, RCPP is allowing us to forge new partnerships with
other Federal agencies and allowing ranches with Forest Service and/or
BLM permits to do landscape scale management and improvements on the
entire operation. The checkerboard ownership has made this kind of
watershed project impossible in the past. Last month I had the pleasure
of joining NRCS Chief Jason Weller at an RCPP event near Espanola, New
Mexico where we toured the oldest acequias in the nation--a traditional
water management system dating back to Spanish colonial times. The
program has helped fund acequias and other critical irrigation systems
through the RCPP. This is just one example of a successful project
being implemented at the local level, thanks to this new program.
I want to thank NRCS for their tireless work to implement this new
and innovative program, and for considering our comments and feedback
on ways to continue to grow and improve RCPP. We are pleased with the
positive direction and look forward to even greater conservation
district involvement.
Local soil and water conservation districts also remain key
partners with NRCS to efficiently and effectively enroll landowners in
two key programs that enable landowners to best manage natural
resources on their land: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
CSP has been invaluable in New Mexico, helping to keep ranchers on
the land despite the extreme drought conditions. Allowing the
enrollment of CRP land into CSP, in the last year of its contract, and
allowing the transfer of land from CSP to CRP, ACEP or other Federal or
state program that offers greater natural resource protection is also
extremely important. These adjustments will help ensure that producers
keep their working lands enrolled in programs that benefit the natural
resource base, while emphasizing the most effective programs offered.
Rolling open enrollment is also important for CSP to remain an option
for producers at all times throughout the year. This convenience helps
prevent backlog and increases the efficiency of the program.
EQIP remains the foundation of voluntary conservation programs for
agriculture and forest producers on private lands. Local soil and water
conservation districts are poised to help landowners enroll in and
implement EQIP practices on the landscape. NACD advocated for
streamlining of conservation programs as one of our top priorities for
the 2014 Farm Bill and we are happy to see it materializing as EQIP is
being implemented as a versatile working lands program that improves
natural resources for farmers, ranchers and wildlife.
NACD also supports the policy of re-linking conservation compliance
to crop insurance premium subsidies as included in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Conservation districts will play an important role in compliance,
especially with helping provide technical assistance to producers. As
the statute correctly provided, flexibility is critical for producers
who are subject to compliance for the first time, including beginning
and socially disadvantaged producers, as well as for specialty crop
growers. NACD and our partners continue to work to ensure this
provision is implemented in a manner that safeguards natural resources
while maintaining critical safety net supports for eligible producers.
The 2014 Farm Bill made a historic commitment to maintaining and
repairing the infrastructure associated with the nation's thousands of
small watershed structures. Some of these structures are decades past
their original designed lifespan. The small watershed program benefits
to rural and urban communities across the country add up to stronger
infrastructure, better water management and natural disaster
mitigation. In addition, the program represents opportunity for both
natural resource protection and the creation of economic opportunity
and jobs in rural America.
In addition to securing healthy natural resources, investing in
watershed structures provides invaluable benefits to community
operations and infrastructure. Recent weather events in Texas and
Oklahoma highlight the need for reinvigorated funding for the small
watershed program, which continues to be a priority for NACD in Fiscal
Year 2016 (FY16) appropriations.
Increasing funds for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
remains a top priority for conservation districts in FY16 Agriculture
Appropriation funding. Districts are uniquely positioned to work with
NRCS, Technical Service Providers and other partners to expand CTA
capacity to get more conservation on the ground. In New Mexico, CTA has
been expanded thanks to a partnership that matches Federal funding with
state funding.
CTA is designed to help landowners take the critical first step of
understanding the need for and benefits of conservation practices and
to create solid conservation plans which outline necessary steps or
actions to address solutions, including farm bill conservation program
participation. CTA is utilized by landowners for all elements of
conservation planning--from design and layout to implementation.
With ever increasing demand for farm bill conservation programs, it
is essential that CTA funding sees a correlating increase in capacity
in order to maximize landowner participation and realize a full return
on conservation investments. Technical assistance is the backbone of
Federal conservation programs, enabling local NRCS field staff and
districts to assist landowners as well as state and local agencies to
address local resource concerns.
In addition, NACD supports maintaining all mandatory conservation
program funding for FY16 as allocated in the 2014 Farm Bill. We remain
steadfastly opposed to changes in mandatory program spending, also
known as CHIMPS, to farm bill conservation programs during the
appropriations process. NACD signed a letter along with 130 other
organizations opposed to such cuts.
At a time when farmers and ranchers are facing increased pressure
to produce food and fiber for a growing population, it is extremely
important they have full access to the tools and resources needed to
implement conservation practices on their land. Further cuts to vital
conservation program funding will hinder the implementation of
voluntary, locally-led conservation on the ground, putting our land and
natural resources at risk for the future. This is especially true as
economic and regulatory pressures continue to increase on the
landscape. Conservation funding helps incentivize landowners and
producers to voluntarily implement best management practices at the
local level, while mitigating the threat of burdensome top-down
regulation.
Before I close, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
sponsoring the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 30, which recognizes
the value of locally-led soil and water conservation and the role of
conservation districts within those efforts across the nation. The
resolution expresses support for: the designation of the year 2015 as
the ``International Year of Soils;'' the 80th Anniversary of the Soil
Conservation Act; and soil conservation through partnerships with the
nation's 3,000 locally-led soil and water conservation districts. It
also encourages voluntary landowner participation in Federal
conservation programs. The resolution has wide ranging support from 27
farm, commodity, crop insurance and conservation groups.
The Senate unanimously agreed to the resolution last month, and we
look forward to working with you to move it forward here in the House.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
nation's 3,000 conservation districts and their state and territory
associations. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Van Dyke.
Mr. Allen, go ahead and proceed with 5 minutes of
testimony, please, whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BUDDY'' H. ALLEN, MEMBER,
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, USA RICE FEDERATION; RICE PRODUCER,
TUNICA, MS

Mr. Allen. Well, good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
honored to have opportunity to be before you this morning and
give my view on the implementation of the conservation title of
the farm bill, Agricultural Act of 2014.
My name is Buddy Allen. I am a producer in Tunica,
Mississippi. I grow cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat. I
am passionate about conservation. I am also a partner in a
California-based almond farm. I serve as Chairman of the Tunica
County Soil and Water Conservation District. I am a member of
the Mississippi Rice Council, Mississippi Association of
Conservation Districts, Conservation Committee of the USA Rice
Federation, and several other state and local conservation
groups.
Conservation is a significant part of my agribusiness. As I
implement stewardship on my farm, my productivity increases,
and it makes me more sustainable. So I am very grateful for the
programs that are authorized by this Subcommittee in the Farm
Bill of 2014.
I can't thank the Committee enough for the hours and the
work you and your staff put into the passage of this farm bill.
This piece of legislation provides a safety net that gives
farmers certainty and tools to stay in business during tough
times, which are now, as has been mentioned already this
morning. And it also incentivizes us to invest in valuable
conservation practices on our land. Voluntary incentive-based
conservation programs are the first line of defense against the
need for regulation.
In 2012, the USA Rice Federation and Ducks Unlimited forged
a model of collaboration between a farm group and a
conservation organization, the Rice Stewardship Partnership.
This partnership has been working tirelessly to improve three
of the nation's critical, national, and economic resources,
working ricelands, water, and waterfowl.
This is an unlikely partnership between our organizations,
and it is historic. One of the programs new to the recent farm
bill is the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Key to
this program is leveraging Federal funds with private, state,
and local assets. It empowers partnerships to design solutions
and deliver measurable results. The partnerships draw on local
knowledge and resources.
This locally-led approach is critical to the effectiveness
of the program. RCPP offers the use of existing conservation
programs such as CSP and EQIP to help reach a specified goal
and helps to target critical conservation areas where the work
is most needed. The partnership submitted in RCPP proposal,
which was accepted in January entitled, Sustaining the Future
of Rice, this project is a natural fit for our organizations to
pursue and offers rice producers from every major rice growing
county in each of the six rice growing states the assistance
needed to address water quantity, water quality, and wildlife
habitat on our farms.
NRCS is providing $10 million in funding to the project
leveraged by $6.8 million of cash and in-kind contributions
from private sector partners to utilize EQIP and CSP on rice
farms. Each of the six states involved are set to receive a
minimum of $1 million of the combined funding towards
implementation.
One thing that is helpful about the flexibility built into
RCPP is the ability to tailor programs such as EQIP and CSP,
which as stand alone programs, are not necessarily geared
towards rice production. We have been able to do just that and
make a particular use of these very successful programs and
make them available on rice working lands.
NRCS staff, under the leadership of Chief Weller has worked
tirelessly to ensure that this program has been implemented as
smoothly as possible. The announcement for program funding
stayed very true to the intent of what Congress authorized in
the statute and was able to maintain the flexibility of
language throughout the application process.
USA Rice and Ducks Unlimited have had a very positive
experience during the negotiation process, but because our
final contract within NRCS is very complex, we have just
recently finalized our agreement last week, as a matter of
fact. As an industry, rice producers have put years of work
into finding new ways to reduce erosion, reduce water use, save
energy, and address a number of other critical conservation
priorities. For those unfamiliar with rice production, rice
fields are flooded during the growing season to provide water
the plants need and control weeds and pests. Because of this
unique method of raising a crop in a flooded environment, rice
farming, compared to other commodity production, is more
sensitive to water quantity, water quality, and soil stability,
and they are essential to maintain our operations.
That being said, RCPP is a natural fit for our industry to
further our conservation goals. I appreciate the work that all
of you have done to ensure that farmers have the tools they
need to implement conservation practices on the landscape. It
is a vital part of our industry and a necessary investment if
we want to leave our farms as a legacy.
Again, thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to
offer my testimony, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

Prepared Statement of William ``Buddy'' H. Allen, Member, Conservation
Committee, USA Rice Federation; Rice Producer, Tunica, MS
Introduction
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on the implementation
of the conservation title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. I appreciate
the opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of the USA Rice
Federation.
My name is Buddy Allen. I grow rice, cotton, soybeans and corn in
Tunica, Mississippi. In addition to my row crops, I provide local
ground and aerial custom application services and I am a partner in
Miss Cal Orchards, a California-based almond farm. Because of the
diversity of my business portfolio I believe I'm able to offer a unique
perspective on the agriculture industry.
I am also a member of the Governor's Sustainable Water Task Force;
Director for the Mississippi Association of Conservation Districts;
Chairman of the Tunica Soil and Water Conservation District; Member of
the Mississippi Rice Council; and Member of the Conservation Committee
of the USA Rice Federation. If you cannot tell already, agricultural
conservation is more than business; it is my passion.
Conservation in the Agricultural Act of 2014
From a farmer's standpoint, I cannot thank the Agriculture
Committee and the rest of Congress enough for the countless hours of
work you and your staff put into the Agricultural Act of 2014 (farm
bill). This critical, bipartisan legislation provides the backbone
giving farmers the certainty and tools to stay in business during tough
times and incentivizes them to invest in valuable conservation
practices on their land. The farm bill has the ability to directly
affect my bottom line so the policies and programs being debated every
5 years are of great interest to me and the livelihood of my operation.
It was also good to see that Congress, particularly this Committee
understands the value of investing in the future of our business
through promotion of voluntary, incentive-based agricultural working
land conservation. Working land programs not only address resource
concerns, they increase productivity yielding sustainability by making
cropland more diverse and efficient. The consolidation and streamlining
of the conservation title will make these programs more efficient and
easier to use for farmers and ranchers.
Rice Stewardship Partnership
In February 2012, the USA Rice Federation (USA Rice) and Ducks
Unlimited (DU) forged a model of collaboration between a farm group and
a conservation organization--the Rice Stewardship Partnership. This
Partnership has been working tirelessly to bring about meaningful and
long-term improvements to three of the nation's critical natural and
economic resources: working ricelands, water, and waterfowl. To achieve
these objectives, we have and will continue to engage in public policy
making, conservation programs, communications strategies, and strategic
research and land management efforts that advance these resources.
This unlikely partnership between our organizations should be
labeled as ``historic'' to say the least. The relationship between rice
farmers and duck hunters and conservationists is symbiotic and has been
in the works long before the Partnership was established. I'd even go
as far as to say that it could be used as the model going forward.
While both organizations have separate missions and methods we have
managed to collaborate and find a large amount of common ground and
develop goals for our partnership.
Sustaining the Future of Rice Project
One of the programs new to the last farm bill was the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). This program consolidated and
streamlined a number of regional programs into one comprehensive
program. RCPP uses a unique and innovative approach to investing in
natural resource conservation. Key to the program is leveraging Federal
funds with private, state and local assets. It empowers partnerships to
design solutions and deliver specific measurable results. These unique
partnerships draw on local knowledge and resources; and this locally-
led approach is critical to the effectiveness of the program. RCPP
offers the use of existing conservation programs such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to help reach a specified goal and helps to
target critical conservation areas where work is most needed.
Map 2

Figure 1: Illustrates the key location of rice production in
correlation to the Mississippi River Basin (where 44% of the
U.S. freshwater sources drain) and the regions serve as major
waterfowl flyways. This relationship further demonstrates the
need for a strong relationship between rice farmers and
waterfowl conservationists.

The Partnership submitted an RCPP proposal which was accepted
during the Fiscal Year 2014/2015 funding cycle entitled ``Sustaining
the Future of Rice.'' This project is a natural fit for our
organizations to pursue and offers rice producers from every major
rice-growing county in each of the six rice-growing states the
assistance needed to address water quantity, water quality and wildlife
habitat on their farms. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) is providing $10 million in funding to the project leveraged by
$6.8 million of cash and in-kind contributions from private sector
partners to utilize EQIP and CSP on rice farms. Several conservation
practices from each of the two programs that are geared toward rice
production will be offered (i.e., drainage water management, irrigation
land leveling, irrigation reservoir construction, wetland wildlife
management, etc.). One thing that is nice about the flexibility built
into RCPP is the ability to tailor programs such as EQIP and CSP which
as ``stand alone'' programs are not necessarily geared towards rice
production. Thanks to this new program, we have been able to tailor
these effective programs to fit the unique needs of the rice farmer and
go the extra mile. As of now, each state is set to receive a minimum of
$1 million in funding from the NRCS contribution along with private
contributions from partners and each will operate similarly to the
others with tweaks depending on local conditions.
The project attracted over 40 collaborating partners from every
sector, from the field to the market and we have estimated that up to
63,000 acres throughout the six states will benefit from our project.
This effort represents the first ever of its kind--totally focused on
rice farmers and what works best on rice-producing lands and we are
lucky to have such a willing group of farmers to help make this a
success.
RCPP Implementation Status
The NRCS staff has worked tirelessly to ensure that this program
has been implemented as smoothly as possible. The folks writing the
Announcement for Program Funding for RCPP stayed very true to the
intent of what Congress authorized in the statute and were able to
maintain the flexibility of the language throughout the application
process. USA Rice and DU have had a very positive experience during the
negotiating process but because our final contract with NRCS has been
fairly complex we have just recently finalized our agreement.
While specific dates may vary from state to state, sign-ups for
EQIP are expected to begin this summer and run through early fall.
After the sign-up ends, applications will be ranked and contracts
awarded. After the contracts are set, on-farm work will start shortly
thereafter. In order to ensure project funds go to rice growers, NRCS,
USA Rice Federation and Ducks Unlimited are developing screening and
ranking criteria targeted to rice lands.
While EQIP will be the first out of the gate, the CSP won't be far
behind. Work is underway to develop a specific package of enhancements
for rice lands and it is expected that the sign-up will occur early in
2016. USA Rice Federation, DU, NRCS, and partners will notify rice
producers of the specific dates when the sign-ups start in their state.
Interested rice growers will sign-up in local NRCS offices like normal
and just inform NRCS that the application falls under the Sustaining
the Future of Rice RCPP project. The RCPP funds are in addition to
regular EQIP and CSP and other funding may be available to growers as
well.
Now that the Announcement for Program Funding has been published
for the Fiscal Year 2016 funding cycle, the Partnership is looking
again to see how else we are able to work together to increase our
effectiveness. It is exciting to see the projects we are working on
materialize and we are looking forward to using this project as a
stepping stone for continuing our work together in the future.
Conclusion
As an industry we've put years of work into finding new ways to
reduce erosion, reduce water usage and address a number of other
critical conservation priorities. For those unfamiliar with rice
production, rice fields are flooded during the growing season to
provide water that the plants need and to help control weeds. Because
of the unique methods for farming rice compared to other commodity
crops, sensitivity of water quantity/quality and soil stability are
particularly essential to maintain operations. That being said, the
RCPP is a natural fit for our industry to further augment our already
impressive conservation platform.
We are looking forward to bringing the USA Rice/DU project to
fruition over the next couple of years and showing the success that can
be achieved through unlikely partnerships. We anticipate that NRCS will
continue to be supportive along the way from the Chief to the field
staff on the ground helping to implement the EQIP and CSP practices.
I thank this Subcommittee for holding this important hearing to
assess the implementation process of the farm bill. And I appreciate as
a farmer, a conservationist and on behalf of the USA Rice Federation
the work you have done to ensure that farmers have the tools they need
to implement conservation practices on the landscape and feed our
growing population. While conservation may not necessarily be a
controversial issue, it is a vital part of our industry and a necessary
investment if we want to leave our land and operations as a legacy for
our children.
Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to
offer my testimony this morning. I look forward to working with you and
your staff and will be happy to respond to any questions you might
have.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for your testimony.
And now, Ms. Martynick, please go ahead and proceed with
your 5 minutes of testimony when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN L. MARTYNICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
LANCASTER FARMLAND TRUST, STRASBURG, PA

Ms. Martynick. Thank you. Chairman Thompson and Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Karen Martynick, and I am the
Executive Director of Lancaster Farmland Trust, a not-for-
profit land trust located in Lancaster County in Pennsylvania,
the home state of the Chairman.
It is an honor to testify before you today on the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, and share
with you the perspective of a land trust that has utilized both
the farm and ranchland protection program and ACEP.
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is known as the garden spot
of the United States. Just a few miles west of Philadelphia,
Lancaster County ranks 15th in the nation in agricultural
production. It has the most productive non-irrigated soils in
the country. The county's 5,700 farms, 99 percent of which are
family owned, contribute $6 billion to the economy each year.
Lancaster County is also a leader in farmland preservation.
In 2013, the county became the first county in the country to
preserve 100,000 acres of farmland, a remarkable accomplishment
when you consider the fact that the average size farm is just
78 acres. Today, there are more that 1,300 preserved farms in
Lancaster County, farms that have been preserved utilizing
public and private funds.
My comments today are intended to make ACEP as good as it
can be. We are deeply appreciative of the work of NRCS staff
and this Committee and the partnership we have with them to
carry out the goals of ACEP. It is a great step forward, and we
think that working together, we can make it even better.
First and foremost, the program must follow the statute.
Much work went into making ACEP a new and improved FRPP.
However, the rule does not always reflect the language or
intent of the statute.
The program should not be overly complicated. Rules and
procedures that micro-manage the work of land trusts will make
them reluctant to participate. Land trusts have vast experience
in protecting natural resources, and the rules should recognize
and reflect that experience.
The program must be clear and concise. Decisions must be
received in a timely fashion. Our experience with FRPP is that
a project could take as long as 2 years to complete, while a
project using other government funds can be completed in 6
months or less. Let me give you some specifics.
On the minimum deed terms: There is a contradiction between
the statute and the final interim rule on the issue of minimum
deed terms. The statute states that a, ``eligible entity shall
be authorized to use its own terms and conditions for
agricultural land easement so long as the Secretary determines
such terms and conditions meet their conditions.''
While this clearly gives eligible entities the ability to
use their own language, the interim final rule on ACEP states
that eligible entities, ``must use the NRCS required minimum
deed terms specified therein.'' This will force Lancaster
Farmland Trust, for instance, to use language that does not
necessarily fit its program and does not recognize the special
characteristics of Lancaster County.
Appraisal reviews: If you ask any land trust what causes
the most delays, they would most likely say it is the appraisal
review process. Lancaster Farmland Trust works only with
certified appraisers. With 1,300 preserved farms in Lancaster
County, the appraisers have a wealth of experience determining
the value of conservation easements. When we submit an
appraisal for review by NRCS, it can take months to get
comments back. The reviewers are from other parts of the
country and have little knowledge of Lancaster County.
One way to save time would be to stop requiring the
reviewers to establish value on a property he has never visited
and in an area with which he is not familiar. The reviewer
should be charged with determining if the appraisal was done by
a certified appraiser and if that appraisal meets all the
required criteria. This would save a great deal of time.
Eligible entity certification: The certification is
critical to streamlining the ACEP process; however, the terms
necessary to achieve certification may be too onerous for land
trusts to participate. The manual states that NRCS may require
the entity to return any financial assistance provided by NRCS
for easements that fail a quality assurance review. However,
the manual does not provide criteria for quality assurance
review. This provision prevents sufficient financial risk for a
land trust like Lancaster Farmland Trust, and we would be
unlikely to apply for certification because of that.
Clearly defining the standard about when such a nuclear
option would occur would be absolutely necessary for land
trusts to participate. These are just three examples of ways in
which the interim final rule for the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program could be improved or could be clarified. I
have included additional information in the written testimony I
submitted.
On behalf of Lancaster Farmland Trust, I thank you for your
time this morning and your consideration of my comments. The
land trust community is committed to protecting the country's
working lands and stands ready to assist NRCS in determining
and implementing improvements for the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program. I appreciate your interest and am happy to
take any questions you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martynick follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen L. Martynick, Executive Director,
Lancaster Farmland Trust, Strasburg, PA
Introduction
Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the opportunity to present
testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on
Conservation and Forestry regarding the interim final rule for the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) of the Agricultural
Act of 2014. As a private, not-for-profit land trust, Lancaster
Farmland Trust has utilized funding from the Farm and Ranch Land
Protection Program and currently has two projects pending under the
ACEP program.
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the ``Garden Spot'' of the United
States, has the most productive, non-irrigated soils in the country.
The county's 5,500 farms--99 percent of which are family owned--
contribute $6 billion to the economy each year and provide one out of
every five jobs in the county.
In addition to being a leader in agricultural production, Lancaster
County is a national leader in farmland preservation. In 2013, the
county became the first county in the nation to preserve 100,000 acres
of farmland--a remarkable accomplishment considering that the average
sized farm is just 78 acres! Today, there are more than 1,300 farms
that have been preserved by Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Lancaster
County Agriculture Preserve Board utilizing Federal, state, county and
private funds.
Lancaster Farmland Trust was established in 1988 to work with Amish
farmers to preserve their land. In the 27 years since its founding, the
Trust has preserved 28,000 acres on 453 farms. Although reluctant when
the program started, the Amish have embraced preservation. Now,
approximately 80 percent of the farms preserved by Lancaster Farmland
Trust are owned by Amish families.
Lancaster Farmland Trust is accredited by the Land Trust
Accreditation Commission having received accreditation in 2008 and
renewal of accreditation in 2014. In order to achieve accreditation, a
land trust must demonstrate that it upholds the highest operating
standards.
General Comments
Lancaster Farmland Trust is a member of the Land Trust Alliance
which represents 1,700 land trusts throughout the country.
Collectively, these organizations have protected 47 million acres of
land in the United States. More than 140 of the member organizations--
including Lancaster Farmland Trust--are eligible entities under the
Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program or the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program. These organizations share the commitment of Congress
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service to protect the country's
most productive soils and are proud to have been entrusted with the
responsibility of ensuring the program's success.
Lancaster Farmland Trust recognizes and appreciates the time that
has been spent by NRCS staff in developing the interim final rule and
responding to concerns and questions prior to and since its
publication. The suggestions and comments contained in this testimony--
and those offered by the Land Trust Alliance and other land trusts--are
intended to improve the program and increase the ability of Lancaster
Farmland Trust and other land trusts to carry out the goals of the
program. The comments refer specifically to the rule as well as other
NRCS materials including the new policy manual related to the program.
First and foremost, it is important that the program not be overly
complicated. While recognizing the need for oversight, rules and
procedures that micro-manage the work of land trusts will serve only to
make those organizations reluctant to participate. Land trusts have
vast experience in protecting the nation's natural resources and the
rule should recognize and reflect that experience.
It is also critical that the rule be flexible to accommodate
geographic and land use differences but it cannot be uncertain.
Obtaining decisions and answers in a timely fashion helps to move
projects along. Our experience with FRPP is that a project could take
as long as 2 years to complete while a project using other government
funding (state, county or municipal) can be completed in 6 months or
less. The additional staff time required to complete a federally funded
project utilizes resources that would otherwise be used to further our
organization's mission.
It is with this as background that Lancaster Farmland Trust
respectfully submits the following suggestions to enhance the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. The comments reflect the
experience of Lancaster Farmland Trust as well as other land trusts.
Suggestions for Improvement
Minimum Deed Terms
Section 1265B(b)(4)(C) of the statute clearly states under
``Minimum Terms and Conditions'' that ``an eligible entity shall be
authorized to use its own terms and conditions for agricultural land
easements so long as the Secretary determines such terms and conditions
(meet certain conditions).'' However, Section 1468.20(a)(2) of the
interim final rule states that eligible entities ``must enter into a
cooperative agreement with NRCS and use the NRCS required minimum deed
terms specified therein.''
Further, 1468.25(c) states ``The eligible entity may use its own
terms and conditions in the agricultural land easement deed, but the
agricultural land easement deed must contain the minimum deed
requirements as specified NRCS in the cooperative agreement, either in
the deed or in an addendum that is incorporated therein.''
In the case of minimum deed terms, there is a contradiction between
the statute and the final interim rule. Clearly the intent of Congress
was to recognize a land trust's ability to structure an easement to
meet the terms and conditions intended by NRCS without using specific
language prescribed by the agency. This has the effect of forcing an
eligible entity to use language that may not fit its program, may not
recognize characteristics specific to its geographic location and land
use, and may not provide the eligible entity with the ability to make
an easement more restrictive than the minimum deed terms specified by
NRCS.
Allowing eligible entities the flexibility to use their own
easement language will not only fulfill the intent of the statute, it
will strengthen the program by reflecting regional and organizational
differences and ensure adoption by eligible entities responsible for
accomplishing the goals of the program.
Minimum Deed Terms--Enforcement
Section 1265B(b)(4) of the statute states that the terms and
conditions of an easement must ``include a right of enforcement for the
Secretary that may be used only if the terms of the easement are not
enforced by the holder of the easement.'' While providing a right of
enforcement is understandable, the interim rule goes further by
defining the right of enforcement as ``the right of the United States
to inspect the easement area and to enforce the easement entered into
under this part in those instances in which the grantee of the easement
does not fully protect the interests provided to the grantee under this
easement.''
The statute is clear that it is the responsibility of the eligible
entity to monitor and enforce the easement and that NRCS may only step
in ``if the terms of the easement are not enforced by the holder of the
easement.'' The construction of the rule could easily be interpreted to
mean there is a right to inspect independent of the easement not being
enforced.
Additionally, in Section 1468.28(c), the interim rule states:

``NRCS . . . reserves the right to enter upon the easement
area if the annual monitoring report provided by the eligible
entity documenting compliance with the agricultural land
easement and agricultural land easement plan is insufficient or
is not provided annually, the United States has evidence of an
unaddressed violation or to remedy deficiencies or easement
violations.''

Lancaster Farmland Trust believes that the eligible entities'
failure to file a report or the filing of an incomplete report should
not be sufficient to trigger NRCS's right to enter the easement area
and that a failure to file a report or filing an incomplete report
could be a procedural failure and should be handled between the
eligible entity and NRCS and should not involve the landowner. Further
evidence of a violation--other than the lack of a monitoring report--
should be required before the ``right to enter the easement area'' is
exercised.
Cash Match Availability
The interim rule (Section 1468.20(b)(1)(iv)) requires ``sufficient
evidence of . . . the availability of funds at the time of application
sufficient to meet the eligible entity's contribution requirements for
each parcel proposed for funding;'' while the program manual states
that entities must ``document or certify that, at the time of
application, . . . the required funds (are) available for each
parcel''. While NRCS staff has acknowledged it is not their intent to
require that the eligible entity have the funds in its possession at
the time of application, the language in the program manual seems to
suggest that requirement.
Requiring the availability of funds at the time of application
places an unnecessary burden on eligible entities and fails to
recognize that other sources of funding utilized for project may have
different requirements and timelines but would be available in
sufficient time to complete the project.
To resolve the inconsistency in language between the rule and the
manual, it is recommended that the rule language be used in the program
manual. Further, it is recommended that ``sufficient evidence'' include
a successful history of obtaining matching funds from public and
private sources.
Agricultural Land Easement Plans
What is an Agricultural Land Easement Plan? Lancaster Farmland
Trust has asked this question of NRCS staff who have acknowledged they
do not yet know. This raises questions about what will be required of
the eligible entity and the landowner.
NRCS has a long and successful tradition of voluntary conservation
planning in which NRCS provides technical assistance and, in
partnership with the landowner, decides what is reasonable to improve
their operation. Given the success of conservation planning and the
familiarity landowners have with that process, we believe inventing a
new plan is unnecessary and will place an unreasonable burden on the
eligible entity to monitor and enforce.
In addition, we have concerns that, eligible entities may not have
the authority to ``enforce'' the elements of the plan nor the expertise
to assist the landowner with compliance.
Eligible Entity Certification
The Eligible Entity Certification is critical to streamlining the
ACEP process. We believe that NRCS is committed to making this element
of the program successful so that both NRCS and the eligible entity can
save time and conserve their resources. We agree that this is critical
to the success of the program and hope that agreement can be reached on
what is required to become ``certified''.
The provisions of one section of the manual (528.75(I)) may deter
eligible entities from seeking certification. This section states that
``NRCS may require the entity to return any financial assistance
provided by NRCS for easements that fail a quality assurance review and
are not remedied to NRCS's satisfaction.''
The manual does not provide criteria for or a definition of a
``quality assurance review.'' There are sufficient checks and balances
throughout the process to provide NRCS opportunities to remedy any
concerns it may have with an easement prior to closing or withdraw the
offer of funding. Additionally, NRCS retains the right of enforcement
if the entity fails to enforce the easement, thereby ensuring that the
easement would not ``fail'' once executed.
Requiring the return of funds would present a tremendous hardship
for any organization and would seem to be an unreasonably harsh
penalty. This provision presents sufficient financial risk to make it
unlikely that an eligible entity would apply for certification.
Therefore, defining clear standards about when such a ``nuclear
option'' would be used (i.e., fraud, enrollment of an ineligible
property) is absolutely necessary.
Ineligible Lands--Rights of Way
Section 1468.20(e)(5) of the rule designates land ineligible for
the ACEP program ``where the purposes of the program would be
undermined due to onsite or offsite conditions, such as risk of
hazardous substances, proposed or existing rights of way,
infrastructure development, or adjacent land uses . . . .''
The manual goes into more detail (528.34) which may, in some cases,
be interpreted too broadly resulting in lands being determined as
ineligible when they should be eligible. The prohibition in subsection
(3)(ii) cites as disqualifying circumstances ``proposed or existing
rights of way, either onsite or offsite, such as transmission lines,
highways, pipelines or other existing or proposed infrastructure that
introduce disturbances of risks that undermine the purpose of the
easement.''
Depending on how this is executed, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania--
with some of the best farmland in the country--could be largely
ineligible to access ACEP funds. Lancaster County lies between
Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region and markets and export facilities
to the south. Currently three pipeline projects that traverse more than
60 preserved farms are either approved or proposed for Lancaster
County. Others are anticipated. Lancaster County's success in
preserving farmland makes it impossible to cite a large-scale utility
project without impacting a preserved farm.
We believe that NRCS should more clearly define ``proposed'' and
would suggest that a parcel not be deemed ``ineligible'' unless it lies
along a route included in a preliminary or final application to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or appropriate state agency and,
then, only if the right of way would materially affect the conservation
purpose of the proposed easement.
Appraisal Review
If you ask any land trust that participated in the FRPP program
what step in the process caused the most delays, they would most likely
say the appraisal review process. Therefore, we were surprised that the
appraisal review of ACEP easements was barely mentioned in either the
rule or the manual.
We believe that more attention should be paid to improving the
review process and recommend that the Chief work with eligible entities
to review the current contract for review appraisers and the agency's
instructions to those reviewers with the goal of improving and
streamlining the process. Specifically, we would suggest that the
appraisal be reviewed only to determine if all criteria has been met
and not to determine value since the reviewing appraisers are
unfamiliar with the particular situations relevant to that appraisal.
If the reviewer does not need to establish value--but certifies that
the value presented appears to be valid--the time taken by the review
could be shortened.
Conclusion
Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the interim final rule on the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program and is grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the
program. The funds provided to us by the program help farm families
realize their dream of protecting their land so that their children and
grandchildren will have the opportunity to farm as they do. They are--
above all else--committed to protecting the land and we are proud to be
able to help them do so.
We hope that the comments we have offered in this testimony improve
the program and help ensure that it achieves the goals intended by
Congress and NRCS.
Finally, Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the efforts of the
Land Trust Alliance to represent our interests and those of other land
trusts who protect working lands. Specifically, we are grateful for the
efforts of Russ Shay and his staff who have spent countless hours
working to improve the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and
who provided assistance in the preparation of this testimony. Their
work contributes to our success and ensures the success of the program.

The Chairman. Ms. Martynick, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Now, I am pleased to introduce Mr. Inglis for your 5
minutes of testimony, please.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. INGLIS, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
REPRESENTATIVE, PHEASANTS FOREVER, INC. AND QUAIL FOREVER,
UPPER SANDUSKY, OH

Mr. Inglis. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Lujan Grisham, and the Members of the Committee. I am
the Governmental Affairs Representative with Pheasants Forever
and Quail Forever based out of St. Paul, Minnesota. I am a
wildlife biologist by education and experience. I grew up on a
dairy farm in Western New York, and I currently live in Upper
Sandusky, Ohio.
I am here today representing our 750 community-based
Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever chapters, and 142,000
members and volunteers that work every day to promote and
implement conservation programs. To compliment the work of our
dedicated volunteers, we have a team of Farm Bill Biologists
that work as natural resource professionals that have expertise
in wildlife biology, forestry and range management. They work
with landowners to find the best voluntary conservation
solutions that fit the needs as part of their agriculture
operations and their personal goals.
Over the last 12 years, these Farm Bill Biologists have
worked with landowners in over 148,000 projects covering 5.1
million acres. These projects involve the establishment of
quality conservation practices that improve soil health, water
quality, and provide habitat benefits to a wide variety of
wildlife, not only pheasants and quail but other species such
as the Golden-winged warbler in Pennsylvania, Lesser Prairie
chicken in the Southern Great Plains, Elk and Sage Grouse in
the West, and honey bees and Monarch butterflies throughout our
great country.
In addition, all Americans benefit from these conservation
practices that improve the soil health, water quality and
quantity. We are here today to discuss conservation program
implementation, and I would like to spend a few minutes to
highlight a couple of them. First of all, I would like to
highlight the Conservation Reserve Program that we have heard
quite a bit about here this morning. CRP celebrates its 30th
anniversary this year. Farmers, ranchers, landowners, and
sportsmen will tell you that the program has been and continues
to be very popular and productive.
We support CRP's ability to deliver a variety of
conservation practices to landowners that address landscape-
scale wildlife and natural resource concerns. This would
include options to sign up conservation practices during a
general CRP sign-up period but also having more targeted
practices that are available through the year.
We supported Secretary Vilsack's recent announcement that
USDA will host a general signup at the end of this calendar
year, as well as adding 800,000 additional continuous acres. We
are thankful to have the opportunity to work with USDA to make
improvements to CRP to better carry out the intent of Congress
by providing conservation benefits for taxpayers as well as the
technical and financial resources for landowners and farmers.
Included in my written testimony are details on the CRP
implementation recommendations that several sportsmen and
wildlife groups recently drafted for USDA and FSA leadership at
their request.
I would also like to highlight the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program. We are one of 22 partners in the regional
grassland, bird and grazing land enhancement project being
coordinated by the Missouri Department of Conservation and
implemented in four states: Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and
Kansas. The partnership utilizes NRCS' Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and agricultural land easement funds to
improve forage quality on grazing lands while benefiting
Bobwhite quail, and the Greater Prairie chicken, and numerous
other grassland wildlife.
Ultimately, we are enhancing these working land grazing
systems making them more productive and more resilient to
periods of drought. Preliminary signup results, just in the
last couple of weeks, suggest that there is going to be more
interest from landowners than funds available. One of our
organization's top priorities, along with many of our partners,
are to maximize the wildlife benefit, soil health, and water
quality on as many acres of farms, fields, ranches, forestlands
as possible.
For example, this would include considering individual
species' lifecycle needs in the design of conservation plans,
such as addressing limiting factors of pollinators in that
area. This could also be accomplished by something as simple as
using updated seeding specifications and management techniques
that would establish and maintain a diversity of vegetative
cover but also addresses soil, water, and wildlife concerns.
CRP Mid Contract Management is another great example of
having tools available to maximize the benefit to the program
throughout the length of the contract.
I need to emphasize that these successes would not be
possible without the numerous partnerships that we have across
the country, especially with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Farm Service Agency, and the state fish and wildlife
agencies. There are hundreds of partnerships at the state and
local levels around the country that leverage the Federal funds
for the implementation of the individual conservation programs
and practices and for the boots on the ground to deliver them.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we often hear the term
``precision agriculture'' is going to be the way of future, and
with the technology and partnerships we have available across
this great country, we can also have precision conservation.
The voluntary incentive-based conservation programs in the farm
bill clearly give us the tools to accomplish that. I thank you
for the opportunity to be here, and I look forward to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

Prepared Statement of James E. Inglis, Governmental Affairs
Representative, Pheasants Forever, Inc. and Quail Forever, Upper
Sandusky, OH
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Jim Inglis and I am the Governmental Affairs
Representative with Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever based out of
St. Paul, Minnesota. I am a wildlife biologist by education and
experience; grew up on a dairy farm in western New York, and currently
live in Upper Sandusky, Ohio.
I am here today representing our 750 community based Pheasants
Forever and Quail Forever chapters; and 142,000 members and volunteers
that work every day to promote and implement conservation programs.
Each year our chapters complete more than 30,000 individual projects
with farmers, ranchers and forest owners. To complement the work of our
dedicated volunteers, we have a team of Farm Bill Biologists that work
as natural resource professionals with expertise in fields such as
wildlife biology, forestry, and range management. They work with
landowners every day to find the best voluntary based, conservation
solutions that fit producers' needs as part of their agriculture
operations and personal goals.
Over the last 12 years, these Farm Bill Biologists have worked on
over 148,000 projects with landowners covering over 5.1 million acres.
These projects involve the establishment of quality habitat that meet
the life cycle needs of a wide variety of wildlife, not only pheasants
and quail, but other species such as Golden-winged warbler in
Pennsylvania, Lesser Prairie Chickens in the Southern Great Plains and
the iconic Elk and Sage Grouse in the West, and Monarch butterflies
throughout the country. In addition to wildlife benefits, all Americans
benefit from improved soil health and water quality and quantity by
implementing these practices.We are here today to discuss farm bill
implementation and I would like to spend a few minutes discussing a
couple of the individual programs.
Conservation Reserve Program
First, I would like to highlight the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). As many of you know, the CRP celebrates its 30th anniversary
this year, and farmers, ranchers, landowners and sportsmen will tell
you that the program has been, and continues to be popular and
productive. We support CRP's ability to deliver a variety of
conservation practices to landowners, both options of larger general
CRP signup periods, and more targeted continuous practices are
important for addressing landscape scale wildlife and natural resource
concerns. We supported Secretary Vilsack's recent announcement that
USDA will host a general signup the end of this calendar year, as well
as open 800,000 additional continuous acres. We are also thankful to
have the opportunity to work with USDA to make improvements to CRP, to
better carry out the intent of Congress to conserve soil, water, and
wildlife, providing conservation benefits to taxpayers as well as
financial incentives to producers. Included with my written testimony
are details on CRP implementation recommendations that several
sportsmen and wildlife groups, including PF/QF, recently drafted for
USDA and FSA leadership at their request.
Unlike some programs discussed today, the CRP rule has not been
released so our recommendations are on how the CRP can best be
implemented. On May 27th, a group of wildlife organizations including
Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever provided our combined
recommendations for the Conservation Reserve Program to USDA and FSA
leadership. The below recommendations aim to help maximize enrollment
on both the general and continuous sides of the program, in order to
give landowners and producers a robust set of tools with which to
implement conservation on their land.
Signups and Expiring Acres
One of the first priorities from several groups was that USDA hold
a general signup as soon as possible, which will occur in December of
this year. In addition, we recommended that USDA provide re-enrollment
options to producers for the 2.17M acres that are set to expire at the
end of this fiscal year (267,000 acres extended from FY14 and 1.91M
acres set to expire FY15). USDA announced that producers will have an
option to re-enroll for 1 year, allowing enough time to enroll lands
under the general signup, or potentially a more targeted CCRP practice.
We also believe USDA should expand CCRP initiatives to cover areas
with high contract expiration rates. As these acres come out of a
general contract and are not extended/re-enrolled, we would ask USDA to
promote keeping environmentally sensitive/important lands in CCRP
practices. The trend has been that when a general CRP contract expires,
the entire field is brought back into production.
Conservation Practices, Initiatives, and Management
We thank and support that USDA addressed the acres of CP38 State
Acres For Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) and CP37 duck nesting habitat as
part of the recent announcement. We also would ask USDA to clarify with
states their requested for acres and modifications to existing
initiatives (e.g., CP33, CP38, CREP). We encourage USDA to reevaluate
initiatives and practices that are stagnant, with specific attention to
improving incentives and/or lowering enrollment caps on those under-
performing practices, and consider raising caps on the most successful
initiatives.
We would like to see USDA continue to enroll lands in the highly
erodible lands initiative, but better balance water quality and soil
erosion with habitat and upgraded grassland cover. We think it is
important for USDA to reevaluate the mid contract management cost share
annual caps to encourage quality habitat management. The current caps,
which have not been updated since 2002, do not adequately address
management cost to achieve maximum benefits.
Working Grasslands
One of the most exciting additions to the CRP was adding 2 million
acres of grassland eligibility. We would recommend fully enrolling the
authorized 2 million acres by 2018. We also would like to see USDA
prioritize limited acreage around specific resource concerns: target
areas of high rates of native grassland conversion, maintaining
perennial cover, especially on native grasslands and existing CRP
enrollments; enrolling acres in areas with high risk of conversion;
provide priority wildlife habitat through diverse, vegetation and large
tract enrollment as appropriate to the species, protecting grasslands
with proximity to wetlands or in regions with high wetland densities.
In addition, we urge USDA to collect and publish data on native
grassland loss annually.
We would to like to see USDA implement the program similar to the
CRP SAFE by accepting Federal, state, local agencies and partner
proposals for collaborative, stakeholder-sponsored enrollments but
partners should not be required to contribute financial assistance as
in CREP. We would greatly support an exemption of working grasslands
acres from CRP county caps since these lands will be in agriculture
production. We would also like to see USDA require a comprehensive
conservation plan for all enrollments. Finally we recommend giving this
new program a distinctive and recognizable name to avoid confusion by
participants, partners, and USDA staff.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Another program that I would like to highlight is the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) by providing a specific
example. We are one of 22 partners in the Regional Grassland Bird and
Grazing Land Enhancement project being coordinated by the Missouri
Department of Conservation, which is being implemented in Missouri,
Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas. The partnership utilizes NRCS' Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Agriculture Land Easement (ALE)
programs to improve forage quality on grazing lands while benefiting
the greater prairie chicken, bobwhite quail and numerous other
grassland wildlife. Ultimately we are enhancing grazing systems and
wildlife habitat that will be more resilient to periods of drought,
like we experience in this region in 2012. These working lands will be
more productive, have the ability to absorb more water and reduce
erosion in high rainfall events. Preliminary sign up results just in
the last couple weeks suggest that there is more interest from
landowners than funds available.
Voluntary Public Access--Habitat Improvement Program
The last farm bill conservation program we would like to highlight
is the Voluntary Public Access--Habitat Improvement Program (VPA-HIP)
that we work on with our state wildlife agency partners. As you are
aware, hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation can be an economic
driver in many parts of the country. Hunters and anglers spend
approximately $75 Billion pursuing their passions every year. In
addition wildlife watchers spend about $55 billion each year. These
expenditures include everything from rods and reels, guns, ammunition,
boats, decoys, bows and arrows and tree stands, to hotel stays and
dinners in small rural towns across the country. As you may also
recognize public access for hunting, fishing and recreation can be a
factor in the lost participation because some areas of the country are
limited on amount of accessible lands, especially in those landscapes
that are comprised by mostly private ownership. VPA-HIP helps address
that by working with state and local partners to provide incentives for
landowners to voluntarily open up their lands for recreation, while
conducting wildlife habitat improvements. We support the announcement
of the first $20 million earlier this year, and look forward to the
remainder of the funding allocation in the near future.
Improving Habitat Quality
One of our organizations top priorities, along with many of our
partners, are to maximize the wildlife benefits, soil health, and water
quality through voluntary Federal, state and local conservation
programs on as many acres of fields, farms, ranches and forestlands as
possible. This includes, for example, considering individual wildlife
species life cycle needs, such as with pollinators, in the design of
conservation plans that compliments an ecosystem approach. This can be
accomplished by something as simple as updated seeding specifications
and management techniques that establish and maintain a diversity of
vegetative cover in conservation planning process. This will result in
longer term natural resource benefits with a reduced need for
management in the future.
We feel there are several opportunities to increase the value of
conservation program plantings for pollinators like honey bees and
Monarch butterflies as well as a wide range of upland wildlife. Some of
the updates to USDA conservation programs that would have an immediate
and positive impact on pollinators and wildlife include implementing up
to date USDA seeding specifications currently being used to design
conservation program seeding mixtures in some states. Examples of
seeding specification improvements include:

(1) Allow and encourage the use of a broader range of species
adapted to a geographic area. Both Honey Bees and Monarch
Butterflies are known to receive increased benefits from
highly diverse seeding mixtures. The more species that are
included in a seeding mixture, the more pollinator species
the seeding mixture will benefit. As an example, several
state seeding specifications currently do not allow for the
inclusion of critically important species for Monarch
butterflies like Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and
other species critical for fall migration.

(2) Update seeding specifications to build seeding mixtures based on
Pure Live Seed (PLS) seeds per square foot instead of the
outdated PLS pounds per acre method. A continued reliance
on PLS pounds per acre seeding specifications in some
states produces an inconsistency within USDA about how
conservation program seeding specifications are written and
applied. Pollinator mixtures increasingly require the use
of wildflower species with a very wide range of seed sizes
and weights. In order to create a balanced, properly
designed and cost effective seeding mixture, the mixture
needs to be based on the number of seeds that are being
planted per given area and not the bulk pounds of species
that have a wide range in the size of the seeds. This is an
important update as some of the most important states to
honey bee and Monarch butterfly health have not yet made
these updates to their USDA seeding specifications.

(3) Move forward with the adoption and use of a USDA `Seed
Calculator' in creating conservation program seeding
mixtures that are based on PLS per square foot seeding
specifications. The use of a ``seed calculator'' to help
create mixtures based on ratios assigned to species is
important, yet many states that use a seed calculator still
rely on PLS pounds per acre. Examples of seed calculators
already exist within both USDA and the private sector that
are function using PLS per square foot. There has been
discussion within USDA regarding the creation of a USDA
seed calculator for use by USDA staff for several years.
Such a tool would enable staff to better design seeding
mixture recommendations that are balanced, cost effective,
had a higher diversity and provided increased quality
pollinator habitat.

(4) Implement seed establishment practices that allow a broader
range of establishment options that includes dormant
seedings in the fall and no-till drill seeding without
disking ahead of seeding. In several of the states that are
the most important for Honey Bee and Monarch Butterfly
foraging habitat, USDA seeding specifications provide
direction that limits several of the best establishment
practices. Seeding specifications to establish high
diversity, pollinator habitat should allow the use of
dormant seedings, broad cast seeding and eliminate field
disking recommendations prior to establishment.

Each of these recommendations are already successfully in place in
some of the state USDA seeding specifications in the country.
Unfortunately, some of the most critical states for Honey Bee and
Monarch Butterfly health have not yet incorporated these updated
seeding specifications. When these seeding specification
recommendations are all applied, the benefits include establishing
habitat with significantly increased wildlife habitat quality, mixtures
that are more cost effective and providing tools that allow resource
professionals to design improved seeding mixtures.
Closing Statement
I need to emphasize that these successes wouldn't be possible
without numerous partnerships that we have with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, state fish and wildlife
agencies, and other national, state and local agencies and
organizations. There are hundreds of other partnership positions at the
county and state levels that leverage funding for conservation
practices, and for ``boots on the ground'' delivery.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we often hear the term precision
agriculture as the way of the future, and with the technology and
partnerships we have available across this great country, we can also
have precision conservation. The voluntary, incentive based,
conservation programs in the farm bill, clearly deliver that.
Thank you and I look forward to any questions.
Attachment
Farm Bill and Partnership Biologist Program Summary
Pheasants Forever (PF) and Quail Forever (QF) Farm Bill
Biologist (FBB) Program started in South Dakota in 2003 with
four positions; there are currently 117 partnership positions
in 19 states. Since inception, these individuals have worked on
over 148,000 projects with landowners impacting 5.14 million
acres. In addition, they have hosted over 920 landowner
workshops to promote farm bill and other conservation programs
that farmers, ranchers, and landowners use as part of their
operations.

Funding sources are diverse, and the effort would not be
possible without the financial support of State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, USDA-NRCS, USFWS, Joint Ventures, National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Local PF&QF chapters, watershed
groups, foundations, and other state and local partners. FSA is
also a key partner.

With the increasing wildlife focus of the farm bill and
various other state and Federal initiatives, FBB's add
wildlife, range, forestry and other specialized technical
assistance capacity in USDA offices. They assist NRCS/FSA and
conservation partners maximize the benefits conservation
practices provide on a landscape scale.

Through the NRCS Working Lands For Wildlife and other
wildlife focused initiatives, PF has entered into several
agreements with partners (i.e., State Wildlife Agencies,
Intermountain West Joint Venture, Western Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies) to assist in the delivering the Sage
Grouse, Lesser Prairie Chicken, and Golden-winged Warbler
Initiatives. PF&QF host positions and provide implementation,
administrative and financial assistance services in these
targeted regions.

These partnership positions are involved in several other
initiatives and projects such as expanding private land acres
open to the public through NRCS's Voluntary Public Access and
Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) along with state funded
public access programs.
Location and Number of Partnership Positions by State

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Partnership Current Number of
State Implemented Partnership Positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota 2003 10
Nebraska 2004 19
Minnesota 2004 16
Ohio 2005 9
Wisconsin 2007 6
North Dakota 2008 5
Iowa 2009 6
Illinois 2010 5
Kansas 2010 6
Colorado 2010 3
Idaho 2010 6
Pennsylvania 2011 9
Missouri 2011 6
Washington 2011 1
Nevada 2011 2
Texas 2011 3
New Mexico 2011 1
Wyoming 2012 1
Tennessee 2013 3
-----------------------------------------------
Total................. 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information contact: Jim Inglis, Governmental Affairs
Representative.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
Thanks to all members of all the panel for your testimony.
And now I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Many Members of this Committee see farmers as the best stewards
of our land, but the EPA seems to think differently at times.
And Congress has given producers tools through cost-share
programs and voluntary incentive-based programs to improve
water, soil, and air quality.
Can each of you speak to the importance of conservation
programs in conjunction with these possible regulations, and
also, Mr. Van Dyke and Mr. Allen, you talked about, on your own
property, the importance of conservation and obviously their
incentives to conserve with these various programs.
How responsible would farmers and ranchers be without such
incentives? And I will address that to first, Mr. Van Dyke, and
anybody else that would like to comment on those two questions,
as far as the regulatory environment and then the incentive
issue?
Mr. Van Dyke. Well, thank you very much, and I strongly
believe the majority of producers out there want to do the
right thing, and they obviously are the stewards of the land.
Their livelihood depends on healthy lands, healthy soil,
healthy air, clean water. And as we deal with Federal
regulations like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
Act, voluntary farm-based conservation programs can help
positively address those issues.
And like myself, I farm and ranch because it is something
that my family has always done, and I want to pass on that
operation to my children, and I cannot do that if I destroy the
environment in any way. I think the majority of producers are
proactive. I think soil and water districts need to address
local issues and find local solutions. That is what we have
been doing for 80 years and have the relationships to do that.
We are all about clean water and clean air.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Okay. Mr. Rice. Mr. Allen, I am
sorry.
Mr. Allen. Well, I agree with Mr. Van Dyke's comments, but
I would like to add that in the declining nature of our
commodity values today, any practice that does not create
revenue is hard to justify, and as a producer, I said earlier
that my productivity increases when I apply stewardship, and it
makes me more sustainable, and I believe that.
But I believe that the title II programs and the cost-share
incentives are critical and mandatory for the type of
stewardship that we have described.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Okay. So you would suggest that from
an investment standpoint, these incentives are necessary for
you and other farmers and ranchers to sustain your operations?
Mr. Allen. Absolutely.
Mr. Allen of Georgia. Okay. Any other comments on those
questions?
Okay. Well, great. I yield back the remainder of my time,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I am
pleased to recognize the Ranking Member for questioning.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank the entire panel. It is gratifying to hear about
the successes, and we really are working diligently to make
sure that we are organized in such a fashion to make sure that
with the limited resources that we have available to USDA for
the farm bill, that we are doing the very best that we can, but
it is also important for us to hear about where those gaps are.
Mr. Van Dyke, it is wonderful to have you here, and it is
impressive that NACD is involved in over 100 RCPP projects
across the country, and having you as a partner in those
projects, I know, unequivocally, really helped in moving them
and getting them off the ground.
In your testimony, you discuss how the RCPP program has
allowed you to form new partnerships that were previously
impossible in the other programs like the traditional EQIP and
CSP programs.
And I am most encouraged to hear about your work with the
acequias. And I have talked a little bit about acequias, and
now the Chairman is familiar, and we are working hard to get
the entire Committee, but acequia refers, when they talk about
the New Mexico ditches, to a traditional communal irrigation
system, and it dates back literally to the Spanish colonial
area from the 1500s, and they play a very significant and very
critical role not only in our history and our culture, but that
is how we continue today to deliver water for agricultural
areas, particularly in rural areas.
And their involvement in conservation programs then, is
critical to long-term success and broad and significant
participation by New Mexico, and it highlights that there are
going to be unique circumstances around the country that we are
going to have to identify and encourage in order to take the
full use of these programs.
I would love it, Mr. Van Dyke, if you could give me some
specific examples about how the flexibility has changed the
dynamic in other areas, what that means to the program overall,
and how these efforts really assisted you to expand these
partnerships and roles.
Mr. Van Dyke. Well, thank you. We in New Mexico are so
excited to have the RCPPs. Acequias, as we all know in New
Mexico, are traditional. They represent rural New Mexico. They
represent those communities that have been there forever, long
family heritage and traditions, and we don't want those
children leaving those communities because they do not have the
opportunity to make a living, provide for their families, and
it is amazing how RCPP, which prior to 2014, never had the
opportunity to qualify for some of these programs.
And with the alternative funding and flexibility that is
now in with the RCPP, it gives us the opportunity to address
those natural resource concerns with input from those local
communities and the local people who do have the answers to
some of those resource concerns and bringing in non-traditional
partners. Partnerships is what it is all about, whether you are
in Chama, New Mexico or Carlsbad, Clovis, New Mexico, it is all
about partnerships, and RCPP brings those people to the table
to identify those needs and come up with solutions.
Everybody, that way, has skin in the game, so they really
are more concerned with its success. And you are absolutely
correct, the ability to address those acequia issues is so
important to New Mexico, so we appreciate that, another tool in
that NRCS toolbox.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. With the limited time I have left, and I
really appreciate your leadership here and your stewardship,
and really, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to highlight that if we
don't have the flexibility, these programs can often work
against us as we try to leverage those resources to create
partnerships. And we talk about drought driven and economic
situations that are not stable and have been really damaging,
frankly devastating to states like New Mexico and other states
in the Southwest, this is the only way to leverage those
limited resources, create relationships and partnerships that
make the best out of conserving and providing opportunities for
farmers and ranchers.
So I want to thank you again for your leadership and I want
to thank the entire panel for highlighting those efforts and
successes around the country.
The Chairman is doing something that is very unique in
these committees, which I hope reflects that this is a very
bipartisan Committee. He said that basically I could ask
anything I want and talk as long as I want, and that has----
The Chairman. Now, wait a minute. The gentlelady can
yield--or consume as much time as she desires.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really, I
don't have any other specific questions. I will end with if
you, anybody on this panel can identify other ways in which we
might encourage USDA in the context of limitations about how
flexible some of those programs can be, but they also ought to
be in a position as they really look at leveraging that
flexibility that meets the needs of all partners around the
country and takes into account the different nuances in each of
the regions.
I would be interested, and Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could
get ideas funneled back to the Committee about ways in which we
should be preparing to even highlight and identify additional
places where we could be more flexible and make more programs
available.
I am working on making sure that EQIP works for a group
that is not a local body of government but operates in that way
in their land-grants, and so there are still areas where we are
not getting to the right groups the resources that they need,
and those ideas would be very meaningful to me, and they would
be meaningful to the Committee as we continue to do our work.
Thank you all very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I will have a line of
questioning here.
Ms. Martynick, in your testimony you referenced that in
your experience a federally funded project could take as long
as 2 years to complete, but a state or county funded project
could be completed in 6 months or less. In your opinion, why
the difference? Why does it take so much longer to complete a
federally funded project?
Ms. Martynick. Well, there are a number of reasons. The
first and foremost, I would say it is the--how long it takes to
get answers to any questions. Our experience with FRPP, and
obviously ACEP has improved a lot of this, but ACEP still has
some of the same issues that there is enough that is unclear
that you have to constantly go back and forth with NRCS to make
sure that you are doing the right thing.
And there are a lot of things that need to be reviewed,
there are a lot of documents that need to be reviewed and
sometimes reviewed more than once, and it just takes a long
time to do that. I highlighted the issue of the appraisal
reviews. That takes months and months to get an appraisal
review.
In a county and state program, that is not necessary as
long as the appraiser is certified, because after all, they
have to meet certain standards in order to be certified, so as
long as the appraiser is certified, they are looking at the
appraisal more quickly and getting and turning that back to the
land trust or the county agency more quickly.
It is every step of the way there, it is a belt-and-
suspenders thing in every step, so it just takes longer to get
the answers. Sometimes it takes too long to get the answers, or
takes longer to get the answers, how do we do something, and
then it takes a long time when things have to be reviewed. I
think that is probably what takes the most time.
The Chairman. I wanted to follow up, and you had made
reference to a comparison between the previous authority that
we had for easements and what we did within the farm bill, and
there were a number of changes made in them in the 2008, 2014
Farm Bill to the easement programs. The creation of the
consolidated Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or
ACEP, was done with the intention of providing flexibility and
streamlining delivery of the program. Is the Lancaster Farmland
Trust more or less inclined to participate in ACEP compared to
the FRPP program?
Ms. Martynick. I think that the ACEP program has cleared up
a lot of the issues that we had with FRPP, and hopefully, as we
move forward, we have two projects pending currently, so we are
kind of feeling our way at this point, but we definitely can
see the difference between this and FRPP, although there were
some things in the ACEP program, things that we thought were
going to be there that have turned out not to be there, at
least in terms of the interim rule that has been issued by
NRCS. I pointed out one major one, which is the minimum deed
terms.
If you look at a place like Lancaster County, we work
mostly with Amish farmers. It is a very specific constituency.
Lancaster County is a unique place in many ways. It is really
necessary, in order for us to effectively use the program, to
be able to use our language, and as long as our language meets
the minimum standard of NRCS, it just works out so much better
for us if we don't have to use the language provided to us by
NRCS.
When we have to use the language provided by NRCS, we do a
lot of workarounds, and that doesn't make the easement any
stronger. It certainly doesn't make the process any shorter,
and proving that our language is just as effective and being
able to utilize that language would help a great deal.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Inglis, there is a lot of interest, obviously, of this
Committee, the full Agriculture Committee on pollinators, given
the current state of pollinators, and anyone who likes growing
food, pollinators play a pretty important role. And you had
mentioned that in both your written and verbal testimony, so I
wanted to follow up. Can you talk a little more about how the
Pheasants Forever is working in this area and some of your
suggestions in how we can improve pollinator habitat?
Mr. Inglis. Sure. We have been involved in trying to make
as many acres of grassland as productive as possible, so we
like to say what makes good pollinator habitat is going to make
good nesting habitat, is going to help benefit soil health and
water quality, so we have been involved in that for several
years.
Some of the most recent projects we have been involved with
is the Honey Bee and Monarch Partnerships in some areas of the
country, and we are really putting some resources towards that
to try to educate, whether it is landowners, farmers, and
ranchers that this is an opportunity, and it might not be the
best fit for their operation, but we want to make sure that
they have the tools available to be able to address those.
As far as making them a little bit better, it is the
education piece. We heard some concerns this morning that maybe
the pollinator practices aren't going as well, and some of that
can come back to updated seeding specifications and updating
the technical methods to establish those. It is maybe a little
bit different to establish, so we are all engaged in trying to
make that process as easy as possible.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Van Dyke, in your testimony
you mention that conservation districts will play an important
role in the implementation of linking conservation compliance
with crop insurance. Today, what types of activities has the
NACD engaged in to do this, and especially important for
specialty crop producers who for the first time are subject to
conservation compliance, was your organization or the members
of the organization or conservation districts, both, certainly
the volunteers, many volunteers who are involved and are
professionals who are there, were they able to--did they
participate in any outreach to educate these producers about
filling out the AD-1026. Are we doing any current outreach to
see if we missed some folks, some people that are going to get
a really bad surprise when the bill comes in October?
Mr. Van Dyke. Well, thank you. And I concur with you, the
effects of not being in compliance could be very negative, but
through our national organization communication outreach, we
have done a good job of reaching out to those producers,
starting at the national level with our E-notes and our
mailings, working through our state associations. Every state
association also had outreach not only nationally, and then
that outreach also goes down to the local level because there
is a local soil and water conservation district in just about
every community in the United States, so starting with the
national down through the state associations, and then the
base, the locals' own water districts getting out to their
cooperators.
And the unique thing about soil and water districts is
those supervisors that are elected locally are usually leaders
in their community in agriculture and conservation, so they
will help disseminate that type of information. So those are
the areas that we have worked to get the word out about AD-
1026.
The Chairman. Okay very good. Well, I appreciate the work
that you have done and others and certainly the USDA, and
hopefully we won't have a lot of folks who are caught by
surprise of not knowing that to qualify for that, it is a self-
certification, but you did need to fill that form out by a
certain date.
Mr. Allen, in your testimony you mentioned that as a stand-
alone program, EQIP and CSP are not necessarily geared towards
rice production, but with the flexibility in the RCPP, USA Rice
has been able to tailor those programs to achieve the
conservation goals of rice farmers. Can you expand on that and
give me some examples of how this is being done?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Many of the best
management practices that are conducive to be associated with
rice production don't rank as well in the ranking models from
NRCS' larger structural installations, like the construction of
an irrigation storage reservoir or tail water recovery system.
The irrigation management practices generally find themselves
unfunded because they have been outranked by the other
practices I just described, so this is an opportunity to
feature those and give them priority, and that now we actually
have new forms of conservation being installed on the working
lands because of that.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you very much. I want to
thank all the panelists for taking the time to come to
Washington to be able to testify today and provide your written
testimony and your oral testimony and your leadership,
respective leadership.
The process that we have of--and this really was an
oversight hearing, a chance to exercise oversight on the
implementation of the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, to be
able to get kind of an overview from USDA and their leadership
in terms of how that is being done, but also to get a, as
importantly, for those end-users, those folks who are using
those programs, to get feedback.
I think this represents a good partnership. I think that
partnership and that sincerity of this partnership of make
making sure that we got it right when we did the farm bill and
that we are getting it right as we implement it, I think that
is reflective of the fact that Chief Weller, who was here
through the second panel, I sit on a lot of committees, I don't
always get that. Sometimes we get a hard time getting
individuals from the Administration to come, but that is not
the case with the USDA.
They are great partners, and sometimes, as hard as we try,
we don't always get it exactly the way we want it. Perhaps we
will find that we fail--we did pretty good on the farm bill,
but you know what, that is why we do these oversight hearings,
to make sure and work on that partnership, and so I want to
thank everyone for being here.
And under the rules of Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional materials and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing
of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Questions
Response from Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. The conservation compliance provisions of the farm bill
also required that any ``affiliated person'' of a producer requesting
benefits subject to Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and
Wetland Conservation (WC) also file an AD-1026. Has your agency, along
with RMA and FSA, identified persons that this might affect, and if so,
how were those individuals identified and notified of the new
conservation compliance requirements? In your estimation, how many of
these producers are now out of compliance?
Answer. Matters pertaining to the filing of AD-1026 forms fall
under the administrative responsibility of the Farm Service Agency.
According to FSA, all producers that identified ``affiliates'' in block
4 of AD-1026 are entered into the system by FSA as ``Awaiting Affiliate
Certification''. Producers are reminded that they are not ``Certified''
for AD-1026 until those producers they identified as affiliates are
also ``Certified''. It is the producer's responsibility to communicate
to their affiliates that they need to complete their certification in
order for the original certification to be complete and for the person
to receive USDA benefits in the form of premium subsidies.
In addition to the responsibility of the producer to inform
affiliates, RMA and FSA are working together to flag any remaining
certifications that are awaiting affiliates and reminding producers of
the requirement. Specifically, RMA has passed to FSA the first
applicable sales closing date these producers had in 2014 that are
entered into the system as ``awaiting affiliate certification''. FSA
reaches out to the identified producers in advance of the sales closing
date. FSA stresses the importance to these identified producers that
they must communicate to their affiliates to come in and certify to
conservation compliance by their first applicable sales closing date in
order to remain eligible for the 2016 crop insurance premium subsidy.

Question 2. NRCS is in the process of finalizing a method for
making off-site wetland determinations, but there seems to be a great
deal of confusion about what you are doing. The wetland determination
process has been, and probably still is, one for the most controversial
processes for producers to go through with NRCS, and now producers are
even more concerned with the conservation compliance linkage to crop
insurance premium subsidies.
What are you doing to help guide producers through this process?

Question 2a. What information are you making available to them to
help them understand the changes that you have made to the
determination process?

Question 2b. How are you explaining the terms and data you are
using and information that you need from producers to make
determinations?
Answer 2-2b. The revised state off-site methods for wetlands
determinations updates procedures that have been used since 1988, uses
new mapping technologies to streamline initial determinations, and
reduces the need for field visits, which will help expedite
determinations and decrease the backlog. The revision process has
included public listening sessions, review of the procedures at state
technical committee meetings, posting of the revised procedures in the
Federal Register, and a national webinar. Additionally, NRCS has
conducted training for staff on the revised methods so that they can
effectively explain and help producers through the process.
The revised process doesn't involve any change of regulatory
language but incorporates the use of new technology, and improves the
consistency and efficiency in how determinations are completed. The
main change in terminology is that the agency now calls its technical
procedures ``State Offsite Methods'' instead of ``State Mapping
Conventions.'' NRCS only completes wetland determinations when a USDA
participant indicates they are planning to undertake a drainage
improvement action in an area where no previously completed
determination has been made. NRCS asks producers that indicate they are
planning to make drainage improvements to provide their drainage
records for the affected area. The process allows participants multiple
avenues to request an onsite review and reconsideration with agency
staff to fully explain the process.

Question 3. In 2015 NRCS released a number of new enhancements for
CSP. While it is important for producers to have a number of
conservation practice options to choose from, the availability of those
options seems inconsistent in the field. This is resulting in producers
not being able to sign up for all the enhancements available.
What are you doing ensure that field staff is trained on these
options and that all producers have access to the enhancements offered?

Question 3a. Are state NRCS offices permitted to alter the CSP
enhancements if they are not appropriate for crops grown in their
state?
Answer 3-3a. CSP enhancements are defined conservation activities
linked to one or more conservation practice standards. NRCS agency
staff obtain technical training on enhancements through their state
program and technical specialists and are also guided by the technical
information contained in the Field Office Technical Guide.
The specifics of all enhancements offered to producers under each
sign-up, including a full listing and description of the activities, is
made available on the NRCS website. NRCS State Conservationists also
may recommend new enhancements to encourage the adoption of new and
emerging conservation technologies on farms, ranches and forest lands
with an increased focus on resource concerns at the local level.
NRCS State Conservationists have the authority to modify the CSP
activity list to target specific enhancements to a geographic area or
to remove enhancements that are not applicable to crops grown in a
state. While State Conservationists do not have the authority to change
the purpose of an enhancement, they may refine enhancements to address
local needs; for example, Grazing Management to Improve Wildlife
Habitat may be adjusted to incorporate provisions that protect wildlife
nesting periods in the state. State Conservationists make these
decisions in consultation with NRCS technical staff and State Technical
Committees.

Question 4. NRCS awarded $370 million for projects in the initial
rollout of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). In
May, NRCS announced another $235 million in RCPP funding to be
available in FY 2016. I assume implementing this new and innovative
program has had its share of challenges, but NRCS has been operating
the program without a rule. Do you intend to create a rule for RCPP?
Why or why not?
Answer. NRCS did not develop a rule for the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) but has implemented the program through an
Announcement of Program Funding (APF) process similar to its
predecessor programs. The APF approach followed the program's statutory
language, which provided solid structure and allowed for timely
implementation of this new program. In addition, RCPP is delivered to
producers through covered programs, each of which have program
regulations. Correspondingly, RCPP technically is delivered via the
EQIP, CSP, ACEP, HFRP, and P.L. 83-566 regulations. To strengthen that
regulatory relationship, NRCS incorporated special RCPP provisions into
each of the covered program rules, such as the ability of the Chief to
waive the Adjusted Gross Income limitation or regulatory provisions in
certain RCPP project areas. The APF process to solicit creative
proposals from potential partners, combined with the consistent
regulatory framework already in place through the covered programs,
allowed a fair and flexible approach to delivering comprehensive
conservation assistance to producers. At this time, NRCS does not
intend to initiate rulemaking for RCPP; however, the approach may be
revisited in the next regulatory cycle following a farm bill.

Question 5. Through its initiative to improve habitat, NRCS has placed quite a bit of emphasis on the sage grouse. Can you tell me how much has been
spent on the Sage Grouse Initiative by program, by year, and by state?
Answer. See the following tables.

Sage Grouse Initiative
Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated
Contract Fiscal Year 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Grassland Reserve Program Grand Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State FIPS No. of No. of No. of Contracts/
Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Agreements FA Obligated Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 6 11 $1,787,245 77,328 10 $1,497,739 41,069 21 $3,284,984 118,397
Colorado 8 6 $687,279 13,059 3 $81,617 1,818 1 (*) 640 10 $768,896 15,517
Idaho 16 20 $1,089,991 159,349 1 $64,629 891 21 $1,154,620 160,240
Montana 30 7 $2,275,679 73,810 3 $622,399 13,803 10 $2,898,078 87,613
Nevada 32 5 $575,577 3,645 5 $575,577 3,645
North Dakota 38 18 $499,858 23,919 1 $32,984 795 19 $532,842 24,713
Oregon 41 13 $1,472,466 14,360 7 $611,417 3,271 20 $2,083,883 17,630
South Dakota 46 4 $557,042 35,795 4 $557,042 35,795
Utah 49 13 $1,061,093 26,055 1 $20,179 1,196 14 $1,081,272 27,251
Washington 53 74 $2,507,912 19,450 3 $44,674 11,701 77 $2,552,586 31,151
Wyoming 56 20 $2,725,336 117,151 3 $264,990 11,429 23 $2,990,326 128,580
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 186 $14,663,901 560,276 37 $3,816,205 89,618 1 640 224 $18,480,106 650,532
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not Available.

Sage Grouse Initiative
Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated
Contract Fiscal Year 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Farm & Ranchland Protection Program Grassland Reserve Program Wetlands Reserve Program Grand Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State FIPS No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Contracts/
Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Agreements FA Obligated Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 6 19 $4,946,064 159,628 6 $990,815 6,233 25 $5,936,879 165,861
Colorado 8 1 $91,821 3,377 2 $104,812 8,242 2 $2,886,250 5,017 2 $700,000 2,760 7 $3,782,883 19,396
Idaho 16 26 $1,698,196 105,018 5 $109,313 17,277 13 $9,503,450 22,369 44 $11,310,959 144,664
Montana 30 9 $1,197,875 115,557 1 $5,100 665 2 $3,500,000 42,191 12 $4,702,975 158,413
Nevada 32 7 $986,989 4,834 4 $473,516 1,612 1 $618,170 1,269 3 $3,196,215 3,695 15 $5,274,890 11,410
North Dakota 38 11 $507,833 24,540 11 $507,833 24,540
Oregon 41 21 $2,748,134 28,122 11 $699,725 9,196 32 $3,447,859 37,318
South Dakota 46 5 $646,713 63,424 2 $110,751 11,893 7 $757,464 75,317
Utah 49 7 $1,030,477 9,307 3 $288,609 8,969 5 $1,426,595 17,476 15 $2,745,681 35,752
Washington 53 5 $224,940 8,833 5 $224,940 8,833
Wyoming 56 16 $3,917,340 295,502 4 $375,453 27,848 36 $38,000,000 88,335 10 $10,430,313 31,820 66 $52,723,106 443,505
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 127 $17,996,382 818,142 38 $3,158,094 91,935 40 $44,386,250 135,543 31 $22,678,528 75,694 3 $3,196,215 3,695 239 $91,415,469 1,125,009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sage Grouse Initiative
Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated
Contract Fiscal Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Farm & Ranchland Protection Program Grassland Reserve Program Wetlands Reserve Program Grand Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State FIPS No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Contracts/
Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Agreements FA Obligated Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 6 14 $1,497,700 93,473 3 $90,360 1,026 17 $1,588,060 94,499
Colorado 8 5 $368,152 8,452 6 $2,886,250 12,563 1 $557,325 1,200 12 $3,811,727 22,215
Idaho 16 24 $2,787,103 89,031 13 $5,393,800 14,038 37 $8,180,903 103,069
Montana 30 11 $2,474,809 169,261 10 $256,256 6,080 1 $1,309,845 3,809 22 $4,040,911 179,150
Nevada 32 15 $2,067,160 328,964 6 $97,789 4,347 1 $5,001,790 4,064 1 $2,218,565 741 2 $3,980,442 6,136 25 $13,365,747 344,252
North Dakota 38 11 $364,424 24,740 4 $171,050 12,300 15 $535,474 37,040
Oregon 41 28 $3,307,965 44,854 10 $1,041,530 8,315 38 $4,349,495 53,169
South Dakota 46 6 $835,231 31,840 11 $1,090,400 45,198 17 $1,925,631 77,038
Utah 49 10 $1,139,010 31,002 10 $1,139,010 31,002
Washington 53 5 $537,479 8,299 7 $748,622 12,482 12 $1,286,101 20,781
Wyoming 56 29 $4,553,673 355,002 11 $845,207 37,314 7 $5,731,350 14,065 1 $3,100,338 8,402 48 $14,230,568 414,783
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 158 $19,932,706 1,184,918 62 $4,341,214 127,062 14 $13,619,390 30,692 17 $12,579,873 28,190 2 $3,980,442 6,136 253 $54,453,627 1,376,998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sage Grouse Initiative
Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated
Contract Fiscal Year 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Farm & Ranchland Protection Program Grassland Reserve Program Wetlands Reserve Program Grand Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State FIPS No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Contracts/
Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Agreements FA Obligated Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 6 11 $1,321,531 27,879 2 $36,818 782 0 $0 -- 1 $1,464,710 2,037 0 $0 -- 14 $2,823,059 30,697
Colorado 8 8 $789,589 38,551 0 $0 -- 4 $10,600,000 30,196 9 $4,301,680 1,964 0 $0 0 21 $15,691,269 70,711
Idaho 16 26 $2,546,201 80,716 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 7 $6,607,444 16,210 0 $0 -- 33 $9,153,645 96,926
Montana 30 11 $2,385,236 76,957 11 $435,758 5,633 1 $500,000 4,087 3 $2,776,137 6,933 0 $0 -- 26 $6,097,131 93,610
Nevada 32 14 $808,707 45,168 7 $156,145 5,957 0 $0 -- 2 $8,105,847 4,456 3 $7,300,000 926 26 $16,370,699 56,508
North Dakota 38 7 $344,426 15,598 1 $39,470 1,840 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 8 $383,896 17,438
Oregon 41 31 $3,048,196 42,237 16 $1,014,109 17,408 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 47 $4,062,305 59,645
South Dakota 46 9 $900,437 44,034 3 $455,658 21,885 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 12 $1,356,095 65,919
Utah 49 16 $2,544,891 18,906 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 3 $5,996,800 16,289 0 $0 -- 19 $8,541,691 35,195
Washington 53 10 $869,588 12,745 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 10 $869,588 12,745
Wyoming 56 15 $1,410,280 116,371 0 $0 -- 6 $5,269,766 17,972 0 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 21 $6,680,046 134,343
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 158 $16,969,0815 19,162 40 $2,137,958 53,504 11 $16,369,766 52,255 25 $29,252,618 47,888 3 $7,300,000 926 237 $72,029,423 673,735
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sage Grouse Initiative
Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated
Contract Fiscal Year 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Agricultural Conservation Easement Program-- Agricultural Conservation Easement Program-- Grand Total
------------------------------------------------ ALE Program WRE -----------------------------------------------
State FIPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of FA Obligated Acres No. of No. of Contracts/ FA Obligated Acres
Contracts Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts FA Obligated Acres Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 6 11 $1,917,054 13,583 1 $3,000,000 2,400 0 $0 -- 12 $4,917,054 15,983
Colorado 8 9 $611,877 50,831 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 9 $611,877 50,831
Idaho 16 22 $1,967,689 21,060 2 $2,560,763 3,839 0 $0 -- 24 $4,528,452 24,899
Montana 30 5 $1,473,078 53,686 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 5 $1,473,078 53,686
Nevada 32 9 $656,886 48,499 2 $1,467,750 4,556 1 $589,000 108 12 $2,713,636 53,163
North Dakota 38 7 $182,773 9,277 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 7 $182,773 9,277
Oregon 41 41 $4,649,511 56,496 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 41 $4,649,511 56,496
South Dakota 46 3 $871,593 41,669 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 3 $871,593 41,669
Utah 49 34 $4,308,895 92,922 5 $3,729,750 9,312 0 $0 -- 39 $8,038,645 102,234
Washington 53 11 $722,869 11,626 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 11 $722,869 11,626
Wyoming 56 13 $2,034,497 171,278 $0 -- 0 $0 -- 13 $2,034,497 171,278
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 165 $19,396,722 570,926 10 $10,758,263 20,107 1 $589,000 108 176 $30,743,985 591,141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 6. Under this Administration, NRCS has launched a number
of special initiatives to target natural resource concerns. Do you
believe EQIP and CSP dollars are better invested in the initiative
areas?
Answer. Targeting natural resource concerns through special
initiatives and the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program
allows NRCS and partners to align and leverage resources to address
shared objectives. While targeting efforts through initiatives address
prioritized resource concerns, there are also significant and diverse
resource concerns identified at the local level that NRCS conservation
programs effectively address. For that reason, NRCS has maintained
initiative spending below 20 percent of the overall budget of our
programs. This allows us to adequately fund a number of high priority
regional efforts, while also making available significant funding for
producers to address resource concerns in areas where initiatives are
not targeted.

Question 7. What percentage of EQIP and CSP funding is being used
for Technical Assistance (TA)? How does this compare to recent years?
Answer. The following table provides the technical assistance (TA)
and financial assistance (FA) funding for the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP):

EQIP and CSP Funding, 2012-2015
(Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY EQIP Total EQIP FA EQIP TA EQIP TA % CSP Total CSP FA CSP TA CSP TA %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 1,400,000 1,018,075 381,925 27.3% 768,500 695,534 72,966 9.5%
2013 1,400,000 1,018,075 381,925 27.3% 945,905 847,396 98,510 10.4%
2014 1,350,000 981,715 368,285 27.3% 1,078,942 962,871 116,071 10.8%
2015 * 1,398,685 1,000,176 398,510 28.5% 1,210,167 974,682 235,485 19.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: FY 2015 figures include unobligated balances generally related to Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP) agreements needing to be carried over from FY 2014.

FY 2015 was the first re-enrollment year for the new CSP, roughly
35 million acres in total, correspondingly the apportionment was
adjusted to provide for the increased the technical assistance
workload.

Question 8. Are EQIP dollars being invested on public lands?
Answer. NRCS does allow eligible agricultural producers to receive
EQIP payments for completed conservation practices on public lands,
provided that the:

public land is a working component of the participant's
agricultural and forest operation,

participant has control of the public land for the term of
the contract, and

conservation practice on public land will contribute to an
improvement in the identified natural resource concern.

Question 9. With the extreme droughts we have seen in recent years,
what is being done to target conservation of water quantity?
Answer. Since 2012, historically dry conditions in large parts of
the United States have compelled NRCS to make substantial investments
to help producers manage acute drought conditions and increase the
resilience of their operations against extreme weather events. From
2012 to 2014, NRCS has invested more than $1.5 billion to help
producers implement conservation practices that have a benefit to water
conservation or improve operation resilience. This substantial
investment includes $27 million in special funding directed toward
states impacted most severely by the historic drought of 2012. During
this drought, NRCS partnered with nearly 2,000 producers to implement
practices to protect soil, reduce water use and increase the resiliency
of their operations. In May of 2015, an additional EQIP allocation of
$21.3 million was provided to Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Idaho and
California, to assist producers with addressing resource concerns
caused or exacerbated by the drought.
In 2011, NRCS launched the Ogallala Aquifer Initiative to target
financial and technical assistance to this unique resource underlying
parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, South
Dakota and Wyoming. Since the Initiative's inception, NRCS has invested
more than $66 million in financial assistance to more than 1,540
producers to help them implement groundwater conservation on
approximately 325,000 acres of agricultural lands.

Question 10. Could you go over the accommodations available for
producers who are subject to the conservation compliance for the first
time as far as the length of time available for developing and
implementing a conservation plan? How many producers are in the
situation of utilizing those provisions now that we have passed the
deadline for filing AD-1026 forms for this year?
Answer. Producers who are subject to conservation compliance for
the first time have 5 years to develop and comply with a conservation
plan approved by NRCS from the date they are determined, through
exhaustion of administrative appeal, to have highly erodible land. If
the producer has participated in USDA programs before, but dropped out
of the programs due to a violation, they have 2 years to develop and
comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS. Based on a recent
review of AD-1026 filings, there are 23,617 producers who are new to
conservation compliance who have 5 years to develop and comply with a
conservation plan if they are farming highly erodible land.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. The Committee included provisions in the farm bill to
allow CRP acreage in its final contract year to be prepared for
enrollment in other programs. Is this something you are able to be
doing already? Or is this held up waiting for the final rule?
Answer. Allowing Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage in its
final contract year to be enrolled in conservation programs helps to
sustain the investment to protect designated highly erodible and other
sensitive lands and their accompanying resource benefits. NRCS and FSA
have been coordinating their respective program efforts to ensure that
producers transitioning lands back into production are able to access
other conservation program opportunities to further the environmental
benefits obtained through their participation in CRP. The new provision
will be implemented once the CRP regulation is published.
NRCS has policy under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) to allow producers who currently own or operate CRP land to
request NRCS assistance in the development of grazing or upland
wildlife habitat management systems to retain these lands in permanent
cover. Additionally, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program prioritize enrollment of
land that is coming out of CRP. For example, NRCS amended the CSP
regulation to allow transitioning land to participate in CSP as
authorized in the 2014 Act, and has established a seamless process to
transition from CRP back to agricultural production. Presently, NRCS
offers four enhancements designed to preserve the benefits gained while
in CRP or mitigate negative effects from transitioning expired CRP
lands to production agriculture.

Question 2. The Committee heard from existing CSP contract holders
who were surprised to find out that they would be receiving a lower
payment rate for their acres upon re-enrollment, even though they are
doing additional and potentially just as costly practices as in their
original contracts. Can you help shed some light on why producers are
being offered a lower rental rate on re-enrollments?
Answer. Renewal contracts are not simple extensions of an initial
contract and require a higher level of conservation above and beyond
what was implemented in the initial contract. Under a renewal contract,
activities that were newly adopted during the initial CSP contract
period are now considered existing activities, and compensated at a
lower rate than in the initial contract. Total payments under the
renewed contract may be higher or lower depending on the number of
additional activities selected for implementation as well as their
magnitude and duration, respectively. Field office personnel have the
capacity to explain publicly available programmatic information sheets
which detail scoring and payment processes. With CSP, our goal is to
provide incentives to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to adopt
and continue to improve upon conservation work that leads to cleaner
water and air, healthier soil and better wildlife habitat.

Question 3. The Committee has also heard frustrations from some
landowners who did not re-enroll their acres because they found it hard
to find additional practices that they thought made sense, particularly
on forestland. What are the states doing to address these situations?
Answer. In FY 2015, NRCS released a revamped conservation activity
list which included thirteen innovative enhancements and four bundles,
beyond those previously available, benefiting forest production or
wildlife habitat improvement. With these expansions for forest land
conservation, producers have many more options for enhancements that
fit their operations and conservation objectives.

Question 4. The Committee has heard from landowners that it takes
months to get easements completed under Wetland Reserve Easements, as
was the case with its predecessor, WRP. What is the agency doing to
ensure that signing up for wetland easements is not a long, drawn out
process that tends to dampen landowner interest?
Answer. NRCS has updated its policy to require much of the due
diligence to be completed prior to entering into easement purchase
agreements. This will help ensure that issues that would preclude or
delay the acquisition of the easement, such as legal issues, title
issues, hazardous substance contamination issues, etc., are detected
prior to entering into a purchase agreement.
Typically acquisition delays result from issues detected after the
purchase agreement had been executed and often take significant amounts
of time to resolve, for example, the landowner obtaining subordination
or release from a holder of a superior interest in the property. By
identifying and addressing these issues prior to entering into the
purchase agreement, NRCS can ensure that properties move to closing in
a timely manner.

Question 5. How many eligible entities has NRCS certified under Ag
Land Easements? Has this number increased or dropped off since we gave
you the authority in the 2008 Farm Bill?
Answer. NRCS has not yet certified any eligible entities under the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program--Agricultural Land Easement
authority. Under the 2008 Farm Bill only four entities submitted
requests to be certified; one was approved. With the publication of the
ACEP Interim Rule and ACEP Policy Manual in February and March, 2015,
NRCS introduced a few key changes to streamline and improve the
certification process and expand the availability of certification to
eligible entities. NRCS has conducted outreach to eligible entities to
make sure they are aware of the new certification process and benefits
of certification. NRCS received a number of inquiries regarding
certification, however, to date NRCS has not received any requests for
certification under the new process.
We anticipate that NRCS will receive certification requests in the
early part of next fiscal year. Because entities have not had the
opportunity to submit requests for certification in Fiscal Year 2015,
any entities certified in Fiscal Year 2016, will be able to
retroactively apply the benefits of certification to include parcels
selected for funding in Fiscal Year 2015.

Question 6. We've also heard some frustration about the amount of
funding that is getting out the doors for ag land easements. Have we
streamlined things or do we have too many points where the Federal
interest is bogging things down? Is the program operating as a pass-
through of funds or is NRCS duplicating many of the same steps that the
enrolling entities also do? We will hear from a witness on the second
panel which makes me believe we still have issues.
Answer. NRCS simplified the easement enrollment process under the
new ACEP-ALE, including the use of significantly pared down and
standardized deed terms. This new approach streamlines program
delivery, increases the transparency of program requirements, ensures
the equitable treatment of all participants, and reduces inconsistency
in the long-term management and enforcement of the easements. Eligible
entities are permitted to use their own deed terms, including those
that are more restrictive than those terms required by NRCS.
ACEP-ALE is not structured as a pass-through program. Statutory
requirements make clear the intent for the Secretary to administer and
manage achieving the program purposes, for example, the requirements to
include a right of enforcement for the United States, subject the land
to an agricultural land easement plan, limit on impervious surfaces
consistent with the agricultural activities to be conducted, and
determine that program funds are not used to acquire easements on
ineligible land. These and other statutory requirements are to protect
the Federal investment and require NRCS due diligence, such as
determining that the amount of Federal funds provided is supported by
an appraisal or other valuation method, that the easement deed meets
the statutory requirements and program purposes, and that the land
meets the statutory eligibility requirements. These NRCS reviews are
not a duplication of the eligible entity's acquisition procedures but
rather derive from an oversight role to ensure that the specific
statutory requirements of the ACEP-ALE are met.

Question 7. How does the agency deal with right of way issues such
as we'll hear about on the second panel? Is the hassle of potentially
dealing with a utility or highway work worth it to protect farmland in
some of the country's most vulnerable areas?
Answer. NRCS deals with right-of-way and utility issues in the
initial evaluation of the eligibility of the parcel or, for easements
that have already been acquired, through an evaluation of requests for
an easement administration action. Prior to selecting a parcel for
funding, NRCS is required by statute to determine whether the purposes
of the program would be undermined due to on-site or off-site
conditions, such as proposed or existing rights-of-way, infrastructure
development, mineral development potential or adjacent land uses.
Therefore, NRCS will conduct an evaluation prior to determining the
land eligible for enrollment under ACEP-ALE.
For parcels on which the easement has been acquired, in the ACEP
Interim Rule and ACEP Policy Manual, NRCS has published the criteria
and procedures for evaluating and authorizing easement administration
actions which include the modification, exchange, subordination, or
termination of all or a portion of the Federal interest on a
conservation easement acquired using Federal funds.
NRCS understands that addressing potential highways or utilities is
part of the responsibility any easement management agency assumes when
administering programs in the rural landscape. The conservation values
that are achieved through easement protection, especially in the
country's most vulnerable areas, greatly outweigh any administrative
inconvenience of addressing potentially conflicting land use
objectives.

Question 8. Can you tell us whether you waived any program rules in
the recently signed round of RCPP awards?
Answer. In the recent round of RCPP awards, NRCS received and is
processing 26 requests for adjustment of terms related to the following
topics:

Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Waivers.

Payment schedule updates.

Interim practices.

Alternative ranking processes.

Changing payment method.

Question 9. How many RCPP projects did you have drop out between
the initial awards and the final signed 5 year contracts? Why did some
project sponsors end up not being able to make it to that step?
Answer. None of the 115 projects that were approved for funding
dropped out, thus all 115 have moved forward with signed 5 year
partnership agreements.

Question 10. What can we expect to see further efforts to utilize
the $10 million for wetland mitigation that was provided in the farm
bill? Could those funds be used to help farmers or ranchers facing
potential mitigation as a result of the expanded definition of Waters
of the U.S. under final rule announced by EPA and the Army Corps?
Answer. The 2014 Farm Bill provided NRCS with up to $10 million to
develop a wetlands mitigation banking program to help agricultural
producers remain in good standing with the wetlands conservation
compliance provisions in Subtitle C of Title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985, as amended. Consequently, NRCS's focus will be on wetlands
that fall under these statutory provisions. NRCS' approach is intended
to make this type of mitigation cost-effective for producers who decide
that off-site mitigation is their best wetlands compliance alternative.

Question 11. Where do things stand with helping smaller and limited
resource producers improve their irrigation systems? I know you were
trying to provide flexibility in this area on what counted as having a
``history of irrigating'' to include systems that smaller operations
might be using.
Answer. Historically, NRCS has had EQIP rule and policy
requirements to provide evidence that land has been irrigated 2 of the
past 5 years, to ensure that EQIP assistance addresses a natural
resource concern and that it does not result in adverse impacts to
aquifer depletion or surface streams experiencing decreased flow.
However, the strict irrigation history requirement may have
inadvertently disadvantaged some individuals or groups and there may be
specific situations where adjustment of the requirement may be
appropriate. Therefore, pursuant to the Secretary's authority under 16
U.S.C. 3844 to address barriers to participation by historically under-
served producers, NRCS incorporated a limited waiver to the irrigation
history requirement under the revised EQIP regulation that was
published in December 2014.
NRCS believes that this narrowly tailored waiver provision will
address these participation barriers in a manner that ensures EQIP
continues to meet its statutory purposes. The waiver authority is only
available to limited resource and socially-disadvantaged producers,
including individual Indian tribal producers, and Indian Tribes who
wish to install an efficient irrigation system as a means to assist
with the adoption of sustainable agricultural production methods, as
determined by the Chief, and such adoption will not adversely impact
limited surface water or groundwater supplies.
NRCS has incorporated this waiver into its policy manual and
provided training to the states so that they are able to identify
whether affected producers may qualify for a waiver. In addition to the
waiver provision above, the NRCS has clarified policy to allow
producers to use various forms of justification to document irrigation
history such as: aerial photography, written records, water rights
certificates, water bills, etc.

Question 12. What kinds of projects are states using the Voluntary
Public Access funding for?
Answer. The state wildlife agencies of Arizona, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Texas, and the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, all received FY
2014 funding from the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive
Program (VPA-HIP). They are using VPA-HIP funds for the following kinds
of projects:

Enrolling new private landowners and their lands into
existing state Public access programs.

Extending or initiating leases with private landowners to
allow public access.

Enhancing existing private property public access lands to
facilitate non-consumptive (e.g., hiking, nature watching,
photography, camping) recreational uses in addition to the
existing hunting and fishing activities.

Enhancing fish and wildlife habitat on existing and new
private property public access lands.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to provide public access
to lands already enrolled in other natural resources
conservation programs where wildlife habitat is being enhanced.

Monitoring outdoor recreational use data to assess the
impact of new lands being accessible.

Soliciting the level of satisfaction and suggestions for
improvement from both participating private landowners and
public recreationists.

Increasing outreach to the public about the Public Access
programs through hard copy materials, web pages, public
meetings, signage, presentations, and other marketing methods.

Installing improved signage to facilitate a more positive
outdoor recreational experience by the public.

Establishing new river access sites for fishing, paddling,
and wildlife viewing.

Improving outreach to youth and young adults to encourage
their participation in outdoor recreational activities.

Working in partnership with USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service staff to ensure compliance with
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Question 13. The Committee tried to help give you support in your
apportionment requests to the Office of Management and Budget. Have you
generally asked to spend all the funding that is available under the
farm bill? Has OMB been granting your full apportionment requests?
Answer. The apportionment requests provided to the Department and
OMB request the authority to obligate all funding provided under the
authorities provided in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill),
including unobligated balances carried forward from FY 2014 to FY 2015,
and OMB has been approving those apportionments as submitted.

Question 14. Why did you open up the producer side of your IT
modernization first?
Answer. The NRCS Conservation Client Gateway (CCG), one of the
three components of the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative
(CDSI), provides information and tools to enable many client-centric
activities, like asking a technical or programmatic assistance
question, requesting technical assistance for a conservation plan,
applying for financial assistance, documenting the completion of
conservation practices, and requesting and tracking payments for
completed conservation practices. Traditionally, these activities
required the client to make several trips into the NRCS field office.
By deploying CCG now, clients and NRCS are able to immediately reap
the benefits of reduced trips to and from the office to perform these
activities. By empowering the clients to perform these tasks virtually
if they choose, it reinforces that clients own their conservation plans
and have access to them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in their document
library in CCG.

Question 15. Are your computer systems and more importantly, the
producer information databases, accessible by each agency in the field?
Answer. The USDA Service Center agencies: Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Rural
Development (RD), share a single database that contains basic producer
information needed to administer authorized programs. The Service
Center Information Management System (SCIMS) contains producer
information that includes name, address, telephone numbers, e-mail
addresses, demographics (race, gender, ethnicity), and entity type
(e.g., individual, business entity). SCIMS is a secure information
system and has controlled access for authorized employees.
SCIMS is in the process of being replaced by a new system, Business
Partners (BP). Business Partners is being maintained by FSA, who makes
these data available to NRCS. Currently, entry and editing of client
information is restricted to authorized FSA employees.

Question 16. Have we finally fixed the communication and
overlapping issues on cover crops?
Answer. NRCS has worked with Risk Management Agency (RMA), Farm
Service Agency (FSA), and a wide number of stakeholder groups to
address cover cropping issues. There is good progress being made in
communicating and addressing issues as appropriate for different
regions of the country.
Question Submitted by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in
Congress from New Mexico
Question. Mr. Weller, in your testimony you mentioned the
importance of conservation programs and their impact on endangered
species listings. I often hear concerns from landowners and industry
about how the listing of a species could impact their livelihood and
their businesses. I also hear concerns from environmental and
conservation groups on how species population numbers and critical
habitat continue to shrink. It's clear to me that both of these groups
have the same goal in mind, which is to protect species and prevent
listings. I have seen stakeholders from many different backgrounds come
together and work toward this goal. In 2011, the oil and gas industry
was very concerned that the listing of the dunes sagebrush lizard would
eliminate drilling across the Permian Basin, which produces 20 percent
of all oil in the lower 48 U.S. states. As you can imagine, this would
have had significant consequences all over the country. Thankfully, the
listing was avoided because landowners in New Mexico and Texas
proactively took steps to remove threats to the lizard on 600,000
acres, which covered 88% of the lizards' habitat. I am very interested
in seeing these efforts and outcomes replicated all over the country
and I believe NRCS in a position to encourage real innovation in this
area. However, I finding it concerning when stakeholders tell me that
they do not have the resources or information they need to participate
in conservation programs.
Can you please describe what kind of outreach NRCS is doing to
educate and engage landowners on these conservation programs? Can you
describe what efforts NRCS is making to create a collaborate
environment that will encourage stakeholders, from backgrounds, to work
together on conservation projects?
Answer. In recent years, NRCS has dedicated significant funding and
innovative policy development to help landowners impacted, or
potentially impacted, by an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing.
Single-species focused efforts such as the Sage-Grouse Initiative and
the Lesser Prairie-chicken Initiative include a variety of landowner
outreach activities and coordination with Federal agencies as well as
state wildlife agencies to achieve their intended goals. The results of
the Sage-Grouse Initiative helped inform the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) recent decision to not list the bi-state Greater
Sage-grouse population as threatened or endangered, a significant
victory for the birds and private landowners in Nevada and California.
In addition, NRCS has worked closely with the USFWS to provide
landowners who are doing the right thing for candidate and potentially
listed species with regulatory predictability. Landowners who engage
with NRCS and undertake actions favorable to a select group of species
can receive from the USFWS a letter that allows the landowner to keep
farming or ranching consistent with current practices, for up to 30
years, even if the species is eventually listed. This innovative
approach has been extended to all seven of the species included in
NRCS's Working Lands for Wildlife initiative.
NRCS has engaged in significant efforts to provide outreach to
landowners, through national, state, and local media outlets. NRCS also
coordinates closely with state wildlife agencies and local partners on
many of these efforts, including both the Sage-Grouse and the Lesser
Prairie-chicken Initiatives. When providing technical assistance, NRCS
creates landowner awareness about threatened and endangered species
issues as well as makes suggestions on improving threatened and
endangered species habitat. Conservation plans oftentimes include an
alternative that addresses a limiting habitat factor. Both financial
assistance and easement programs provide financial support to
landowners interested in addressing threatened and endangered species
issues.
NRCS has taken additional steps through the Working Lands for
Wildlife initiative to promote landowner awareness about threatened and
endangered species issues and how landowners can become involved in
preventing the need to list or supporting a de-listing or down-listing
of species under the Endangered Species Act through implementation of
specific conservation practices and associated conservation measures.
NRCS has generated, in coordination with the USFWS, many public
outreach materials and fact sheets in association with Working Lands
for Wildlife. Additionally, the NRCS public affairs division maintains
Working Lands for Wildlife as a priority for news releases and public
events.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in
Congress from Washington
Question 1. Recently, NRCS announced that Washington State has been
allocated $750,000 for the ACEP-ALE (Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program--Agricultural Land Easements) 2015 grant cycle. As you know,
the national budget for the NRCS ACEP program is $322 million.
While I understand that programs were consolidated and funding has
been cut in recent years, Washington is receiving a very small amount
of funding given the total program budget. At the same time, land
trusts alone have measured demand for the program at $10,083,925 for 27
projects and 22,837 acres.
A number of conservation folks in my district have been unable to
determine how ACEP funds are distributed across the United States and
why certain geographical areas receive huge investments and others
receive relatively little. In 2014, only three farmland preservation
projects moved forward in Washington state with NRCS matching dollars,
a critical component for preserving farmland.
Can you clear up how the funding allocation for ALE is determined
for states--what is it based on and when? Is it a continuous nationwide
competition or are there distinct state allocations based on a formula?
Answer. There are distinct state allocations. ACEP allocations are
based on an analysis of data from the Agency's State Resource
Assessment process, as well as program application data, NRCS landscape
initiatives and priority resource concerns, demand, distribution,
historic allocation and obligation data, and workload. For FY 2015, the
State NRCS offices submitted their State Resources Assessments in
December 2014 and allocations were provided to states in February 2015.

Question 2. ALE funding in Washington in 2014 was roughly $1.6
million. Why did ALE suffer a 53% reduction in WA from 2014 to 2015,
far greater than the 7% across the board reductions?
Answer. In FY 2014, Washington obligated a total of $1,071,000 for
ACEP-ALE. In FY 2015, Washington has been allocated $840,000 for ACEP-
ALE, which is 78% of FY 2014 (a 22% reduction from FY 2014). When
determining a state's ACEP allocation, both components of ACEP (WRE and
ALE) are taken into account as it is now a consolidated program.
Washington's total ACEP allocation for FY 2015 is 92% of what was
obligated in FY 2014, which is above the national average.

Question 3. Other farm bill programs like EQIP have been
underutilized by WA in the past. How much has/does this impact the
funding allocation for ALE? How, in your opinion, can we raise the
funding level to match the demand?
Answer. State use of EQIP funds is not a factor in the ACEP
allocations. The FY 2015 allocation to Washington will address 76
percent of the demand for ACEP based on the information regarding
demand and capacity that was provided by the Washington NRCS State
Office in their State Resource Assessment. Total funding under ACEP is
approximately 47 percent of what was previously available under the
former easement programs that are now combined under ACEP. As a result,
NRCS is not in a position to have the funding levels match the demand
for the program, but at this time, Washington is receiving allocations
above the national averages.

Question 4. Is the new RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership
Program) impacting allocations to ALE-ACEP? If so, should land trusts
be pursuing RCPP as an avenue to rebuild some of the Federal support
for easements in Washington?
Answer. Interested, eligible entities should certainly consider
RCPP as an avenue they should be pursuing for funding ACEP easements.
As required by statute, ACEP contributes 7 percent of its available
funding to RCPP. However, RCPP also receives $100 million each fiscal
year beyond funds contributed by the covered programs, and any of these
RCPP funds can be requested by a potential partner to fund ACEP
projects.

Response from Val Dolcini, J.D., Administrator, Farm Service Agency,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. Now that the deadline to file an AD-1026 has passed, do
you know how many producers have been affected by conservation
compliance?

Question 1a. Could you provide any additional details on (1) how
many producers could have been potentially impacted by the new
requirements, and (2) how many of those producers failed to file their
AD-1026 forms by the June 1 deadline?
Answer 1-1a. Since the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014
(2014 Farm Bill), approximately 245,000 AD-1026s have been filed at FSA
by producers to certify conservation compliance. Late in calendar year
2014, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) reported approximately 44,000
persons and entities earned a crop insurance premium in 2014 and did
not have an AD-1026 on file. As of June 22, 2015, RMA reported that
9,352 producers that earned a crop insurance premium subsidy in 2014
still did not have an AD-1026 on file. This number includes producers
that timely filed the AD-1026, but there was inadequate information to
make a determination. These producers have until their first applicable
sales closing date for reinsurance year 2016 to provide this
information and still be eligible for the premium subsidy. In July
2015, USDA announced that over 98.2 percent of producers have met the
2014 Farm Bill requirement to certify conservation compliance to
qualify for crop insurance premium support. Of the small number of
producers who have not certified their conservation compliance, USDA
records suggest the majority are no longer farming or may have filed
forms with discrepancies that can still be reconciled. FSA and RMA are
proactively reaching out to all of these producers before their sales
closing date and working with individuals facing extenuating
circumstances who have not filed the form in order to assist them with
certifying compliance.

Question 2. FSA has had to implement several farm bill programs
over the past year and a half, and because of this, offices have
experienced a backlog.
How bad is the backlog for processing AD-1026s?
Answer. There is no backlog of completed applications waiting to be
entered. There are only a few hundred forms that were timely filed but
have inadequate information (e.g., missing Tax Identification Number)
to make a determination. FSA and RMA are working with producers to fill
in the missing information.

Question 2a. Obviously this has been concentrated in specialty crop
growing areas. What is the backlog in some of these areas, such as
California, Texas, Florida, compared with the rest of the country?
Answer. California, Texas and Florida report all AD-1026s have been
filed timely and entered. FSA County Offices will continue to working
on the AD-1026s with inadequate information (as all states will) up
until the first applicable sales closing dates for reinsurance year
2016.

Question 2b. How will producers caught in this backlog be treated,
especially if they produce crops will an early crop insurance sales-
closing date?
Answer. There is no backlog of completed AD-1026s waiting to be
entered. For the AD-1026s that are missing information or that require
a correction, the date the form was originally delivered to the FSA
office will be entered into the system as the certification date and is
the date transferred to RMA for their use. As long as the certification
date is on or before June 1, these producers are treated the same as
any other producer.

Question 3. With the June 1 deadline for producers to file their
AD-1026 form passed, how will those producers who did not file an AD-
1026 be notified that they no longer have premium support for Federal
crop insurance? Will one of your agencies be sending them a letter,
postcard, e-mail, phone call? Surely you're not going to wait until
they receive a bill from their crop insurance agent.
Answer. In May 2015, USDA made over 25,000 phone calls to remind
remaining producers of the new requirements. In July 2015, RMA sent
letters to producers that did not have the AD-1026 on file to make them
aware of the possibility that they may lose premium subsidy. In
addition, for most crop insurance policies, producers will have forty
five days after the sales closing date to cancel their policies if they
do not have an AD-1026 on file. Prior to upcoming sales closing dates,
RMA is calling every producer that our records show do not have an AD-
1026 on file to ensure they take appropriate action to make corrections
to the AD-1026 to come into compliance or take action to cancel their
policy to avoid paying full premium.

Question 4. What is FSA doing to address new producers that do not
have an AD-1026 on file when they start farming?
Answer. RMA grants an exemption for filing the AD-1026 by June 1 if
a producer is new to farming after the June 1 filing date. If producers
certify they meet the parameters that qualify them for this exemption
it is granted by RMA.

Question 4a. What about for producers who bring new land into
production that is not covered by their AD-1026?
Answer. As with past provisions of conservation compliance, all new
land brought into production by a producer that does not have a highly
erodible land determination must file a new AD-1026. Also if any
activities are planned that may impact wetlands (land leveling,
filling, dredging, land clearing, or excavation) to enable bringing
this new land into production, that have not been evaluated by NRCS,
the producer would also be required to file a new AD-1026.

Question 4b. Will outreach efforts be made in subsequent years to
have new farmers or farmers without an AD-1026 to file an AD-1026 in
time for the next reinsurance year?
Answer. Yes. Outreach efforts will continue each year with
information about the June 1 filing deadline for the applicable
reinsurance year.

Question 5. We've talked a lot about crops being impacted by
conservation compliance, but I want to shift the focus to livestock and
pasture. How many livestock and pasture insurance policies were
impacted by conservation compliance and AD-1026 form requirements?
Answer. RMA reports approximately 64,000 producers had policies in
which they earned a premium subsidy in 2014 for livestock and pasture.
Of these, less than one percent are reported as not having an AD-1026
on file for reinsurance year 2016. This number includes those timely
filed with inadequate information and those that will not obtain
insurance in 2016 for a variety of reasons (e.g., obsolete entity,
retirements, decided not to participate, converted to row crops, etc.)

Question 5a. What efforts were made to reach out to individual
producers and to industry groups to be sure that these producers were
aware of the new requirements prior to the June 1 deadline?
Answer. The average producer without an AD-1026 on file received
2015 policies with the requirement in their contract, received three
coordinated mailings from USDA (two RMA letters, one FSA postcard), was
on at least four lists given to agents/AIPs who conducted outreach,
received at least one call from FSA/RMA, received county specific
mailings/newsletters from FSA and NRCS, and likely saw news articles
and agent/AIP newsletters with information about the need to file an
AD-1026. The end result of these outreach efforts was that over 98
percent of crop insurance participants had an AD-1026 on file.
FSA and RMA participated in a U.S. Cattlemen Association's
conference call to inform them about the conservation compliance
requirements for the crop insurance premium subsidy benefit. With
widespread drought over significant areas in the past few years, over
600,000 cattlemen signed up for the Livestock Forage Program from FSA
since February 2014 and would have already completed an AD-1026.
USDA held several meetings with stakeholder groups, including
hosting recurring meetings with the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance
representatives. We developed Factsheets, Question and Answer
documents, process flow sheets for producers to understand how the
process works, and brochures for RMA customers that were available
through RMA, FSA and NRCS websites. NRCS created a website for
producers that were new to conservation compliance to walk them through
the process. Additionally, USDA hosted a webinar for specialty crop
producers nationally that could be downloaded and redistributed. In
Florida and California, USDA staffs participated with stakeholders in
webinars stakeholders hosted for producers who were new to conservation
compliance. Our state and field offices attended many meetings and
events across the country where they distributed information about
conservation compliance. Our RMA, FSA and NRCS staffs were on hand
locally and nationally to address questions as they were raised.

Question 6. ``Affiliated producers'' are also required to file AD-
1026's to certify conservation compliance. How is FSA defining
affiliated producers?
Answer. The definition of affiliated persons is unchanged by the
2014 Farm Bill. Affiliated persons for conservation compliance purposes
for individuals are:

a. spouses and minor children.

b. estates, trusts, partnerships, and joint ventures in which the
individual or the individual's spouse or minor children
have an interest.

c. corporations in which the individual or the individual's spouse
or minor children have more than 20 percent interest.

Affiliated persons of general partnerships, limited partnerships,
limited liability companies, joint ventures, estates, irrevocable or
revocable trusts, and Indian Tribal ventures or groups are:

d. first level members of the entity.

Affiliated persons of corporations with stockholders are:

3. first level shareholders with more than 20 percent interest in
the corporation.

Any person or entity requesting benefits that are subject to
conservation compliance must file AD-1026. Any affiliated person or
entity, not requesting benefits, but has a separate farming interest
(owner, operator, tenant or share cropper on any farm or undeveloped
land), based on the above affiliation, must also file AD-1026 and be in
compliance with conservation compliance provisions in order for the one
receiving the benefit to also be considered in compliance.

Question 6a. What sort of outreach was made to these groups?
Answer. Outreach efforts to all specialty crop groups included the
information about who affiliated persons are and the parameters that
requires them to adhere to conservation compliance provisions due to an
affiliation to a person or entity receiving benefits that are subject
to conservation compliance. The person submitting the name of an
affiliated person has an interest in informing the affiliate of the
need to file the AD-1026.
We understand that the affiliated person provisions are
complicated. Therefore we included information about affiliated persons
in our factsheets, question and answer documents and during our
webinars. We had many teleconferences and meetings with stakeholder
groups where affiliated person provisions were discussed to ensure the
provisions were understood.

Question 6b. Can FSA guarantee that its definition of affiliated
producers is being applied consistently from one county office to the
next?
Answer. This is not a new definition or process. This definition
and procedures have not changed with the 2014 Farm Bill and have
remained the same since 1985. Virtually all FSA programs have required,
and continue to require, the same conservation compliance certification
including the affiliated persons' provisions. FSA conducted a refresher
National Training on affiliated persons in September 2014. Affiliated
persons filing requirements are published in FSA Handbook 6-CP and in
number 7 of the appendix of form AD-1026. All FSA employees are given
the same consistent information on affiliated persons and that any
incorrect interpretations of affiliate persons that are discovered are
remedied.

Question 7. The conservation compliance provisions of the farm bill
also required that any ``affiliated person'' of a producer requesting
benefits subject to Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and
Wetland Conservation (WC) also file an AD-1026. Has your agency, along
with NRCS and RMA, identified persons that this might affect, and if
so, how were those individuals identified and notified of the new
conservation compliance requirements?
Answer. All producers that identified ``affiliates'' in block 4 of
AD-1026 are entered into the system by FSA as ``Awaiting Affiliate
Certification''. Producers are reminded that they are not ``Certified''
for AD-1026 until those producers they identified as affiliates are
also ``Certified''. It is the producer's responsibility to communicate
to their affiliates that they need to complete their certification in
order for their certification to be complete and eligible to receive
USDA benefits in the form of premium subsidies.
In addition to the responsibility of the producer to inform
affiliates, RMA and FSA are working together to flag any remaining
certifications that are awaiting affiliates and reminding producers of
the requirement. Specifically, RMA has provided FSA the first
applicable sales closing date these producers had in 2014 that are
entered into the system as ``awaiting affiliate certification''. FSA
reaches out to the identified producers in advance of the sales closing
date. FSA stresses the importance to these identified producers that
they must communicate to their affiliates to come into the local FSA
County Office and certify to conservation compliance by their first
applicable sales closing date in order to remain eligible for the 2016
reinsurance year crop insurance premium subsidy.

Question 7a. In your estimation, how many of these producers are
now out of compliance?
Answer. As of June 22, 2015, approximately 250 producers nationwide
are not considered as ``Certified'' to conservation compliance because
they are ``Awaiting Affiliate Certification''. However, they have until
the first applicable sales closing date for their affiliates to certify
or to correct the original form if an affiliate was erroneously
included.

Question 8. Crop insurance companies have told us that when they
ask the local FSA office about whether or not their customers were on
the non-compliant list, FSA has said that they cannot provide the
information on whether farmers are eligible for subsidies due to
privacy concerns. Unless the producer knows, which is unlikely, how are
agents supposed to know if this customer will be eligible for premium
support?
Answer. Producers can ask their crop insurance agent to verify
their compliance status. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) has worked
with all of the Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs) to ensure that
agents can promptly find out whether their producer has filed an AD-
1026 before a policy is purchased. Producers can also visit or call
their local Farm Service Agency (FSA) to find out their conservation
compliance status.

Question 9. How many producers have taken advantage of the one-time
early-out option of the CRP program? Was it concentrated in any
specific regions of the U.S.?
Answer. As of September 9, 2015, about 1,439 contracts utilized the
early out option. Based on our most recent data, the state breakdown is
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Acres Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 20 1
Colorado 1,790 8
Florida 432 8
Georgia 58 1
Idaho 1,656 11
Illinois 2,500 73
Indiana 700 39
Iowa 3,194 86
Kansas 7,060 98
Kentucky 424 10
Michigan 3,108 87
Minnesota 9,112 196
Mississippi 265 5
Missouri 2,209 43
Montana 31,508 157
Nebraska 6,990 132
New Jersey 36 1
New York 871 32
North Carolina 166 5
North Dakota 7,146 82
Ohio 5,017 140
Oklahoma 2,864 34
Oregon 182 4
Pennsylvania 332 17
South Carolina 419 6
South Dakota 1,671 30
Tennessee 78 3
Texas 6,999 43
Virginia 199 6
Washington 7,064 32
Wisconsin 805 49
---------------------------------------
Total......................... 104,876.3 1,439
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 10. You have announced a General Sign-up to begin in
December of this year as well as the availability of 800,000 acres for
Continuous Sign-up. How do you make these announcements without a rule?
Answer. Certain elements of CRP were not modified significantly in
the 2014 Farm Bill and did not require a regulation to implement. For
example, Continuous sign-up resumed soon after passage of the farm bill
when authority to operate CRP was restored after it had lapsed.
Similarly, the decisions related to Continuous allocations and whether
and when to have a General sign-up are administrative decisions and do
not require regulations. However, the interim rule was published in the
Federal Register for comment from July 16, 2015 through September 14,
2015 and all provisions pertaining to the 2014 Farm Bill, such as the
new grasslands component of CRP and tree thinning incentives are now
being implemented.

Question 11. FSA recently announced a new general signup to begin
in December and 800,000 acres available for continuous sign-ups. When
will you begin sign-up for grazing land acres?
Answer. Sign-up for CRP grasslands is currently under way. The
sign-up began September 1, 2015 and continues through November 20,
2015.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. The Committee has been asking for several months now to
get statistics on how many landowners have taken the early out option
and where they are located. In your testimony you indicated that only
about 90,000 acres have been terminated. Can you tell us how many
contracts that includes and in what states?
Answer. About 1,100 CRPAs of September 9, 2015, about 1,439
contracts utilized the early out option. Based on our most recent data,
the state breakdown is as follows:

Question 2. How much longer will folks in the field have to wait
before they can utilize the grassland contract portion of CRP? Will the
rule be issued in proposed form and mean further delays?
Answer. Sign-up for CRP grasslands is currently under way. The
sign-up began September 1, 2015 and continues through November 20,
2015.

Question 3. The Committee included provisions in the farm bill to
allow CRP acreage in its final contract year to be prepared for
enrollment in other programs. Is this something you are able to be
doing already? Or is this held up waiting for the final rule?
Answer. This provision has been included in the interim rule and is
currently ongoing using the new names of the associated eligible NRCS
programs.

Question 4. Are your computer systems and more importantly, the
producer information databases, accessible by each agency in the field?
Answer. NRCS does have access to FSA's Customer Information, Farm
Record Information including Geospatial Information, Producer
Eligibility Information and Acreage Reporting Information. RMA
Employees have access to FSA's Geospatial Information and Acreage
Reporting Information. Agency initiatives are currently ongoing to
share more customer information between these Agencies. Rural
Development (RD) has access to FSA's Customer Information.

Question 5. Have we finally fixed the communication and overlapping
issues on cover crops?
Answer. The Interagency Work Group on Cover Crops, consisting of
representatives from NRCS, RMA, and FSA, have continued to work towards
refining the Cover Crop Termination Guidelines and finalized revision
three last fall. These guidelines were developed to provide consistent
eligibility requirements for a crop planted following a cover crop. The
planted crop, providing the cover crop is managed following the
guidelines, will now be considered eligible for all program benefits
across agencies, providing other eligibility criteria is met. These
programs include crop insurance, ARC/PLC, and NAP.
The guidelines have been presented by all three agencies using one
or more of the following; webinar, teleconference, notices, national
training, and web publications. A consistent set of questions and
answers have been made available including input from all three
agencies.
The National Working Group on Cover Crops and Soil Health have
continued to meet with representatives from all three agencies, as
recently as this June, to communicate the current cover crop needs and
to present action items for each agency to address. FSA has addressed
their items and maintains a high level of cooperation with this group.

[all]