[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

HEARING TO REVIEW USDA FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MAY 15, 2019

__________

Serial No. 116-6

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36-521 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa

______

Anne Simmons, Staff Director

Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia, Chair

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio DOUG LaMALFA, California, Ranking
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona Minority Member
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi

Felix Muniz, Jr., Subcommittee Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 15
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2

Witnesses

Lohr, Hon. Matthew J., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C....... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions.......................................... 35
Fordyce, Hon. Richard, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Submitted questions.......................................... 35

HEARING TO REVIEW USDA FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

----------

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019

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 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Abigail
Davis Spanberger [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Spanberger, Fudge,
Pingree, Axne, Peterson (ex officio), LaMalfa, Allen, and
Kelly.
Staff present: Felix Muniz, Jr., Grayson Haynes, Prescott
Martin III, Anne Simmons, Alison Titus, Josh Maxwell, Ricki
Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, Dana Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

The Chair. This hearing on the Subcommittee on Conservation
and Forestry entitled, Hearing To Review USDA Farm Bill
Conservation Programs, will come to order, and I will begin
with my opening statement.
I am pleased to be here today for our first Conservation
and Forestry Subcommittee hearing. I am pleased to hold this on
the 157th birthday of the USDA, which was founded in 1862 by
President Lincoln. So, happy birthday to the USDA.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Doug LaMalfa,
and I thank him for his leadership on the Subcommittee, and for
the productive conversations and discussions we have already
had regarding our shared priority.
I also want to thank each Member for being a part of the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with each of you.
Today this Subcommittee will be addressing USDA farm bill
conservation programs. We will be discussing the conservation
programs under the respective authorities of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency, as
well as the changes that the 2018 Farm Bill made to some of
these programs.
To that end, I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here today, and I would like to thank our witnesses for taking
part in this discussion.
I represent a diverse swath of central Virginia, from the
Richmond suburbs to the fields of Nottoway County in the south,
to the rural communities of Culpeper County in the north.
I have heard from producers in my district who make use of
the USDA's conservation programs such as EQIP and CRP,
particularly now with net farm income at just \1/2\ of its 2013
levels. These voluntary programs that provide support to
farmers, while at the same time protecting our natural
resources, are absolutely critical.
The role of voluntary conservation programs in our
country's history provides additional context as to why they
are necessary today.
Federal conservation assistance began during the Depression
when the Great Plains experienced severe multi-year droughts
leading to soil erosion, dust storms, farm abandonment, and
mass migration, the Dust Bowl.
In response, Congress established the Soil Conservation
Service, which began advancing on the ground conservation
practices to reduce soil erosion and promote productive fields
and healthy landscapes.
Today the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
Farm Service Agency at USDA administer more than a dozen
programs and subprograms to address natural resource concerns.
And through a voluntary incentive-based approach, USDA provides
private landowners and operators with the technical and
financial assistance they need to thrive, remain sustainable,
and achieve profitability.
This work is vital. More than 70 percent of land in the
United States is held by private landowners, so the decisions
they make have deep and lasting implications for Americans both
on and off the farm.
Much like the Dust Bowl era, the case for agricultural
resiliency and sustainability applies today. According to the
National Climate Assessment, climatic disruptions to
agricultural production over the past 40 years have been linked
to changes in crop yield and quality.
Extreme weather events such as historic snowfall and
flooding in the Midwest, destructive hurricanes across the
Southeast, and devastating wildfires in the West lend urgency
to conservation efforts.
Throughout this hearing, I am interested in learning more
about the suite of conservation programs available to producers
through USDA, I am interested in learning more about the
outreach strategies that recruit producers and encourage them
to adopt new practices, and I am also eager to hear about the
new authorities afforded by the 2018 Farm Bill and the
prospects they hold in accelerating conservation efforts on the
ground.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
I'm pleased to be here today for our first Conservation and
Forestry Subcommittee hearing. I look forward to working with Ranking
Member Doug LaMalfa, and I thank him for his leadership on the
Subcommittee and the productive discussions we've already had about our
shared priorities. I also want to thank each Member for being a part of
this Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with each of you.
Today, this Subcommittee will be addressing USDA farm bill
conservation programs. We'll be discussing the conservation programs
under the respective authorities of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and the Farm Service Agency, as well the changes that the 2018
Farm Bill made to some of those programs. To that end, I would like to
thank our witnesses for being here today to lead that discussion.
I represent a diverse swath of central Virginia--from the Richmond
suburbs to the fields of Nottoway County in the south to the rural
communities of Culpeper County in the north. I've heard from producers
in my district who make use of the USDA's conservation programs, such
as EQIP and CRP. Particularly now, with net farm income at just \1/2\
its 2013 level, these voluntary programs that provide support to
farmers--while at the same time protecting our natural resources--are
critical.
The role of voluntary conservation programs in our country's
history provides additional context as to why they're necessary today.
Federal conservation assistance began during the Depression, when the
Great Plains experienced severe, multi-year droughts leading to soil
erosion, dust storms, farm abandonments, and mass migration--the Dust
Bowl. In response, Congress established the Soil Conservation Service,
which began advancing on-the-ground conservation practices to reduce
soil erosion and promote productive fields and healthy landscapes.
Today, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm
Service Agency at USDA administer more than a dozen programs and
subprograms to address natural resource concerns. Through a voluntary,
incentive-based approach, USDA provides private landowners and
operators with the technical and financial assistance they need to
thrive, remain sustainable, and achieve profitability. This work is
vital. More than 70% of land in the United States is held by private
landowners, so the decisions they make have deep and lasting
implications for Americans both on and off the farm.
Much like the Dust Bowl-era, the case for agricultural resiliency
and sustainability applies today. According to the National Climate
Assessment, climatic disruptions to agricultural production over the
past 40 years have been linked to changes in crop yields and quality.
Extreme weather events such historic snowfall and flooding in the
Midwest, destructive hurricanes across the Southeast, and devastating
wildfires in the West lend urgency to conservation efforts.
Throughout this hearing, I am interested in learning more about the
suite of conservation programs available to producers through USDA. I
am interested in learning more about the outreach strategies that
recruit producers and encourage them to adopt new practices. I am also
eager to hear about the new authorities afforded by the 2018 Farm Bill
and the prospects they hold in accelerating conservation efforts on the
ground.
With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, Congressman Doug LaMalfa for 5
minutes.

The Chair. With that, I would like to recognize and thank
Ranking Member Doug LaMalfa, the distinguished gentleman from
California, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. LaMalfa. Good to see you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
convening this hearing today, and it has also been a pleasure
to work with you so far leading up to this point. I know we are
going to have a great relationship as we accomplish a lot this
session on these key issues we are going to deal with in
conservation, and timber as well.
I am obviously very geared towards what we have going on in
my own district with that, but also all across the country with
our management of our assets and the best conservation and use
of it long-term.
Good morning, and again, thank you for having this hearing
on the USDA farm bill conservation programs.
Over the past 35 years Congress has acknowledged that
voluntary conservation works well, leading to significant
investments and various conservation initiatives.
In recent farm bills we have expanded our financial
commitment for important issues like the CRP, Conservation
Reserve Program, and EQIP, Environmental Quality Incentives
Program. Both are very key to my own district in northern
California.
We also created new tools like the CSP, Conservation
Stewardship Program, where it expands the use of on-farm
conservation practices, and RCPP, the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, that leverages Federal funding, matching
assistance from partners in the private-sector.
Over the past 5 years, RCPP has been successfully utilized
in Sacramento Valley as NRCS and other partners have worked
with rice producers to create habitat for waterfowl, something
we have done on our own farm at home to great effect.
The 2018 Farm Bill has contained new approaches to funding
and delivering conservation programs. The House Agriculture
Committee worked hard to protect mandatory funding to
strengthen the working lands and infrastructure programs. A few
of the highlights include CSP, which was reformed to allow more
flexibility in program delivery, EQIP funding was significantly
increased and would reach over $2 billion per year by 2023,
allowing for expanded authorities to address water savings and
irrigation projects and to address drought in the West.
CTA payments were established to allow for scalable
adoption and maintenance of conservation practices, practices
that will be tailored to address locally-identified resource
concerns, very important.
RCPP, which I had previously mentioned, was provided its
own funding allocation, allowing the program to operate on its
own along with streamlined delivery for NRCS.
The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program which
protects our farmlands, grasslands, and wetlands, received a
significant increase as well. The CRP acreage cap was increased
and meaningful reforms were implemented to prevent the program
from competing against beginning farmers or other producers
wanting to access land.
Finally, the 2018 Farm Bill made significant investments in
infrastructure, including our Watershed Operations Program that
will provide certainty to project sponsors across the country.
The funding and reforms that made these programs, along
with the new authorities provided to address active management
of National Forests, make this the strongest farm bill ever for
western states as well.
While our focus today is on the conservation programs
administered by USDA, the farm bill also did many great things
to assist private forest owners as well as state and National
Forests. However, many needed authorities of streamlined active
management of National Forests were left out.
If we do not address the declining health of our largest
carbon sink, many of our conservation gains will be wiped away
with the destruction of watersheds and wildlife habitat, along
with the loss of personal property and life, air quality, the
whole shooting match.
We need to do better.
Again, thank you, Chair Spanberger for calling today's
hearing. I look forward to working with you in this Congress.
The Subcommittee has a lot of important work to do ahead of it
as we review the implementation of key conservation and forest
practices.
I would also like to thank our witnesses today, Chief Lohr
and Administrator Fordyce, for joining us today. We know both
of you are very busy with farm bill implementation, always a
challenge, never fast enough for some folks but we know you are
busting it trying to get it going, and keep it going.
Thanks for making time to be with us and I appreciate what
you do to help our producers on the ground as well. I will
yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony and to ensure there is ample time for
questions.
I would like to welcome our witnesses today. Thank you for
being here.
Today we will hear from Matthew Lohr, Chief of the Natural
Resources and Conservation Service. As Chief, Mr. Lohr provides
leadership for NRCS and its mission to support America's
farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in their conservation
efforts.
Mr. Lohr is a fellow Virginian and a fifth-generation
farmer. Prior to NRCS, Mr. Lohr served as Virginia's
Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services from 2010 to
2013, and in the Virginia House of Delegates from 2006 to 2010.
Since 2017, he has farmed full time on his family's
operation, which includes poultry, beef cattle, row crops, and
sweet corn.
We will also hear from Richard Fordyce, Administrator of
the Farm Service Agency. Our second witness is Mr. Richard
Fordyce, Administrator of the Farm Service Agency. As
Administrator he provides leadership for FSA and its mission to
support agricultural production across America through a
network of over 2,100 county and 50 state offices.
Mr. Fordyce is a fourth-generation farmer from Bethany,
Missouri, and previously served as the state's Executive
Director for FSA in Missouri, and as Director of the Missouri
Department of Agriculture from 2013 to 2017.
I thank you both for your service and I look forward to
your testimony.
Chief Lohr, please begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW J. LOHR, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Lohr. Well, good morning, Chair Spanberger, Ranking
Member LaMalfa, and Members of the Subcommittee, and thank you
so much for this opportunity for Richard and I to testify
before you today to discuss the United States Department of
Agriculture's conservation programs, and happy birthday, USDA.
I appreciate you mentioning that.
My name is Matthew Lohr and I have the distinct honor of
serving as the 16th Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, or more commonly known as NRCS.
I started this position last December as a fifth-generation
farmer in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, and my earliest
memories are as a child working alongside my father and my
grandfather on our family farm, fortunately for me they modeled
a love and appreciation of our natural resources that continues
with me today.
I know firsthand the importance of our motto, ``Helping
people help the land.''
Under the leadership and guidance of Secretary Perdue, the
Farm Production and Conservation or FPAC mission area was
recently established with a focus on domestic agricultural
issues. Lead by Under Secretary Bill Northey, the FPAC mission
area consists of NRCS, the Farm Service Agency, and the Risk
Management Agency.
The USDA mission area serves as the focal point for our
nation's farmers, ranchers, and stewards of private
forestlands. Together, the agencies work to support each other
as we deliver our programs to best serve our customers.
As an agency within the FPAC leadership structure, NRCS is
focused on delivering conservation programs and technical
assistance through a locally-led process where local input
drives natural resources priorities.
We have over 2,000 offices in communities nationwide with
more than 9,000 employees who provide information, tools, and a
delivery system to assist producers with conserving,
maintaining, and enhancing their natural resources.
NRCS works in partnership with private landowners,
communities, local governments, and other stakeholders to
promote a sustainable usage while safeguarding the nation's
private working lands.
Our conservation work revolves around two core functions,
technical assistance and financial resources.
Through our conservation operations, we provide technical
assistance that is aimed at helping people conserve, maintain,
and improve their natural resources. These operations support
our critical infrastructure that enables our staff to deliver
quality conservation planning, assist communities, and
producers with water supply forecasting and assist the nation
with becoming more resilient against climate change.
Our web survey is broadly used by the agricultural sector
as well as the general public.
Each day, NRCS proudly invests roughly $8 million in
conservation efforts, but that number is multiplied many times
over through our great partnerships that we have, and
agreements across the country.
We also partner with fellow agencies, within USDA, like the
Farm Service Agency and the U.S. Forest Service.
Our working lands programs includes the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program or EQIP, the Conservation
Stewardship Program or CSP, we also offer farmland and wetland
protection through the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program or ACEP, and features of each of these programs are
available through our Regional Conservation Partnership Program
or RCPP. Lots of acronyms to keep straight.
Since the 2018 Farm Bill has become law, NRCS has worked to
implement ACEP, CSP, and EQIP in 2019, while developing the
rules and regulations for the Fiscal Year 2020 enrollment.
Moving forward in 2019, we plan to do much more with our
new authorizations. Today, in fact, I am pleased to share that
the Secretary has announced a notice of funding availability
for up to $25 million for our Conservation Innovation Grants or
CIG, for on-farm conservation innovation trials. This
announcement will include a soil health demonstration trial
component and will be accepting proposals through July 15 of
this year.
As a farmer, I can attest to the fact that good
conservation makes good financial sense for agriculture
production. Through NRCS's services, farms are improved,
efficiencies are established, and producers enhance production
in concert with natural resources protection.
NRCS's conservation efforts also extend to times of natural
disaster, assisting both producers and communities in their
greatest times of need. Through our programs like EWP and EQIP,
we have assisted in hurricane recovery efforts in Puerto Rico,
flooding across the heartland, and damaging wildfires
throughout the West.
Some of my greatest moments as Chief have occurred around
kitchen tables and pickup trucks where I have heard stories
from our customers face to face. Many of them have shared
personal stories about how our efforts at NRCS have literally
saved their farming operations.
It is an honor to be able to share with you today and talk
about the farm bill programs and the efforts that we are making
to improve the environment, preserve our natural resources, and
ensure the viability for agriculture and forestry for many
generations to come.
Thank you again for the invitation, and I look forward to
the conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohr follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Matthew J. Lohr, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to testify about the United States Department of Agriculture's
conservation programs administered through the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). I appreciate the ongoing support of this
Subcommittee for voluntary, private lands conservation and the
improvement of our soil, water, and other natural resources. I come
before you today not only as the Chief of the NRCS, but also as a
farmer who is well aware of the agency's conservation programs and
their benefits to landowners.
NRCS was first established as the ``Soil Conservation Service'' in
1935, to address the dust storms that ravaged the nation's farmland.
This is a history many know well, particularly those who work in the
agriculture industry. These storms stripped away millions of tons of
topsoil that were carried all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The
massive soil loss was recognized as a national emergency. The agency
was later renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 1994,
to recognize its broader mission of addressing the nation's important
natural resources.
For more than 80 years, NRCS and its predecessor agency have worked
in close partnerships with farmers and ranchers, local and state
governments, and other Federal agencies to maintain healthy and
productive working landscapes. Through one-on-one interaction, we work
with producers and communities on a voluntary basis with the goal of
``helping people help the land.''
Farm Production and Conservation Mission Area and the NRCS
Under the leadership and guidance of Secretary Perdue, the Farm
Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area was established in 2017
with a focus on domestic farmer-facing agricultural issues. Led by
Under [S]ecretary Northey, the FPAC mission area consists of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, and the
Risk Management Agency. This USDA mission area serves as the focal
point for the nation's farmers, ranchers, and stewards of private
agricultural lands and non-industrial forest lands. Together, the
agencies work to support each other as we deliver our programs to serve
our customers.
As an agency within the FPAC leadership structure, the NRCS has a
key focus on conservation programs and technical assistance. The agency
employs skilled employees in fields such as agriculture, agronomy,
engineering, biology, soil science, plant science, forestry, and
hydrology. We have more than 2,000 offices across communities
nationwide with more than 9,000 employees dedicated to providing
information, tools, and a delivery system to assist producers with
conserving, maintaining, and enhancing their natural resources for the
betterment of their individual agriculture operations and their
communities. NRCS works in partnership with private landowners,
communities, local governments, and other stakeholders to promote the
sustainable use and safeguard the nation's private working lands.
NRCS Farm Bill Conservation Programs
NRCS offers a suite of working lands and easement programs that
provide assistance to agricultural producers and others for addressing
their natural resource concerns. The suite of working lands programs
includes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Each of these programs assists
producers with implementing land stewardship practices and activities.
Under the easement programs, NRCS restores, protects, and enhances
wetlands and grasslands and assists third parties in protecting
agricultural lands.
For FY 2018, NRCS programs provided:

$245 million in ACEP financial assistance funding used to
enroll more than 100,000 acres of farmland, grasslands, and
wetlands. The agency also closed more than 440 ACEP easements,
protecting a collective 140,000 acres.

More than $1.3 billion in obligations for EQIP financial
assistance covering an estimated 13 million acres.

Approximately $24.6 million in financial assistance
obligated to five states through the National Air Quality
Initiative to help producers meet requirements of the Clean Air
Act.

More than $11.7 million in contracts with producers
obligated in three states severely affected by drought. These
producers were able to use EQIP financial assistance for
watering facilities, prescribed grazing, pasture and hayland
planting, and planting cover crops.

More than $83 million in financial assistance for new
enrollments provided through CSP to improve more than 7.5
million acres.

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
incorporates features from both the working lands and easement
programs in coordination with the private-sector and other non-
Federal partners. NRCS began the 2018 enrollment activities in
January 2017 by issuing the 2018 RCPP Announcement for Program
Funding (APF) for $252 million, which increased the number of
training/outreach efforts to the public and partners about RCPP
and improved program processes. In the 2018 APF, the agency
received 164 pre-proposals that requested a total of $683
million in program funds and provided a partner contribution of
$1 billion in support of those projects.
Conservation Operations
The purpose of Conservation Operations is to provide technical
assistance supported by science-based technologies and tools that help
people conserve, maintain, and improve the nation's natural resources.
Conservation Operations has four major program components: Conservation
Technical Assistance Program (CTA); Soil Survey; Snow Survey and Water
Supply Forecasting (SSWSF); and Plant Materials Centers (PMCs). CTA has
been thought of as the backbone of the agency's conservation delivery
system. The CTA discretionary funding provides for the development and
delivery of a major portion of the products and services associated
with four of the agency's five business lines: (1) Conservation
Planning and Technical Consultation; (2) Conservation Implementation;
(3) Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment; and (4) Natural Resource
Technology Transfer. The fifth business line, Financial Assistance, is
funded through the conservation programs listed above.
FY 2018 Results through the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
Program

In 2018, NRCS developed conservation plans covering 27.5
million acres. In accordance with those plans, conservation
practices and systems designed to improve soil quality were
applied to 6 million acres of cropland.

Owners and managers of grazing and forest lands applied
conservation practices to improve more than 12 million acres.

Conservation practices were applied to more than 16.5
million acres of agricultural land, as designed by the agency,
to improve off-site water quality.

Conservation practices were applied to nearly 325,000 acres
to improve irrigation water use efficiency, which reduces
producer costs, groundwater withdrawals, and surface runoff.

Conservation practices and systems were applied on more than
7 million acres to improve wildlife habitat.
Mission Delivery Highlights
NRCS employees proved adaptable, innovative, and effective in
working to address continuing and emerging natural resource challenges.
A few recent highlights include:

Responding to Natural Disasters: NRCS used the Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) Program to provide assistance for
hurricane recovery in Puerto Rico and the Southeast hurricane
impacted areas, wildfires in the West, floods in the Midwest.

Enhanced Nutrient Management: NRCS provides technical and
financial assistance for the development and implementation of
enhanced nutrient management plans. NRCS field staff are
trained to provide nutrient management planning and
implementation assistance to USDA clients using nutrient
movement risk assessment tools and by implementation of
practices to reduce agricultural emissions.

Livestock: NRCS actively works with producers in grasslands
systems (pasture and range) as well as confined operations
(feedlots and dairies). Practices such as prescribed and
rotational grazing, range planting, and forage and biomass
planting ensure that grassland areas are maximizing
productivity, sequestering carbon, and increasing resiliency to
conditions such as prolonged droughts.

Improving knowledge of soils, ecological sites, and land-
use: NRCS Soil Survey, Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), and
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Programs build
the foundation of knowledge to better direct land-use
decisions. Through these efforts, we better understand land and
soil characteristics, land use trends, and impacts of
conservation practices on water, soil, and air quality.
Success through Initiatives
Landscape Initiatives are a way to maximize the conservation impact
achieved through NRCS programs. We find win-win solutions that address
conservation problems in a way that meets the needs of the agriculture
sector as well as the broader public. Landscape Initiatives allow NRCS
to effectively and consistently address resource concerns that occur on
a scale that crosses boundaries to achieve meaningful conservation
outcomes. We target resources to effectively address important
conservation problems and work in partnerships to build on the strength
and investments of engaged stakeholders.
Examples of NRCS initiatives include:

Joint Chief's Landscape Restoration Partnership: The U.S.
Forest Service and NRCS are working together to improve the
health of the forests where public forests and grasslands
connect to privately owned lands. Through the Joint Chiefs'
Landscape Restoration Partnership, the agencies are restoring
landscapes, reducing wildfire threats to communities and
landowners, protecting water quality, and enhancing wildlife
habitat.

Longleaf Pine Initiative: Longleaf pine forests once
encompassed more than 90 million acres across the Southeast,
stretching from eastern Texas to southern Virginia. These
forests represent some of the world's most biologically diverse
ecosystems and are home to nearly 600 plant and animal species,
including 29 threatened and endangered species. Over the past 2
centuries, development, timbering, and fire suppression reduced
the ecosystem's range by almost 97 percent. Since 2010, NRCS
has worked with agricultural producers and conservation
partners to restore longleaf forests through this initiative.

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative
(MRBI): States within the Mississippi River Basin have
developed nutrient reduction strategies to minimize the
contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface waters
within the basin, and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. MRBI
uses a small watershed approach to support the states' nutrient
reduction strategies. Avoiding, controlling, and trapping
practices are implemented to reduce the amount of nutrients
flowing from agricultural land into waterways and to improve
the resiliency of working lands.

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI): Now in its eighth
year, the National Water Quality Initiative is a partnership
among NRCS, state water quality agencies and the Environmental
Protection Agency to identify and address impaired water bodies
through voluntary conservation. NRCS provides targeted funding
for financial and technical assistance in small watersheds most
in need, and where farmers can use conservation practices to
make a difference. Beginning this year, the scope of NWQI has
been expanded to include the protection of drinking water.

Western Lake Erie Basin: This initiative expands
conservation and financial assistance opportunities available
to farmers in the Western Lake Erie Basin who want to take
additional steps to improve water quality.

Working Lands for Wildlife: Through Working Lands for
Wildlife (WLFW), NRCS uses a win-win approach to systematically
target conservation efforts to improve agricultural and forest
productivity, which enhances wildlife habitat on working
landscapes. Target species are used as barometers for success
because their habitat needs are representative of healthy,
functioning ecosystems where conservation efforts benefit a
much broader suite of species.
Conclusion
As we look forward to the work that is before us, our goal is
clear: to continue ``helping people help the land.'' This goal remains
consistent each day as we serve our customers, whether in the field or
in Washington, D.C. In the short time that I have been with the agency,
I can assure you that the workforce is operating full steam ahead as we
carry out our objectives and work to implement our respective
provisions of the farm bill as quickly as possible. Madam Chair this
concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your questions and
those of the other Subcommittee Members.

The Chair. Thank you very much, Chief Lohr. We appreciate
your comments.
Administrator Fordyce, please when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD FORDYCE, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Fordyce. Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, I am honored to be with
you this morning.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to be before
the Subcommittee or the Committee in general since being
appointed Administrator last May.
Thank you for your support of our vital farm programs and
the excellent farm bill that allows us to help farmers and
ranchers promote, build, and sustain family farms.
The Farm Service Agency serves America's farmers, ranchers,
and agricultural producers through the delivery of effective,
efficient agricultural programs.
The agency offers farmers a strong safety net through the
administration of farm commodity and disaster programs, while
conserving natural resources and providing credit to
agricultural producers who are unable to receive private
commercial credit.
Obviously, I am very proud of the work the Farm Service
Agency does and the services they provide to our agricultural
producers. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the nearly
10,000 folks that work on behalf of the Farm Service Agency
across this country, and more than 2100 county offices. And as
I travel the country and visit with them, hearing their
stories, understanding their passion for agriculture, their
understanding for agriculture, a lot of times they refer to the
farmers that they serve in their local communities as their
farmers.
Agriculture is in my blood. I am a fourth-generation
Missouri farm boy, my son is a fifth-generation farmer on our
farm, so I know the importance of how our work and NRCS's work,
and I know the policies and programs we implement not only
affect my farm but my neighbors and our communities as well. I
take this job and this role very seriously.
One of USDA's largest conservation programs is the
Conservation Reserve Program. It is a complex program that
provides a variety of benefits. It has come a long way since
its inception in 1985, and continues to evolve even today,
including more partnerships like those under the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program.
In some parts of the country, marginal, highly-erodible
lands that are not ideal for agricultural production, it is
better for the long-term health of the soil to keep them
covered with grass or trees year round. And in more productive
fields, conservation buffers like riparian buffers, grass
waterways, and contoured grass strips are often needed to
prevent sediment and nutrients from polluting water bodies.
In exchange for cost-share and rental payments, farmers
remove environmentally-sensitive land from production, and
plant resource-conserving land cover to protect soil, water,
and create wildlife habitat. The program recognizes that
benefits from a farmer placing environmentally-sensitive
cropland into conservation uses are consumed not just by the
farm but by other people.
CRP can spur hunting, fishing, recreation, tourism, and
other economic activity across rural America.
I have some news for today. I am happy to share that the
Secretary just announced that beginning June 3, we will reopen
CRP continuous signup and accept requests for extensions of
expiring CRP contracts.
Additionally, our Emergency Conservation Program, or ECP,
and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program, EFRP, continue to
provide critical funding for rehabilitation to farmers and
ranchers across the nation after a disaster. Within the last
year alone, we have seen fires across the western states and
our prairies, hurricanes pummel the Southeast, extreme drought
in the Texas Panhandle, and last month historic snowfall and
flooding across the Northern Plains and the Midwest. Even with
the best planning, the impacts of these disasters will take
years, in many cases, for a full recovery.
Our conservation programs are voluntary, and the fact that
our main program, CRP, covers over 22 million acres and the
additional millions of acres enrolled in NRCS programs, shows
how farmers are naturally good stewards of the land. For many,
these lands are their livelihoods, their history, and their
legacy. They want to leave the land better than they found it
and pass it down to future generations, and our conservation
programs and services that we provide help them do just that.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fordyce follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, I am honored to be with you this morning. Today's
hearing marks my first occasion to appear before this Subcommittee, and
the Committee as a whole, since my appointment as Farm Service Agency
(FSA) Administrator. I thank you for the opportunity to testify and
share how FSA is helping farmers and ranchers to promote, build, and
sustain family farms in support of a market-oriented, economically and
environmentally sound American agriculture delivering an abundant,
safe, and affordable food and fiber supply while sustaining quality
agricultural communities.
Like Secretary Perdue, I am an unapologetic advocate for American
agriculture. Farmers, ranchers, and foresters are the backbone of
America. Shouldering the tremendous responsibility of feeding a rapidly
growing nation and world, their critical work also provides economic
stability across the countryside--supporting rural economies and
creating jobs in local communities. Their stewardship and careful
management of these vital landscapes builds resilient local economies
with profitable farms and ranches, clean air and water, healthy food,
and abundant wildlife.
The Farm Service Agency serves America's farmers, ranchers, and
agricultural partners through the delivery of effective, efficient
agricultural programs. The agency offers farmers a strong safety net
through the administration of farm commodity and disaster programs
while conserving natural resources and providing credit to agricultural
producers who are unable to receive private, commercial credit with
special emphasis on beginning, under-served and women farmers and
ranchers.
The conservation programs, which FSA and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) administer, are effective tools for
farmers, ranchers, and land stewards to manage the land and conserve
natural resources. As a farmer myself, I truly understand the benefits
these agencies and tools provide to producers across the country in
finding the best solutions to meet our conservation and business goals.
Today, I'll talk about FSA conservation programs and the benefits they
are providing for the American people.
CRP Benefits Stretch Far and Wide
Created by the 1985 Farm Bill, the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) is one of the USDA's largest conservation programs. CRP is a
voluntary program. The program recognizes that the benefits from a
farmer placing environmentally sensitive cropland into conservation
uses are realized not just by the farm but also by all people. Land
placed in CRP contributes to cleaner water, provides habitat for valued
wildlife, generates pollination services, helps to reduce downstream
flood damage, and restores aquifers. In doing so, CRP supports wildlife
populations and natural landscapes, and spurs hunting, fishing,
recreation, tourism, and other economic activity across rural America.
What separates CRP from the Department's other conservation
programs are the annual rental payments in addition to the more
traditional cost share assistance provided to program participants for
installing conservation practices. Throughout the 10 to 15 year CRP
contract, CRP participants receive annual rental payments based on
their offer to retire marginal cropland from production and restore it
to conservation covers comprised of either grasses or trees, and
associated forbs, legumes, and other plants.
In general, farmers and ranchers are willing to voluntarily install
conservation practices when and where practicable so long as doing so
does not adversely impact their ability to make a living off the land.
Since 1985, CRP has made a vital impact on our landscapes:

More than 8 billion tons of soils have been prevented from
eroding.

More than 170,000 stream miles are protected with CRP
riparian and grass buffers. In New York State, these buffers
are protecting the City of New York's water supply.

On fields enrolled in CRP, nitrogen and phosphorus losses
are reduced an average of 95 percent and 85 percent,
respectively.

In 2017, nitrogen and phosphorus releases to the environment
were reduced by an estimated 521 million pounds and 103 million
pounds, respectively.

Sediment loss reductions were an estimated 192 million tons
in 2017.

CRP also helps farmers and ranchers in rural America create
wildlife habitat for both game and non-game wildlife species, helps
protect threatened and endangered species, and even helps prevent
candidate species from being listed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified the
CRP as having contributed to restoration of grassland habitats,
positively influencing Lesser prairie chicken abundance and
distributions.

A USFWS analysis credited CRP with increasing Prairie
Pothole duck populations by two million ducks per year between
1992 and 2004. A second analysis found that between 2007 and
2011, habitat on CRP land contributed approximately 1.5 million
ducks annually.

The benefits from CRP, along with those reaped from NRCS
conservation programs, positively impact not only producers' lands, but
also their neighbors, their watersheds, and ultimately the entire U.S.
population and beyond.
Current State of CRP
CRP allows USDA to contract with landowners so that environmentally
sensitive land can be devoted to generating conservation benefits.
Participants establish long-term, resource-conserving cover and, in
return, FSA, which administers CRP on behalf of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, provides participants with annual rental payments and
other assistance. FSA administers CRP with technical support from NRCS,
state forestry agencies, local soil and water conservation districts,
and other non-Federal technical service providers.
Currently, 22.4 million acres are enrolled in CRP contracts,
including 13.5 million acres under General sign-up enrollment
authority, 8 million acres under Continuous sign-up enrollment
authority, and 900,000 acres under the Grasslands sign-up enrollment
authority. Twenty-four million acres of enrollment were authorized
under the 2014 Farm Bill.
Producers have been able to enroll in CRP in multiple ways: General
sign-ups, Continuous sign-up and Grassland enrollments. General sign-up
is a competitive process where land is ranked using an Environmental
Benefits Index (EBI). General sign-ups occur periodically, not
necessarily every year. The last General sign-up occurred in the spring
of 2016.
CRP Continuous sign-ups occur on a continuous basis throughout the
year and do not have a distinct sign-up period. Unlike General sign-
ups, there is no bidding and ranking; the land is enrolled
automatically if it meets the eligibility criteria. Continuous sign-ups
target specific practices such as riparian and grass buffer strips
along streams and wetland restorations, as well as specific habitat
types of wildlife. Under the CRP Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP), which utilizes continuous sign-up, FSA partners with
states to address high priority local and regional conservation issues.
CRP Grasslands sign-ups occur on a continuous basis with periodic
rankings and selection. Under this signup type, landowners and
operators protect grassland, including rangeland and pastureland, and
certain other lands, while maintaining the areas as grazing lands. The
statutory enrollment cap is 2 million acres, which counts against the
overall CRP acreage cap.
The Transition Incentives Program (TIP) encourages landowners to
sell or lease long-term to beginning, socially disadvantaged, and
veteran farmers and ranchers willing to implement sustainable practices
or transition to organic production by providing 2 years of additional
payments for expiring CRP-enrolled land. About $22 million of TIP
funding was obligated under the 2014 Farm Bill, helping an estimated
1,519 eligible new producers.
CRP contracts on 1.6 million acres (combined general and
continuous) are set to expire on September 30, 2019. Although
enrollment is currently suspended as we evaluate and respond to changes
to the program required by the 2018 Farm Bill, FSA will be sending out
letters to producers, who have CRP acres expiring this year, later this
month.
CRP and 2018 Farm Bill
The passage of the 2018 Farm Bill brings some new opportunities for
CRP. One of the most noticeable changes is a gradually increased
enrollment cap from 24 million acres in FY 2019 to 27 million acres in
FY 2023, of which at least 8.6 million acres will be targeted for
continuous practices and 2 million allocated for CRP grasslands.
Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill directs water quality practices to be
prioritized, aiming for at least 40 percent of continuous CRP acres to
be in practices under the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers (CLEAR)
initiative.
Two new pilot programs were also added to CRP: CLEAR 30 and the
Soil Health and Income Protection Pilot Program (SHIPP). The CLEAR 30
CRP pilot program will allow producers to reenroll CRP CLEAR water
quality practices for up to 30 years. SHIPP will offer short-term (3 to
5 year) contracts to landowners to remove the least productive land
from their operation.
Other additions to CRP include expanded opportunities for haying,
grazing, and other management tools, cost-share for fencing and other
water distribution practices, and the opportunity for certain land that
was under a 15 year CRP contract that expired in 2017 or 2018 to
reenroll.
FSA continues to look for ways to help new and beginning farmers
gain entry into farming--whether through outreach or other means. The
2018 Farm Bill provided $50 million for TIP through FY 2023, up from
the $33 million provided in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Since the start of CRP, rental rates have been set to follow the
market. FSA currently uses data from the National Agricultural
Statistics Service cash rents survey, adjusted for soil types, to set
CRP annual payment rates. Rates are updated periodically, and under the
new farm bill will be updated annually. The 2018 Farm Bill reinforced
FSA's process for setting rates, reaffirming the need for alternative
rates in certain cases and adding a proration of those rates by signup.
The 2018 Farm Bill also added requirements to publish rates on the web
and offer an opportunity for Congressional briefings prior to
publication of the rates. USDA continues to strive for CRP rates to
follow the market while meeting Congressional intent for conservation
of the land.
Currently, FSA is evaluating all the changes made to the CRP by the
2018 Farm Bill and is working to implement those changes as quickly as
possible. The language and structural changes to the CRP statute are
extensive, including adding the new targets for enrollment, codifying
language on mid-contract management and haying and grazing, specifying
incentives, prorating annual rental rates while allowing for
alternatives, codifying Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
administration specifically for the first time, adding the two pilot
programs, and adding reporting requirements. Where administrative
decisions are needed, we are ensuring all our decisions are facts-based
and data-driven, with a decision-making mindset that is customer-
focused.
Emergency Assistance through non-Title II Conservation Programs
First authorized in 1978, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)
is of great importance to farmers and ranchers across the nation after
a disaster. Within the last year alone, we have seen fires across the
western states and our prairies, hurricanes pummel the Southeast,
volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, extreme drought in the Texas Panhandle,
and just last month, historic snowfall and flooding across the Northern
Plains and Midwest. Even with the best planning, the impacts from these
disasters will take years, in many cases, for full recovery.
ECP provides funding and technical assistance for farmers and
ranchers to restore farmland damaged by natural disasters and for
emergency water conservation measures in severe droughts. FSA allocated
more than $226 million in ECP cost-share and technical assistance funds
to 37 states in FY 2018 for farmland rehabilitation across the nation
resulting from disasters.
As natural disasters happen, 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. So far, FSA has allowed for the
streamlining of signup at the local county offices by authorizing
waivers of on-site visits to farms and ranches where needed. County
offices are currently conducting sign-ups in a variety of counties
across the nation.
Under the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), FSA provides
payments to eligible owners of nonindustrial private forest land to
carry out emergency measures to restore land damaged by a natural
disaster. Using EFRP, FSA provided targeted funding in FY 2018 for
forest rehabilitation to owners of non-industrial private forest land
across the nation resulting from disasters such as western wildfires
and drought, southeast hurricanes, and tornados. FSA allocated over $13
million in EFRP cost-share and technical assistance funds to ten states
in FY 2018.
Enhanced Service through Closer Interaction with NRCS
Building on a long history of working closely with NRCS on programs
like CRP and ECP, FSA is very much focused on continuing to strengthen
our existing relationship with NRCS and the Risk Management Agency
(RMA) in the new Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area.
With nearly 3,000 offices across communities nationwide, our employees
continue to provide the information, tools, and delivery systems
necessary for producers--in every state and territory--to conserve,
maintain, and improve their natural resources. Together, we look
forward to enhancing the service provided to our farming and ranching
customers.
Our conservation programs, along with those of NRCS, are part of
the tremendous toolkit that FPAC, and USDA as a whole, provides to the
original American land stewards, U.S. farmers and ranchers, to support
their agricultural operations.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide FSA's
perspective on the role our conservation programs aid in delivering on
Secretary Perdue's four guiding principles: to maximize the ability of
American agriculture to create jobs, sell foods and fiber, and feed and
clothe the world; to prioritize customer service for the taxpayers; to
ensure that our food supply is safe and secure; and through the support
of programs and assistance like those described today, to maintain good
stewardship of the natural resources that provide us with our
miraculous bounty.
Madam Chair this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer
your questions and those of the other Subcommittee Members.

The Chair. Thank you both for your testimony.
Members will be recognized for questioning in order of
seniority for Members who were here at the start of the
hearing, and after that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
I would like to begin by recognizing Chairman Peterson of
Minnesota.

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

Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fordyce, we found out yesterday afternoon, and you
apparently have announced that at 10:00 this morning that you
are going to open up the continuous using the existing
regulations. How do you think you have the authority to do
that? And I just want you to know that if you do, I am going to
stop it somehow or another.
This program has been hijacked by the continuous stuff and
the CREP stuff, which means we are going to have some exposure
to what has been going on here, but I am tired of it.
And so you are delaying the general signup to December for
some reason because you have to do regs. Why don't you have to
do regs on the continuous? What rationale are you using down
there?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question.
It is good to see you.
My response to that would be after thorough analysis, FSA
has determined that CRP continuous and CREP sign-ups may be
opened under limited circumstances prior to publication of the
regulation.
FSA is also working to ensure subsequent to the updating of
rental rates and publication of the CRP regulation, a general
signup will be held in December of 2019.
The Secretary and I are committed to meeting this timeline
within the law.
Mr. Peterson. Why, if you can do it for continuous, why
can't you do it for general? What is the rationale?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I would say that we are continuing to go
through those decisions on the general signup. The rental rate
piece, some of the other things that don't necessarily enter
into those continuous----
Mr. Peterson. Well, did you guys not get the message out of
the farm bill? For the continuous, the signup has been $134 an
acre, the general is $52.
What you are going to end up doing here is you are going to
create a situation where farmers are going to go out there and
do everything they can to get in, when they find out about
these new rental rates, to get into the continuous because they
are going to get three times as much as they would get if they
get in the general. And that is just going to suck more acres
up into the continuous that are not going to be available for
the general.
Now, maybe some of this stuff does some good in terms of
water quality and so forth, but it does almost zero good for
wildlife. These small strips are not doing anything for
wildlife. The only thing that does are big tract CRP, which is
what you get out of the general.
And one of the reasons we have had trouble around the
country is because we have eroded the general CRP and gone to
continuous. I am serious, and I don't know what we can do to
stop you. If I have to sue you, I will. This is not right and
if you can do continuous without regulations, then you can do
general without regulations.
And I don't think farmers at this point understand what is
going to come under the new rules, but they will find out. They
are always smarter than we are, and you are going to create a
situation here.
I don't know. The statement you gave me is not satisfactory
to me. And maybe you need to have the Secretary call me or
somebody, but I do not buy what you are saying, and I don't
think you have to do this.
Message delivered, and also some of this easement stuff
that you guys have been doing, some of this stuff was done
before you got there; but, they are adding easements onto these
continuous sign-ups and CREPs, that are just out of line, and
we are going to be doing a hearing on this too in the full
Committee as soon as we get all the facts on the table.
I just want you to know I am watching you.
One other thing. It says in here you are also going to
delay the sign up for the GRP for some reason, and I don't know
what that is for; but, we have doubled the size of that program
and that is something that would be available to a lot of
people. I don't see any reason why that should be delayed
either if you are going to be able to do this with the
continuous.
I just want you to take this message back and if you guys
don't correct this, I am going to figure out what we can do
here to change it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After hearing from the Chairman, I am going to resume
calling on my colleagues, back into the order of for
questioning.
And I will begin with recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
The 2018 Farm Bill made a number of important changes to
the title II conservation programs.
Chief Lohr and Administrator Fordyce, can you both start
off by providing us with an update on the implementation of the
farm bill conservation programs? In particular, I would like to
know when do you expect the first and the last rules to be
published?
Mr. Lohr. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your question and
again for having this hearing today.
You are right. Congress was extremely generous in proving
their commitment to conservation with the funding that was
delivered to the programs, and we certainly thank you for that.
We started working the day after the farm bill was signed
into law, in December, to create the rules and regulations for
the farm bill. As you know, it is quite a lengthy process.
Literally the next day we began assembling our teams, our
review teams, and throughout January up until now they have
been working diligently to go through the entire process.
We are making great progress. I think we are definitely on
track. Our goal is to have these rules, the interim rules,
formulated by the first quarter of the new fiscal year. I think
we are on track to make that happen.
Of course, as you know, the current farm bill programs, our
farmers haven't had any gap in service, because based on the
extension of the 2014 Farm Bill they have been able to continue
as normal this year. The rules that we are writing will take
effect for 2020, so 2019 everything runs as before.
Just a quick update on CSP: We had our deadline that closed
on May 10 of signup, so farmers were able to sign up for CSP
contracts, and some changes that the farm bill made to CSP, it
shifted from instead of an acres cap to a dollar cap, and
approximately $700 million a year next year will be for CSP.
There is also a new component called CSP grassland which
there is some talk about we are working with FSA to take land
that has been not cropped for the last 9 years that is not
eligible for RPLC payments, they can enroll it in a CSP
grassland program and be paid $18 a year. There will be more
details about that program coming up later.
EQIP, kind of our flagship program, again as it was said
earlier, increased funding support up to $2 billion by the end
of the farm bill in 5 years. Some of the priorities we are
working on is how we can serve better the historically under-
served populations by approving advanced payments of 50 percent
before the practices begin.
We are in the process of reviewing those conservation
practice standards which should take place later this year
and----
The Chair. Great. And Chief Lohr.
Mr. Lohr. Yes.
The Chair. If I could just thank you very much for some of
those details. But getting back to the dates for the rules to
be published, do you have a specific timeframe? You said by the
first quarter. And so my question is, many of the programs are
allowed to continue operating under the existing rules until
the end of Fiscal Year 2019, so do you all have plans in place
or what are the contingencies available if the relevant rules
are not done when the fiscal year ends in September?
Mr. Lohr. Sure. It is certainly our goal to work towards
making that happen. We hate to put ourselves in a box and say
it will be done by October 1, but that is certainly our goal
and we are working hard to make that happen.
The Chair. Okay. Well, certainly from a Committee
perspective or Subcommittee perspective, I would like to make
sure that we stay apprised of the timing for those rules.
Mr. Lohr. Yes.
The Chair. And when they will be published so we know the
impact on those producers who rely on those vital programs.
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely.
The Chair. Chief Lohr, as you know, as a fellow Virginian,
parts of Virginia are on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I know
your farm is as well.
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP, brings
conservation partners and USDA to the same table to support
farmers and ranchers as they address shared natural resource
concerns.
RCPP programs like the Farm Stewardship Project in my
district support increasing the use of cover crops and reduced
tillage.
Unfortunately, since RCPP started in 2014, the Chesapeake
Bay watershed has seen reductions in NRCS funds supporting
critical in-the-field conservation work.
How will the farm bill changes enable us to build new
successful RCPP partnerships in the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
Mr. Lohr. Well, that is a great question, and RCPP actually
is one of my favorite programs that we administer here because
it is a collaborative effort of bringing various partners and
stakeholders together. The change is very quick in RCPP. It is
going to a national dedicated funding at $300 million a year.
The money is going to be half divided between state RCPP
projects and the other half is going to be in those targeted
areas which the Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of them. There
are opportunities available.
Like I said, $150 million will be spread out across those
targeted areas and it is a ranking process, so it certainly
encourages the partners that are located within the Chesapeake
Bay to put their proposals together.
We will be announcing signup deadlines later in the year,
but I agree and certainly being a farmer within the Bay
watershed, it is important that we can have these great
programs in action taking effect to better improve the quality
of the water in the Bay.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Ranking Member LaMalfa from California.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Lohr, in my district in addition to the Federal land,
there are many thousands of acres of family-owned forests that
are--as we see--at high risk of catastrophic wildfire year
after year.
Many landowners, they want to do the right thing and treat
their land, but at over $2,000 an acre it is out of reach under
some types of conventional thinking.
How is NRCS able to support these family forest owners that
have this challenge, and how many forest owners have you had a
chance to work with, and on how many acres so far in California
have you had a chance to implement?
Mr. Lohr. I certainly appreciate the question and you are
right. The wildfires across the West and especially in
California have truly been devastating both on a public scale
and a private land scale as well.
I would say first of all, our EQIP Program that I mentioned
earlier, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, kind of
works two ways.
Forest landowners, before a disaster, can certainly put
conservation practices on their forest lands through EQIP,
whether it be conservation plans or looking at forest
management practices or doing prescribed burns.
There are EQIP dollars that are available for farmers that
they can do certainly before a disaster, but then once a
disaster happens, EQIP can also be used again. Although it is
not intended to be a disaster relief program, there are funds
available through EQIP that help in times of disasters as well.
And so certainly again, being able to look at how do you
remove the burned timber, replanting trees, or improving soil
erosion that takes place after these wildfires, there are EQIP
cost-share dollars available to landowners who are facing that
situation. Certainly, I would encourage your farmers to reach
out to one of our local NRCS offices.
I don't have an actual number of acres that have been
affected in California that have actually worked through our
NRCS offices. I would be happy to----
Mr. LaMalfa. That is all right. I don't expect you to have
an exact number, but do you feel like it is getting to the
ground? Are people taking advantage of it in significant
effect? Yes?
Mr. Lohr. Yes.
I do know that there are EQIP programs or projects that are
in place, and I would certainly--I don't know if you have met
our State Conservationist, Carlos Suarez. If not, I think it
would be a great opportunity to make that connection for you,
as he oversees all of NRCS in the State of California.
But yes, as far as digging in to making sure that the
farmers and the forest landowners in that area are aware,
certainly the staff in those areas know that when these
situations happen, they do their best to reach out to the
landowners to make sure they know their services are available
and working through our partners as well.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right, thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa. And for both of you, Administrator Fordyce as
well, often times we have environmental groups, others that
point towards regulations as the only way to achieve
conservation results, and seeing in my own backyard, my own
district, we have seen a lot of great work done along with NRCS
and FSA that has made improvements on ESA recovery for species,
wetlands, and streams, and many other things in the program. I
am in the rice industry but others are conserving water, like
fish screens.
Can you give me your opinion on how you think the voluntary
conservation would actually have a better track record than the
regulatory hammer that so many folks are worried about? Because
I see a lot of volunteerism on there, people doing things on
their own to provide fish passage and fish safety and fish
screening, a lot of other things. Please?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, that is a great question and something I
know that the Chief and I in our current roles and in actually
in our previous roles talked a lot about, and that is that
concept of voluntary conservation. And I do believe that we
will gain far more benefits through a voluntary conservation
approach as opposed to a regulatory approach.
I think that agriculture, in general, for decades have been
some of the most fervent conservationists from a voluntary
perspective. And I mentioned in my opening testimony that
farms, these lands are a legacy. They are a history in these
families and they want to improve them and make them better
than they were than when they first took them over. And so I do
believe the concept of voluntary conservation will get us more
advancements and more successes than taking a regulatory route.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. Quickly, as I have a little
time left.
The issue with finding markets for wood coming off the
forest here, whether it is post-wildfire that was salvaged,
what is NRCS able to do to help make more markets and take more
advantage of biomass?
I am going to have to let you think about that one. Maybe
we will get a second round.
Thank you.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
both for your testimony this morning.
Mr. Fordyce, the amount of land owned by African Americans
has plunged over the past century from about 15 million acres
now down to about 2 million. And you may or may not be aware
that 40 percent of that land is heir property and has been left
out of this process for some time.
However, in the 2018 Farm Bill, there is language that
allows them to participate. It enables them to qualify to get a
farm number so that they can participate in the programs.
What specific outreach or strategies have you used to let
these farmers know that they are now qualified, and when did
you start it, or if you haven't when are you going to start?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, thank you for the question, and you do
bring up a very important point that since I have been there
almost a year, that topic has come up in my visits across the
country. I very much appreciate the language in the farm bill
that will help us address that as well.
I know that we are talking through the process as to how we
will implement it. From an outreach perspective we have a very
robust outreach program.
We have an outreach coordinator at headquarters here in
Washington, and she has a few staff here in Washington, but we
have outreach coordinators, public affairs and outreach
coordinators----
Ms. Fudge. I don't want to cut you off, but I just want to
know what it is you are doing to do the outreach.
Mr. Fordyce. When? We are in the process of doing that
outreach as we speak.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. You are contacting these
farmers with the heir property? You know who they are and you
are making contact with them?
Mr. Fordyce. That I can't answer. I don't know the specific
mechanism by which we are doing that, but----
Ms. Fudge. Could you get back to me and let me know?
Mr. Fordyce. Yes, ma'am, I will. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much.
I live on the Great Lakes. I live in the State of Ohio.
Water quality is a major concern for us as we get our drinking
water from Lake Erie.
We have had problems in the past with nitrogen and
phosphorus runoff, which has led to toxic algae blooms which I
am sure you are aware of.
I was very excited about the fact that in the farm bill we
did include provisions that provide farmers and ranchers with
additional incentives to address and improve water quality.
Can you both just briefly touch on the programs that are
available to do this and if you think that they are being
successful or will be successful? Included in that, if you
could talk just briefly about the Source Water Protection
provisions in the bill and the CLEAR 30 (Clean Lakes, Estuaries
and Rivers (CLEAR) Initiative) Pilot?
Mr. Fordyce. I will take the first stab at that,
Congresswoman.
The Under Secretary and I had traveled last summer to
Michigan and Ohio in the western Lake Erie basin area to look
at the CREP Program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program, and the adoption of producers there. It has a high
adoption rate. A lot of producers are participating.
I met with some other community members in that western
Lake Erie region, and while it is probably a little too early
to tell what kind of gains we are getting from doing that, we
know that they are positive gains, a little hard to measure at
this point, but certainly a popular program and is working
toward reducing sediment and nutrients that are ultimately in
that watershed.
Ms. Fudge. Mr. Lohr?
Mr. Lohr. Thank you, ma'am, and I will be brief because
NRCS has many programs that really tackle this problem.
First of all, it was mentioned RCPP, the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program, one of our most successful
projects because of the number of partners that it brings in
addressing large scale watershed areas like this. Within RCPP
farmers then are able to participate with EQIP contracts that
allow them to focus on specific water quality issues, whether
it be stream fencing to keep livestock out of streams, whether
it be working on cover crops to make sure that the soil stays
in place to reduce sediment runoff, different types of tillage
practices, going to a no-till again which reduces runoff.
RCPP is one of those programs that again, it multiplies the
dollars three or four times with lots of partners.
I mentioned EQIP. There are 169 practices that we have
within the EQIP Program. Many of those focus on water quality
to give farmers, again specific cost-share opportunities to
make sure that they are protecting the resources, again keeping
the water as pure as possible. Conservation easements are--
sorry.
Ms. Fudge. No, I was just going to say----
Mr. Lohr. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. I just want you to be aware that we
are watching, because it is an important issue for us.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge. And I would close with this, Madam Chair.
As the Chairman of the Full Committee had said, we just
expect for you all to uphold the letter and the spirit of the
law. We just passed a farm bill and certainly we would
appreciate if you would not ignore our will, the will of
Congress, for your own.
I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlewoman from
Maine, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to
you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing today, and
to both of you being in front of us, and thank you both for the
work that you are taking on. Welcome to your relatively new
jobs.
The programs that you administer and the work that you do
is critically important in my State of Maine. I am very proud
to represent Maine where we have had somewhat of a renaissance
of farming in our state after losing some of our ground. People
are coming back. We have a lot more young farmers in farming
today. We have land that is coming under cultivation, families
finding new ways to preserve their farm, and a lot of people
taking advantage of new markets. And much of it is because of
the programs that you administer and their ability to access
them. Thank you so much for that.
I am really interested in the intersection of climate
change in agriculture and with this resurgence of interest and
a lot of things being written about climate change, sometimes
the first thing we go after is the farmers. And while there are
practices that need to change in agriculture, people often
don't understand that soils have the capacity to store a
tremendous amount of carbon as well as the plants that we are
growing, and farmers really need to be our partners in climate
solutions. And through the programs you administer, you are
already promoting many of the very things that we need farmers
to do more of.
I would love to hear you talk a little bit about voluntary
programs like EQIP and how their incentivizing farmers to do
this and how we can be ramping up some of those soil health
practices, and how you are thinking about it going into the
future?
Let me just throw in my follow up on there, and I would
love to hear from you both, but a little bit for you Mr. Lohr.
In order for farmers to be in a position to participate in some
of the carbon markets that we anticipate they could be a part
of, we are going to need some verified ways to recognize what
they do, and I am glad to hear you talking this morning about
the soil health demonstration trial because that is a critical
part of it. But if you want to dig in a little bit deeper about
some of the ways we can recognize and administer in the role
that USDA might play in that.
So, go to it.
Mr. Lohr. All right. Thank you very much for your question,
and I appreciate you recognizing the efforts that farmers in a
positive way are doing to help mitigate climate change, because
you are right, there are a lot of the things that we do already
as conservationists which have a positive impact towards
mitigating climate change; making sure that we keep the ground
covered with cover crops making sure that there is grass on the
ground, that our forests are healthy. Healthy soil reduces
erosion in times of disaster.
As you said, the practices that our farmers are already
engaging in, especially through EQIP and those conservation
practices, are going a long way already towards being able to
mitigate climate change and sequester the carbon that is in the
air.
We have about 25 plant material centers across the country
that are administered by NRCS staff, and these are many
research areas as well where they are able to see which cover
crops are the most effective, constantly looking at practices
that can be adapted by our farmers across the country, again to
mitigate that climate change.
And you are right, with the CIG grants, there have been
trials before that have been done to focus on the trading of
carbon credits. That is the point of CIG. It is innovative. It
is new ideas. And these on-farm trials, these demonstrations,
again with the soil health component, will go a long way
towards looking at creating new practices that can be
replicated, again towards tackling this issue.
Mr. Fordyce. I think the Chief answered that question very
well from a farmer perspective, from NRCS's perspective.
From FSA's perspective, I think that if you look at the
number of acres of CRP that are enrolled, 22\1/2\ million
acres. Just in 2017 alone, CRP reduced carbon, emissions of
carbon dioxide, by an estimated 34 million metric tons. It is
the largest carbon sequester program of any Federal program, so
certainly I think that is important.
I might just add just from a personal perspective, on our
farm we use cover crops following corn or soybeans. We also
have a small CRP contract, but the Chief really laid it out
really well. The efforts of agriculture, the efforts of
farmers, again from that voluntary perspective I think are
really, really making a dent in some of the issues that you
referred to.
Ms. Pingree. And just quickly. I am going to run out of
time. But, Mr. Lohr, in the Soil Health Demonstration Trial,
what do you think are some of the most promising ways to
develop tools to measure what is going on in the soil so that
farmers can have a outcome-based measurement?
Mr. Lohr. That is a great question, because again, we have
to be able to capture the work that is being done.
I will mention, we also have what is called the CEAP, the
Conservation Effects Assessment Program. This is again, a
program we have across the country that partners with other
agencies and entities to best try to measure ways and collect,
and one of the emphases through CEAP is how we can best track
and collect that data.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. And I want to
thank our guests for being here.
Yes, it is my belief that our farmers and ranchers across
this nation are the true conservationists because they depend
on the land, the work day in and day out of caring for their
land and ensuring its health and vitality, and they do this and
they have for generations.
USDA conservation programs also play an important role in
these efforts.
My constituents in Georgia's 12th District contact my
office regularly asking for more information on the different
programs available to them as they continue to seek more ways
to enhance their current practices on their lands to not only
improve cultivation, but to help conserve and provide for
wildlife.
This is for both of our guests this morning.
What are the biggest obstacles agricultural producers face
when they attempt to adopt new practices that have been
encouraged on their land?
Mr. Lohr. That is a great question. And I will be brief.
I was in North Dakota last week visiting with a farmer in
the Red River Valley, and he was very progressive in his
approaches, but he was trying things that were clearly outside
the box where none of his neighbors were joining suit. And I
asked him that very question. How can we get more farmers to
implement good conservation?
And it really takes by a farmer understanding the
importance of soil health, being able to understand and then be
that farmer that is in the community on the cutting edge to be
able to model for other farmers as well.
Certainly cost is always an issue, but again, through our
programs with cost-share monies, we provide opportunities in
some cases up to a hundred percent, but clearly we try through
our conservation programs through our various partnerships is
to eliminate the cost as much as possible. Cost is one.
Not having the proper information. Again, we have soil
health scientists that are around the country that try to put
on seminars and workshops and field days, partnering with
extension agents and universities to try to get the word out so
farmers understand the practices that are available and the
programs that are available.
A combination of it is hard to break that cycle of it has
never been done before and cover crops won't work, or we can't
use no-till conservation here, but we have to have soil health
champions that are willing to be on the leading edge. We have
to have our staff that is willing to be engaged to tell the
story, and we have to rely on our partners, again to show that
these opportunities are out there.
Mr. Allen. Anything to add, Mr. Fordyce?
Mr. Fordyce. Yes, Congressman.
I would echo what the Chief said; but, farmers in general
are early adopters of technology. They are early adopters of
conservation practices because there is that philosophical
desire to do the right thing.
And I would say that a lot of conversations that I have had
long before I had this job was that there has to be patience.
There has to be patience and there has to be that network as
the Chief referenced, whether it is Federal agencies, land-
grant universities and other partners that help us get
conservation on the land and adopt those new technologies and
those new practices.
But a lot of times it is patience.
Mr. Allen. Do you see as a follow up--obviously we are here
to listen today and to react to the needs of our constituents
and particularly in agriculture. What can we do as a body, as
the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle, to
help you with these challenges?
And that is for both of you.
Mr. Lohr. Well, I think you certainly went a long way
towards joining that with the passage of the farm bill. The
conservation title was extremely generous and we are as an
agency, along with FSA, are excited to get these rules and
regulations written so we can streamline, that we can look at
how we can better serve all of the facets of agriculture.
I appreciate the support you guys have done. I think now
having hearings like this are great, because hopefully this
hearing will be picked up and the media will talk about the
things that we have done, and hopefully there will be folks out
there around the country that will listen and understand and
learn about maybe programs and agreements that are out there
that they didn't know about.
Mr. Allen. Communication is key?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I think communication absolutely.
Mr. Allen. Or education, educating our folks out there to
what is available.
Mr. Fordyce. And I might just go one step further. I think
there is a really good story to tell in agriculture, whether
you are from Georgia or whether you are from Virginia or
California or Maine, and the Members telling that good story
and talking about the good things that are happening in
agriculture across this country can certainly help go a long
way too.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. It is a good story. Thank you very
much.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. I thank the Members for their
questions, and we are going to proceed with a second round of
questions for the Members who remain here.
And so I begin by recognizing myself for another 5 minutes.
For both of the witnesses today, sometimes producers will
have a main point of contact at either NRCS or FSA, and so they
will go to their regular agent with an issue, but it may be
actually that their issue is covered by the other agency.
I have heard personally from my constituents about cases of
lapsed communication where a conservation issue that they could
have gotten assistance for was actually not addressed because
the agency they approached first didn't refer them or the
agency wasn't able to address their question.
Could you both address how you will encourage communication
between your field agents in the same region and how the farm
production and conservation reorganization will impact this
issue?
Mr. Fordyce. Absolutely. And, Madam Chair, that is an
excellent question and it is something that the Chief and I
visit about a lot.
We collaborate, not only the Chief and I, but our staffs
here in Washington. When the Secretary had a vision of bringing
together a new mission area that brought together the three
agencies that are the most farmer-facing. RMA, NRCS and FSA to
come together as one mission area and really, really work hard
on collaboration and put a focus on if we are going to provide
exceptional customer service to our farmers, ranchers, and
forest stewards across this country, those three agencies have
to be lockstep and working together. I think that message comes
from the top, and the Chief and I certainly promote that and
talk about that.
NRCS has State Conservationists, we have state executive
directors that are carrying that message as well about
collaboration and working together.
I know our Secretary would not be happy to hear that a
producer went into an office and did not experience exceptional
customer service, and so it is our responsibility to make sure
that that happens. And I think with bringing the agencies
together under one mission area, I believe in my mind that it
is happening and, but we have some work to do maybe in some
parts of the country to do a better job.
Mr. Lohr. If I can comment again, if that is okay?
We have roughly about 2,000 shared offices across the
country between FSA and NRCS, and again, the goal for us is for
a farmer to walk in the door who has an issue and the staff
works back and forth both ways to direct them in the proper
direction, whether they need FSA help or NRCS help as well.
As the Administrator said, our vision is certainly to have
that collaboration throughout the country, and again, if there
are individual situations in offices where there isn't that
collaboration, certainly we want to make sure that the area
leaders and the state leaders know that we can address that
because that is not the vision that we are trying to set from
here in Washington.
The Chair. I appreciate your work on that and I hope that
we are able, we as Members of this Committee or Members of
Congress, can ensure that our constituents understand where
they can best go for services. And I thank you for your
commitment to serving individual producers.
For a second question, it is about the EQIP Program. The
Environmental Quality Incentives Program or EQIP is widely used
by farmers and ranchers in my district, and Chief Lohr, the
most recent agricultural Census revealed some bright spots for
conservation. More farms are implementing conservation
practices, reduced tillage practices increased by 21 percent,
and land planted with cover crops increased by over 15 million
acres. This is very good news in the areas I represent in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The 2018 Farm Bill does offer increased payment rates for
cover crops resource-conserving crop rotation, and rotational
grazing, and what plans are in store for the Department to
promote these practices to farmers and producers?
Mr. Lohr. And I appreciate your in-depth knowledge of what
EQIP does. It is great to hear that you understand the program
and you support it.
As I said earlier, we are in the process now of formulating
the rules and regulations that we will be rolling out later
this year, and it is going to be exciting for farmers to
actually see what is going to be available.
Our job is to communicate and educate the best that we can
starting here in D.C. with our public affairs team to
administer press releases and working individually with our
state offices all the way through to our district offices
across the country.
I can assure you that once we have new programs and
exciting changes, we will do our best to make sure that we are
being able to get the word out, starting with our State
Conservationists filtered all the way down to our district
offices through social media, through press releases, through
partnering with other entities and partners so they can help
spread the word as well.
Again, this is good news. We are excited to have the
opportunity, but it doesn't do any good if our producers are
unaware.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Ranking Member LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Chair Spanberger.
Back to Chief Lohr on the question I alluded to in the
beginning.
Again, we have a situation where we are importing a
tremendous amount of timber and lumber products to this country
and we have all this inventory, especially in the western
states, that is burning up or at least causing a hazardous
situation and causing more harm--the density of the forests is
causing harm to it itself. Because if we are having a drought
situation, then you can see that you are not going to have a
winning combination there, trees starving for limited water
supply.
What we need in my view, and I want to see what your
thoughts are on how we can develop more of the markets for the
wood products that come domestically, help these family
landowners and on public lands to feed the manufacturing and
the biomass, which we need a lot more of on the green energy
side of it.
How can NRCS be helping, NRCS be working with more local
markets, more domestic markets for utilizing biomass for
energy, or the lumber, the timber that we still need in this
country, and utilize more of what we grow domestically for own
communities and our own economy and our own fire safety, for
wildfire mitigation, et cetera?
How can we kick that up significantly as what we are
facing?
Mr. Lohr. Well, I appreciate your question. It is certainly
a good one.
I will say I think the answer comes back to being able to
look at partnerships.
Obviously, we are in the conservation business, so our job
is to work with the individual landowners to have the best
conservation practices on their operation that they can manage
their forests. When it gets into the marketing of products,
that is a little bit out of our wheelhouse, but within USDA
there are other agencies that focus on that. I would say the
Agricultural Marketing Service, for example.
Certainly, if there is a need that you can bring to us, we
could certainly reach out to other agencies to try to begin a
dialogue and kind of let them know the issues that we heard and
see if there is some communications that can take place.
But again----
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly, underlining domestically grown,
domestically harvested as an offset for the inventory and the
wildfire risk that is just making forests, so I will stop.
Mr. Lohr. Yes. Well, I appreciate you bringing the issue to
us. We will be happy to follow back up with you for more
details and maybe our team can try to help get you pointed in
the right direction with an agency that might be able to be
able to take the lead in that.
But we will certainly be able to follow back up.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. And I know the Secretary is taking great
interest in that as well.
For both of you on the panel here as well, again, a lot of
discussion about climate policy, maybe as regards to the Green
New Deal. That is a bit of a moving target, but how are we
going to specify this?
There are a lot of concerns that some of these ideas of
this policy would be pretty negatively impactful to farmers who
I find by and large are the best stewards of the land that is
in use, and always on the cutting edge of trying to utilize
better practices. Discussions about dictating land use and
maybe less and less beef or meat in our diets.
Coming back to voluntary incentive-based success, can you
speak to the success of how that relates to carbon
sequestration and the wins we are having there when it is done
integral with the voluntary activities or innovation that
happens on the farm? Because what I find is that so many of the
ideas do come from local innovation.
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I can speak from FSA's perspective and
NRCS and the carbon sequestration that takes place on the 22\1/
2\ million acres of CRP, and we mentioned that earlier, an
estimated 34 million metric tons.
But, what is interesting, that I found to be interesting
since becoming the Administrator, is the amount of analysis
that we do that supports or gives us information on the
programs that we do.
We have a group within the business center at FPAC that
does analysis, environmental analysis, economic analysis of the
programs that we do, again voluntary, voluntary programs from a
producer's perspective, that are communicated out, and there we
have access to those things that can really tell a story, tell
the tale of what are we accomplishing.
Certainly, I couldn't speak to those because they can get
pretty technical, but we are measuring from the things that we
do as an agency, but I know that other voluntary efforts that
go beyond the things that NRCS or the things that FSA do, there
are better ways to measure success. And so the more that we
know, the more that we can document, and the more that we can
prove goes a long way to telling the story about voluntary
conservation.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Florida--
oh, I am sorry, from Maine.
Ms. Pingree. A lot of Mainers go to Florida in the winter,
and we want them to come back now. It is summer.
Well, thank you. And I just want to thank Mr. LaMalfa for
that question, because again, I think that is part of what I
was trying to get at before.
The first thing people say when they are talking about
climate change is, ``Oh, you will never have a hamburger
again,'' or kind of put this fear in and talk about the
problems that they see farmers creating. And I really
appreciate the work that is being done to help people
understand the important role the farmers play in carbon
sequestration, and appreciate you mentioning the CEAP program
to me. I wasn't that familiar with it, so I will do a little
work understanding that.
But, there are a lot of ways that the USDA can be helpful,
frankly, in helping people to understand just what the myths
and what the truths are and the work you are already doing that
is really extensive to help farmers sequester carbon. The
sooner that farmers can participate in a carbon market, which
could potentially be an extra source of income for them, which
no farmer is going to say no to, it will be really helpful.
Again, thank you for that and I will look forward to
continuing to talk with you about that so we can kind of get
people into the reality of what farmers do. But I really do
think there is a big role for the USDA to play in promoting
what you are already doing in a sense and helping people
understand this climate debate in a different way, and putting
farmers in a different light.
I wanted to ask you about a different program. I am really
interested in the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program,
and I am really glad to see robust funding for that. I would
just like to hear you talk a little bit about the importance of
it.
Administrator Lohr, you maybe have it on your farm, so you
probably have some personal experience. I know it is just these
easements have been really important in our state, and can you
talk about their importance and what we can do with increased
funding?
Mr. Lohr. I will warn you, I get excited when I talk about
easement, so I don't want use up the whole time.
Ms. Pingree. That is good. You go right ahead.
Mr. Lohr. But yes, so on our farm we placed permanent
conservation easements 2 years ago. I have six children and it
is important to me as a fifth-generation farmer that that land
can stay in ag production forever.
Our ACEP Program really has two components, the ALE which
is the ag land component and WRE which is the wetland reserve
component, so it allows some flexibility no matter where you
are across the country or what your ultimate goal is to be able
to make sure that land can be--the development rights can be
taken away in the ALE example, and that land will have to stay
in an agricultural use forever.
The beauty of it is we have partners, so there are land
trusts and agencies around the country that partner with us
that provide cash matches and assistance and actually will hold
the easements. And basically a farmer then will be compensated
for the value of that development that they forego and then
they are able to enhance the land, take that money and improve
the operations. There have been so many success stories of
farms that were able to take the money that they received from
those development rights and invest it back into the business,
to add an ice cream operation or some neat things like that to
ensure that viability for the next generation.
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Mr. Lohr. ACEP is one of my favorite programs to talk
about.
And then on the wetlands side, I was just in North and
South Dakota last week and got to see land that is very
environmentally sensitive. It doesn't make good environmental
sense for farmers to try to farm this area when it is flooding
every third year. There is a lot of erosion efforts that are
being neglected, so the WRE allows them to basically, whether
it is for 30 years or for a permanent easement, that land is
taken out of production, restored back to the original wetlands
and habit flourishes, native grasses flourish. It can really be
a wonderful example of how the land was supposed to be.
I think that the ACEP program accomplishes both of those
missions with our working lands and with our wetlands. I am a
proud supporter and proud to say that we have permanent
easements placed on our farm forever.
Thank you for the question.
Ms. Pingree. No, that is great.
Another important component of it that people don't often
recognize as part of this climate change debate is that we are
losing farmland quickly, and I can't remember the number off
the top of my head, but it is like acres per hour. It is so
much.
But what people often don't calculate is that every time
you lose an acre of farmland you are very likely increasing the
climate change issue, the carbon in our atmosphere, because if
it is turned over to development there is a very good chance
that is more homes, more cars, more concrete, and less land to
sequester the carbon. It just exacerbates the cycle.
Very quickly as I am almost out of time, but do you want to
say anything good about the climate hubs? We just visited with
the University of Maine, our land-grant college, and they were
just really excited about the relationship they have with the
ten, one of the ten climate hubs, and there is a little bit of
decreased funding among the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, so we are anxious to keep that funding there, but
it is kind of an accumulation of different agency funding.
Can you talk about their importance as we move forward in
this discussion?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely. Well, there are ten climate hubs
around the country and they provide amazing data collection. We
need to study what is happening with the environment, the
impacts that the work that we are doing have on the climate.
And again, it captures that information so we can make wise and
informed decisions, so I think the climate hubs that USDA has
are very important and I am sure there are many that would
appreciate increased funding for them, so.
Ms. Pingree. That is good. Thank you. I yield back.
Thank you, Madam.
The Chair. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Allen. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for continuing
this important conversation we are having.
As far as USDA conservation, we have partnerships with and
they provide a voluntary incentive-based way for a private
landowner, farmer, or rancher to enhance these conservation
practices.
Some programs require partnerships with wildlife groups or
land trusts to help foster these projects and conservation
efforts on their lands.
For those not familiar with this, on the Committee, can you
provide an example of how these partnerships work and how they
ultimately benefit the land, water, and wildlife habitats?
Mr. Lohr. I will be quick. I don't want to take the
Administrator's time.
Again, another one of the neat projects that we do, there
are several, Working Lands for Wildlife is one, the Healthy
Forest Reserve Program, another one.
I will just mention briefly, a couple weeks ago I was down
in the panhandle of Florida near Pensacola and through RCPP and
HFRP, they had an agreement with 4,000 acres through the
Healthy Forest Reserve Program where they were able to partner
with various groups and agencies, fish and wildlife, where they
placed permanent conservations on almost 4,000 acres of land.
They were able to put plans together to market and to make sure
those forestlands are managed through the Long Leaf Pine
Initiative. Very exciting stuff. They bring in the economic
aspects, but the really cool part about these programs is the
habitat component that you mentioned.
The Gopher Tortoise is a threatened species in that part of
the world, and they were able to partner with Fish and Wildlife
to put habitat plots throughout the property to increase the
opportunity for the Gopher Tortoise to thrive. That is just one
example where it takes many different agencies, partners to
come together to accomplish a lot of missions, but that species
component and the habitat component is really a neat addition.
Again, Working Lands for Wildlife is a similar program as
well that combines lots of different partners together
accomplishing good things at the end.
Mr. Fordyce. I would just mention, Congressman, the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and previous to the
2018 Farm Bill the partners in the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program were states. New language in the new farm
bill allows for partners to be NGOs, for example, to be able to
help offset the producers' costs, in some cases contribute to
those, to the payment to the producer.
But the fact that we are able to open that up to other
partners I think it is going to be meaningful.
In my mind when we open that up to other partners, we have
talked a lot this morning about outreach and communication, and
the more folks that we have that are participating from a
contribution standpoint they are going to help get the word out
as well, and not only get the word out about it is available to
sign up, but also get the word out about the accomplishments
that those practices are doing.
I am very excited about entering into those new agreements
with folks other than just states.
Mr. Allen. How about on our federally-owned forestlands
where we are having problems with management? Are we making any
efforts to deal with that issue? I know that the farm bill did
address some of those issues, but there is this big debate
about, ``Okay, how do you manage it properly from an
environmental standpoint.'' Have you addressed any of that?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir. Obviously, public lands typically fall
under the space of the U.S. Forest Service, but I will say that
we do look for ways that we can continue to collaborate and
partner, and one of the programs that we do is called the Joint
Chiefs Landscape Restoration Initiative.
There are two chiefs at the USDA, the Forest Service and
NRCS, and this idea was born about 7 years ago where both
agencies are able to put money together. There is a ranking and
an application process that we could look at large-scale
projects that involve both public and private lands together.
Looking at how we can restore lands, we can again embrace
wildlife habitat and really bring projects together that do
encompass those public lands that you mentioned to have a more
positive environmental effort.
Again, we are always looking for ways to partner. Most
public land restoration work, again with the Forest Service,
but we certainly want to look for those opportunities of
collaboration.
Mr. Allen. Okay. Well, I am out of time.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member to
make any closing remarks that he may have.
Mr. LaMalfa. Could it be like on Jeopardy in the form of a
question?
The Chair. It may be.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Just one last one for the panel. I do appreciate your time
and your follow up that you will be providing for the Members
of this Committee today. And again, to Chair Spanberger thank
you for making this happen today.
Coming back under EQIP where the farm bill created new
authority known as the conservation incentive payments, we
talked about simplified contracting authority. Many inquiries
come in from our constituents about how this can be made to
work and how they can also provide greater input on shaping
these programs locally as region by region things are different
crop by crop, et cetera.
Can you give us any guidance just real quick, I don't want
to take the whole 5 here, but on how to best have locally-led
input as tailored to local producers, et cetera?
Mr. Lohr. Thank you for your question, and the beauty of
NRCS is we are locally-led. That has been our motto and our
theme for almost 85 years, because all conservation begins at
the local level.
These conservation incentive payments is a new feature that
we will be rolling out in 2020, but I would certainly encourage
the producers who have an interest to get involved with the
local work group. Every district office of NRCS has a local
work group that meet. They shape policy that gets pushed up to
the State Technical Committee.
And as you mentioned perfectly, agriculture is so
different, not only state to state, but locality to locality,
so this is an opportunity for farmers to get involved with that
local level and kind of share what is needed. What are the
types of things that would make them be a more efficient and
more effective farmer and then allow that information then to
proceed up to the State Technical Committee to make those
decisions on how best to implement those features.
So, thank you for your question.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, thank you.
I like to get as much as I can out of a panel when I have
you here, so thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Absolutely.
I want to thank our witnesses again today for their time.
This conversation is essential as we increase collaboration
between the USDA, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and
farmers across our districts and our country.
I am interested in exploring and expanding upon what works
and I believe we have started down that path today.
We have had great conversations about carbon sequestration,
identifying heir farms, biomass for energy, domestic timber
consumption, easements, and climate hubs, and the value of
really data-driven discussions and decisions.
And the programs we have been discussing today encourage
farmers and landowners to pursue even more innovative ways of
conserving our natural resources.
All at once we can make our production more economically
viable and more sustainable all while hearing directly from
crop and livestock producers about their concerns.
I thank Congressman LaMalfa. I thank all the Members of the
Committee for being here today, and to the witnesses, thank you
so much for your time and for your engagement.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Questions
Response from U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question 1. On May 11, 2017, USDA announced the creation of the
Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area as part of a
larger Departmental reorganization. FPAC now includes NRCS, FSA, and
the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Can you give the Committee an update
on the merger of FSA, NRCS and RMA under the same mission area? What
challenges or benefits have you seen with this new structure?
Answer. Secretary Perdue established the FPAC Mission Area as part
of the creation of the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Mission
Area as provided for in the 2014 Farm Bill. Serving common customers--
the nation's farmers and ranchers--FPAC was created to deliver
commodity, conservation, credit, crop insurance, and disaster programs.
Under the domestic agriculture-focused Mission Area, we can focus on
improving customer service, improving and streamlining program
delivery, and using technology to meet growing producer interest in
digital solutions.
Since creation of the FPAC Mission Area in May 2017, the FPAC
Business Center was established in October 2018 to provide enterprise-
wide mission support to FSA, NRCS, and RMA, which retained their roles
and responsibilities while benefiting from a realigned focus on service
to farmers and ranchers.
A key success has been the creation of the farmers.gov online
portal. When fully developed, our customers will have the option to
transact business with FPAC agencies in an authenticated environment.
Extensive information is available to the public through farmers.gov.
In addition, FSA's borrowers can view significant information regarding
their lending activity and producers were also able to enroll online
for the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP) and the
Market Facilitation Program.
Another success has seen a significant increase in the
collaboration of the three agencies as we strive to increase service to
producers. WHIP required extensive coordination of policy and data from
FSA and RMA.
Under Secretary Perdue's ``One USDA'' concept, we have also been
able to use workload and other data, as well as our valuable county-
level footprint to ensure that employee vacancies are placed in areas
where they can be the most productive to service our customers.
Internally, we have consolidated mission support functions into a
FPAC Business Center to provide enterprise-level service and to free
FSA, NRCS, and RMA to focus on mission delivery. The Business Center is
also working on improving service through continuous process
improvement of hiring, budget, information technology, internal
reviews, fleet management, and office leasing.
We have, for example, deployed vehicle sharing across the Mission
Area which has increased utilization of our fleet. We have initiated an
aggressive strategy to reshape and optimize our fleet including a fleet
reduction effort in FY 2018 that eliminated 1,042 vehicles. We are
working to achieve a fully optimized fleet by the end of calendar year
2019 where vehicles achieve the departmental standard for miles driven
per year and/or expected days of use. An optimized fleet will ensure
FPAC has the right type vehicle for the needed work and the return on
investment from these vehicles is maximized for customer service and
the taxpayer.
We are also reengineering internal business practices used by FSA,
NRCS, and RMA to increase transparency, accuracy, and effectiveness of
conducting internal operations which include manual and automated
environments. These business practices range from Federal and non-
Federal hiring, budget formulation and executive, development and
implementation of agreements, internal reviews, and other disciplines.
Though reengineering is comprehensive and painstaking, we anticipate
significant improvements over the coming months.

Question 2. The 2018 Farm Bill provided extra tools to help farmers
and ranchers tackle a variety of resource concerns. The Secretary, and
rightly so, has focused a great deal of time and energy on customer
service. However, staffing for both NRCS and FSA has continued to
decline in recent years. What impact have these vacancies had on the
ability to administer conservation programs?
Answer. The FPAC Mission Area, including FSA and NRCS, recognize
the critical staff capacity needed at the field level to meet customer
needs by delivery programs and services. Both agencies established
targets to ensure that a minimum of 90 percent of the workforce is in
field positions and 90 percent of all positions are at General Schedule
(GS) grades 12 and below (that is, customer-facing positions). While
national-level positions are essential to providing policy direction,
program development and administration, and oversight and
accountability, customer-facing positions take precedence and represent
the majority of FSA and NRCS hiring.
It is a significant challenge to achieve mission delivery
expectations, including implementation of a new farm bill. There are
currently 1,744 new hiring actions in progress in FSA and NRCS alone.
Of these new hiring actions, 471 selections have been made and
candidates are in the process of on-boarding into their new positions.
At the same time, FSA has almost 800 temporary employees and student
trainees on board, while NRCS has 367. By later in 2019, we expect both
FSA and NRCS to be much closer to their authorized position levels.

Question 3. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized a new EQIP conservation
incentive contract that provides annual payments for addressing
priority resource concerns over several years. Mr. Lohr, are these new
contracts available for the FY 2019 EQIP sign-up? How do these
contracts differ from the CSP contracts? Have they had any impact on
the FY 2019 CSP sign-up process?
Answer. NRCS plans to offer the new Incentive Contracts in FY 2020
upon publication of the EQIP interim rule. While the current interim
rule is under review, NRCS is excited to offer this new enrollment
opportunity to producers and is carefully examining options to ensure
that it does not duplicate enrollment options available under the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). NRCS believes that the new
Incentive Contracts can help bridge the gap between traditional EQIP
contracts and CSP. NRCS believes that there are key differences between
Incentive Contracts and CSP contracts such as contract length, specific
targeting of resource concerns, and the extent of the operation that is
included in the contract.

Question 4. Mr. Lohr, in the broader debate regarding energy and
climate policy options, agricultural and land use activities have
played a central role. Many of the voluntary, incentive-based, farm
bill conservation programs provide assistance to producers for
activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon
sequestration. Can you provide some examples of successful practices?
Answer. Here are a few examples of how producers are helping
conserve natural resources.

Soil Health: NRCS recommends ten practices to boost soil
health, which improve soil organic matter; reduce emissions
from soils and equipment; and promote healthier soils
nationwide.

Nitrogen Stewardship: Farmers are reducing nitrous oxide
emissions and providing cost savings by focusing on the right
timing, type, placement, and quantity of nutrients.

Livestock Partnerships: Producers are using anerobic
digestors, impermeable covers, and other practices on dairy and
swine operations. Anerobic digestors are facilities that
provide biological treatment of animal waste in the absence of
oxygen. They help manage odors, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce pathogens, and capture biogas for energy
production.

Grazing and Pasture Lands: Ranchers using prescribed grazing
systems can manage for better forage as well as more climate-
friendly and more resilient grazing lands.

Private Forest Management: In working forests, NRCS helps
forest landowners use sustainable forestry practices that yield
healthier, more diverse forests which provide for better
harvests and wildlife habitat and sequester carbon.

Conservation of Sensitive Lands: Through ACEP and CRP, NRCS
and FSA are helping conserve wetlands, grasslands, valuable
farmlands, and other sensitive landscapes. Restoring these
lands to native vegetation helps with carbon sequestration.

NRCS is also using the Conservation Innovation Grants and
other programs to better quantify outcomes of these practices
as they relate to carbon sequestration and air quality, as well
as better prepare producers who want to participate in
environmental markets.

NRCS is a core partner in the USDA Climate Hubs, which
ensure that farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have
access to the best science-based information on management
practices, decision tools, and climate and weather data and
trends. They are assisting all USDA agencies in disseminating
information on-line and through networks and demonstration
plots.

Question 5. NRCS conservation practice standards have long served
as the foundation for agricultural conservation activity in this
country. The farm bill requires NRCS to review each conservation
practice standard and evaluate opportunities to increase flexibility in
their application and use. Can you tell me what you are doing to ensure
the agency is updating the current conservation practice standard
process to enable an adaptive management process that works for more
farmers and is able to keep up with the rapid technological change and
the drive for innovation and experimentation in the field?
Answer. Each national conservation practice standard is to be
formally reviewed at least once every 5 years from its date of issuance
or date of review. There are 169 conservation practice standards and 13
innovative trial practice standards.
Currently, NRCS is performing an expedited review of every national
conservation practice standard as required by the 2018 Farm Bill. NRCS
released a Federal Register notice soliciting public feedback on any
current conservation practice standard on March 29, 2019. In addition,
NRCS held a public hearing and is offering review opportunities with
State Technical Committees, partners, and any other interested parties.
NRCS received more than 100 comments on the Federal Register notice
and is now reviewing comments and updating the standards. The expedited
review and update are targeted for completion by December 2019.

Question 5a. States can identify high-priority conservation
practices to be eligible for higher 90 percent payment rates through
EQIP. Will NRCS provide guidance to states on the types of practices
eligible for higher 90 percent payment rates?
Answer. Determining the amount of financial assistance available is
a two-step process:
Step 1:

NRCS uses payment schedules to document estimated incurred
costs and foregone income to arrive at a payment rate; and

Interdisciplinary teams develop regional scenarios to
produce State-specific payment schedules.

Step 2:

The NRCS Chief delegates authority to the State
Conservationist, with input from State Technical Committees,
partners, or other stakeholders to set the payment percentage
for each program within each State and payment schedule; and

State Technical Committees and Local Work Groups make
recommendations specific to:

Practices and program payment percentages for
conservation programs that support program objectives and
State and local priorities; and

Program payment percentages documented in practice
payment schedules and maximum payment.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Staffing for both NRCS and FSA has declined over the
years. There is now an unusually large number of vacancies in local
field offices. What impact have these vacancies had on the ability of
both agencies in the administration of conservation programs and
activities for farmers and ranchers? What actions is the Administration
undertaking to address the vacancies and staffing shortages? Are the
current resources meeting the demands of farmers and ranchers? How
could they be improved?
Answer. NRCS's authorized staffing level was 10,800 positions in FY
2018. This reflected approval of 400 new, customer-facing positions in
field offices. The President's FY 2019 Budget Request for NRCS reduced
this figure by 882 positions because NRCS transitioned these mission
support positions and associated funding to the newly established Farm
Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center.
We have a multi-pronged plan to aggressively address the Mission
Area's hiring needs which includes:

Adding temporary surge support within human resources to
address the remaining hiring actions and reduce the number of
vacancies;

Establishing open continuous announcements for common
positions, such as Soil Conservationist, Soil Conservation
Technician, and Engineers. By current certificates of eligible
candidates, NRCS hiring managers can more readily identify,
select, and on-board qualified staff for these critical
positions;

Reengineering business processes to streamline Federal and
non-Federal hiring procedures to improve timeliness,
efficiency, and effectiveness;

Digitizing manual hiring processes to improve FPAC's
accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness by building consistent
processes, roles, and responsibilities into system workflows[;]

Leveraging robotic process automation and other artificial
intelligence tools, where appropriate, to achieve even greater
accuracy, timeliness, and efficiencies especially for data
extraction and entry; and

Standardizing position descriptions which streamlines
classification of jobs and posting vacancy announcements.

It is a significant challenge to achieve mission delivery
expectations, including implementation of a new farm bill, at current
staffing levels, but aggressive actions are underway to fill critical
field positions. There are currently 1,744 new hiring actions in
progress in FSA and NRCS alone. Of these new hiring actions, 471
selections have been made and candidates are in the process of on-
boarding into their new positions. At the same time, FSA has almost 800
temporary employees and student trainees on-board, while NRCS has 367.
By later in 2019, we expect both FSA and NRCS to be much closer to
their authorized position level as they catch up on historic and new
attrition and the rate of hiring exceeds the attrition rate.

Question 2. Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) is the backbone
of USDA's farm bill conservation programs. Through CTA funding, NRCS
field staff is able to work directly with farmers to develop and
implement personalized conservation plans. Please describe how CTA
supports conservation practices on farms and ranches across the
country.
Answer. CTA Program funding is used to:

Provide conservation technical assistance to individuals or
groups of decision makers, and to communities, conservation
districts, units of State, Tribal and local government, and
others to voluntarily conserve, maintain, and improve natural
resources;

Provide collaborative community, watershed, and area-wide
technical assistance with units of government so they can
develop and implement resource management plans that conserve,
maintain, and improve our natural resources at appropriate
scales;

Provide conservation technical assistance to help
agricultural producers comply with the Highly Erodible Land
(HEL) and wetlands conservation (WC) compliance determinations
required under Farm Bill Conservation Compliance requirements;

Provide conservation technical assistance to aid private
landowners in complying with other Federal, state, Tribal, and
local environmental regulations and related requirements, and
prepare them to become eligible to participate in other
Federal, state, and local conservation programs;

Collect, analyze, interpret, display, and disseminate
information about the status, condition, and trends of soil,
water, and related natural resources so people can make
informed decisions for natural resource use and management;

Assess the effects of conservation practices and systems on
the condition of natural resources; and

Develop, adapt, and transfer effective science-based
technologies and tools for assessment, management, and
conservation of natural resources.

Question 3. The President's FY20 budget proposal cuts 10%, or more
than $70 million, from the Conservation Technical Assistance program.
How would this proposed cut impact conservation on the ground?
Answer. NRCS is committed to delivering conservation service and
assistance in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Through
our programs we are now able to leverage in-kind contributions, cost-
sharing, and matching funds that enable our agency dollars to go much
further and with a wider impact.

Question 4. Specific to general CRP, the most recent signup was
conducted in FY16 with a record low acceptance rate of contacts at 18%.
What plan does the Department have to utilize outreach and education
efforts perhaps with stakeholders to optimize acceptance rates?
Additionally, how does the Department plan to incorporate state-by-
state CRP allocations to bolster acceptance rates?
Answer. The acceptance rates were reflective of the large number of
applications received and the limited number of available acres
remaining under the CRP enrollment cap. Currently, 22.4 million acres
are enrolled in CRP which leaves 1.4 million acres available for
enrollment.
FSA is implementing a comprehensive communications plan for CRP
including news releases, social media, and outreach. State allocations
will be considered with the rollout of the CRP regulation implementing
the 2018 Farm Bill.

Question 5. As you know, I think we need a commonsense approach to
easements. We should not spend Federal money to create private hunting
reserves for individual landowners. We need better long-term management
of easements, including farm bill easements. And, it needs to be clear
who is responsible for managing the land. How will you get the word out
to state partners and NRCS offices about better management of land
under easement?
Answer. When NRCS purchases an easement from a landowner, the
agency does not pay full market value of the property. Rather, it pays
for the bundle of rights it is purchasing from the landowner. Upon
enrolling their farmed or converted wetland into NRCS' easement
programs, the landowner reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
use, such as hunting, fishing, and nature watching, and the right to
control who accesses the property (other than NRCS). While landowners
receive benefits through protecting their land with an easement, they
also relinquish certain property rights. Once enrolled, these easements
are restored and managed in a manner that provides large scale public
benefits such as improving water quality, reducing flooding, recharging
groundwater, sequestering carbon, creating habitat for threatened and
endangered species, and protecting biological diversity. NRCS is
currently updating its easement stewardship policies and designing
staff and partner training on easement stewardship topics including the
monitoring, enforcement, and long-term management of conservation
easements. As NRCS's easement portfolio grows, so will the workload
necessary to manage and maintain those protected acres and NRCS has
increased the percentage of appropriated easement funds used to manage
existing easements accordingly.

Question 6. How will you implement the 2018 Farm Bill change
authorizing incentives to increase public access to WRP and WRE land?
Answer. NRCS is in the early stages of developing the next
Voluntary Public Access Program--Habitat Improvement Program (VPA-HIP)
funding announcement and is incorporating into the announcement the
2018 Farm Bill incentive to increase public access to lands enrolled
through the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Wetlands Reserve
Easement (WRE) component of the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP). On May 6, 2019, NRCS also incorporated this priority
for increasing public access to WRP and WRE in the VPA-HIP regulations
through publication of the Miscellaneous Conservation Provisions
Interim Rule.

Question 7. What is the status of the Soil Health and Income
Protection Program (SHIPP) and when can we expect the Department to
announce a signup period?
Answer. FSA continues to analyze the provisions of SHIPP under the
2018 Farm Bill and will make announcements on plans to implement the
pilot subsequent to publication of the CRP regulation this fall.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question 1. Mr. Fordyce, the amount of land owned by African
Americans has plunged over the past century, from an estimated 15
million acres to about 2 million nationally. According to the USDA,
heirs property has been the leading cause of black involuntary land
loss. The 2018 Farm Bill included a provision enabling farmers
operating on land with undivided interests to secure FSA farm numbers
and thereby qualify for farm and conservation programs. Mr. Fordyce, do
you know who these farmers are and are you making contact with them?
Answer. Regulations are still being written to specifically address
the new heirs property Farm Bill Provision in Section 12615. Once
program regulations are written and finalized, the Outreach office will
conduct extensive outreach with national stakeholders and our 2,124
County Outreach Coordinators and 51 State Outreach Coordinators will
conduct outreach and informational sessions in States and counties
across the country.

Question 2. I appreciate all the work NRCS does to provide
reliable, up-to-date information regarding the delivery of conservation
programs. I also know NRCS is developing and expanding tools and
metrics to assess baseline conservation levels and improvements over
time at the landscape and field levels. Mr. Lohr, can you provide an
update on the different ways through which NRCS is currently working to
improve and coordinate conservation data collection? How do these
efforts align with 2018 Farm Bill programs and related changes NRCS is
rolling out in the year ahead?
Answer. Since 2003, NRCS and its partners have conducted CEAP
studies to quantify the environmental effects of conservation practices
and programs and to improve our understanding of how to manage
agricultural lands while also promoting environmental quality and
wildlife habitat.
By using a combination of national data sets, in-depth farmer
surveys, assessments at multiple scales, and modeling techniques, CEAP
has been able to document the benefits of voluntary conservation and to
better target limited programmatic resources to where they will have
the greatest impact.

Question 3. Farmers and ranchers across the country, and in my
district, are looking to access conservation assistance and benefit
from many of the important changes included in the 2018 Farm Bill.
During this time, it is critical that we are working to reach out to
and support those who have historically struggled to access USDA
assistance. This includes beginning, socially disadvantaged, limited
resource, and veteran farmers and ranchers. I am pleased that the farm
bill includes several important provisions to support these producers,
including much needed improvements to the EQIP Advance Payment option,
which provides all eligible participants the option to receive at least
50 percent of their EQIP cost share up-front. This important step
ensures these farmers and ranchers have the support they need to cover
the up-front costs associated with implementing critical conservation
practices. I understand that under the 2014 Farm Bill, many states did
not offer the advance payment option, even though it was available
nationwide. Mr. Lohr, can you provide an update on how NRCS is working
to promote these improvements and the availability of the EQIP Advance
Payment option, including education for field staff?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill changes the advance payment amount from
``not more than'' to ``at least'' 50 percent and adds a notification
requirement for producers to be notified at the time of enrollment of
the advance payment option, and that the producer's election be
documented. In FY 2019, NRCS is making available advance payments at 50
percent in coordination with the notification and election
requirements. NRCS will address the availability of greater than 50
percent as part of interim rule publication and FY 2020 implementation.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom O'Halleran, a Representative in
Congress from Arizona
Question 1. As you continue to develop the interim final farm bill
rules, will you recognize that a goal of the farm bill is to provide
the tools and flexibility to meet the needs of drought-stricken areas
in the west, consistent with legislative history?
Answer. FSA and NRCS are aware of the unique needs of producers who
have suffered due to drought and other disasters. We will continue to
make every effort to provide the tools and flexibility needed by
farmers and ranchers in these areas of the country consistent with the
law.

Question 2. Further, do you recognize recent unanimous
Congressional approval of Drought Contingency Plan authorizing
legislation, to support those seven state agreements, as demonstrating
Congressional intent to address drought in the West? Particularly the
Lower Basin States?
Answer. USDA is committed to working with the Department of the
Interior as they implement the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan
and enter into contingency plan agreements with the seven States.

Question 3. Farmers in my district agreed to the DCP agreement,
which included substantial voluntary forbearance of Colorado River
surface water, in anticipation of Federal support for the plan. Can
they trust NRCS to use the flexibility provided by the 2018 Farm Bill
programs, such as EQIP, RCPP and Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act, to support communities in my district and state in a
regionally equitable manner, that helps achieve the goals of the
Drought Contingency Plan? I trust that you and the NRCS can be counted
on to use every tool at your disposal to support that plan, and to
generally address Western drought issues.
Answer. NRCS recognizes the importance and complexity of addressing
the needs of the agricultural community in the face of the long-term
drought and the recently approved Drought Contingency Plan. Our
leadership and staff in Arizona are working closely with farmers and
other stakeholders in Maricopa and Pinal Counties most affected by
anticipated reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River.
Specifically, they are working to develop flexible approaches to using
our conservation authorities to address water quantity and other
resource challenges that may include RCPP, the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act, EQIP, CSP, CRP, and ACEP.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
Question 1. The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) currently
has over 70 million acres enrolled, helping producers improve their
land through financial and technical assistance. This is an important
program that was reauthorized by the 2018 Farm Bill. However, the
President's FY 2020 budget proposal calls for eliminating CSP entirely.
Mr. Lohr, can you talk about the impact that would have on
conservation?
Answer. Although the President's budget proposes to eliminate
funding for new enrollments and re-enrollments in the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) in favor of conservation programs that have
more documented positive outcomes, the President's Budget provides a
total of $4.95 billion for NRCS conservation programs, including $4.2
billion in mandatory conservation programs. In addition, the
President's Budget also proposes to provide $1.67 billion to support
new contracts, existing contracts, and reenrollments.

Question 2. How many NRCS positions have been eliminated in the
last 5 years?
Answer. Positions have not been eliminated; however, like other
Federal agencies, NRCS incurs attrition of staff each fiscal year
because of retirements, employees moving to jobs with other entities,
or separations for disciplinary or performance reasons.
The table below shows the attrition for NRCS since FY 2014,
including the ``year-to-date'' for FY 2019.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 952
2015 820
2016 848
2017 845
2018 970
2019 472
-----------------------------------
Total............................. 4,907
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average per fiscal year (not including partial FY 2019) is
887[.]
NRCS's authorized staffing level was 10,800 positions in FY 2018.
This reflects approval of 400 new, customer-facing positions in field
offices. The President's FY 2019 Budget Request for NRCS was reduced
this figure by 882 positions because NRCS transitioned these mission
support positions and associated funding to the newly established Farm
Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center.
We have a multi-pronged plan to aggressively address the Mission
Area's hiring needs which includes:

Adding temporary surge support within human resources to
address the remaining hiring actions and reduce the number of
vacancies;

Reengineering business processes to streamline Federal and
non-Federal hiring procedures to improve timeliness,
efficiency, and effectiveness;

Digitizing manual hiring processes to improve FPAC's
accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness by building consistent
processes, roles, and responsibilities into system workflows[;]

Standardizing position descriptions which streamlines
classification of jobs and posting vacancy announcements.

Question 3. How much funding has NRCS provided to support the USDA
Climate Hubs during each of the last 5 years?
Answer. USDA Climate Hubs Program is supported by multiple agencies
across the Department. NRCS funding to support the USDA Climate Hubs
for the last five years is below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Obligations Obligations Obligations Obligations Annualized CR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Climate Hub Funding 3,354,000 2,731,000 2,348,000 2,539,000 2,703,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Section 2504 of the 2018 Farm Bill gives USDA interim
authority to operate the conservation programs under the 2014 Farm Bill
regulations for the remainder of this fiscal year. The purpose is to
continue conservation delivery while working towards implementation of
the 2018 Farm Bill changes. Will the department have the conservation
programs up and running under the new rules by the end of September?
Answer. FSA continues to work at analyzing the numerous changes to
the text and structure of the Conservation Reserve Program statutory
language and intends to publish the regulation in the fall of 2019.
NRCS program teams are actively working on our new regulations and
plan to have them all in place for the FY 2020 program enrollment
periods.

Question 2. For many of America's farmers and ranchers, their
nearest NRCS office isn't even in their county. In the last 10 years,
offices across the nation have closed, significantly limiting access to
vital conservation resources. These roadblocks create a bottleneck in
the process as money sits at USDA waiting to be utilized. What are you
doing to ensure that agricultural producers are provided greater access
to funding and technical assistance?
Answer. NRCS has more than 2,500 offices in communities nationwide
with almost 8,000 employees in field locations who provide information,
tools, and direct assistance to producers with conserving, maintaining,
and enhancing their natural resources for the betterment of their
individual agriculture operations and their communities.
In February 2018, FPAC released farmers.gov--a dynamic, mobile-
friendly website that delivers information, tools, and first-hand
advice built around the needs of the people who grow the nation's food,
fiber, flora, and fuel. The external website serves as the customer
gateway and informational counterpart to an authenticated,
transactional portal where USDA customers can apply for programs,
process technical and financial transactions, and manage accounts. USDA
has built farmers.gov around customer needs and ideas through a
streamlined, farmer-centered approach--bringing the most usable
information together in a new way.
In March 2018, FPAC initiated a study to analyze its geographic
footprint, workload, and productivity relative to customers' needs and
locations. The Optimally Productive Office (OPO) study and tool
provides for a data-driven evaluation of our customers and their needs,
including their demographics, geographic locations, physiographic
characteristics of their lands, and line(s) of business. It answers
core questions such as:

Where are our customers, what are their greatest needs, and
how does that drive FPAC workload;

Are FPAC employees productive;

Which offices are servicing customers most efficiently and
effectively relative to its peers;

Are FPAC offices optimally located and staffed to deliver
quality customer service (to both current and potential
customers);

How can we optimize resources (e.g., staff, vehicles, office
spaces) and improve upon our ability to meet customer
expectations for quality service and technical outputs; and

Given customer locations and needs, are we utilizing current
office space efficiently and in a cost-effective manner?

The primary outputs of the efforts are robust dashboards. The
dashboards do not simply summarize rate data, they are sophisticated
analytical tools that integrate a wide array of data sets, each with
tens of thousands of data points, to show relationships and trends
across otherwise disparate sources.
The first phase of OPO, Productivity and Staffing, focused on
historical customer demand (i.e., workload by program and activity),
office productivity, and employees' geographical distribution. This
allows FPAC leaders to focus hiring on where customer need is greatest
and where leaders can ensure employees can be most productive.
FPAC used this data to direct the distribution of over 3,000 hiring
actions in FY 2018 and is doing the same in FY 2019. Additional
metrics, including an average of 93 percent of hiring at GS-12 and
lower grades, ensures that positions were deployed where the customer-
facing need is greatest.
The next phase of OPO, Geographic Footprint and Asset Allocation,
will quantify potential customers and unmet demand, analyze FPAC's
geographic footprint relative to existing and potential customers, and
optimize utilization of office spaces. The resulting tool will enable
FPAC leaders to optimally deploy and manage their resources across the
country.

Question 3. One thing we can all agree on is the importance of
voluntary conservation. It allows agricultural producers to improve the
quality of their soil and water, while also providing important
benefits to the community and environment. NRCS programs provide the
opportunity for farmers and ranchers to improve their practices without
burdensome regulation. However, over the years, farmers have shied away
from using conservation practices due to an increase in red tape and
decrease in available technical assistance. How do you believe that the
conservation planning process can be made more efficient and effective?
Answer. NRCS is developing software known as the Conservation
Assessment Ranking Tool (CART) to make the conservation planning
process more efficient and effective. CART incorporates the current
nine steps of NRCS conservation planning, as well as the programmatic
ranking for Farm Bill program financial assistance. CART provides one
software platform to field-office staff to work with a customer on
assessing the resource concern, addressing the resource concern with a
conservation activity, and determining all applicable Farm Bill
financial assistance program(s) to help finance the installation of the
conservation activity.

Question 4. While cost-share conservation programs are vital to
America's agricultural producers, these programs are often ineffective
without robust technical assistance. What are you doing to ensure that
NRCS's Conservation Technical Assistance program remains strong and
continues to grow?
Answer. The CTA Program has a long history as NRCS' conservation
planning program and the backbone to the Agency's core mission, helping
to develop and deliver conservation technologies and practices to
private landowners, conservation districts, Tribes, and other
organizations. Through the CTA program, NRCS helps land managers
develop comprehensive conservation plans that include activities that
reduce soil loss from erosion; address soil, water quality, water
conservation, air quality, and agricultural waste management concerns;
reduce potential damage caused by excess water and sedimentation or
drought; enhance the quality of fish and wildlife habitat; improve the
long-term sustainability of all private lands, including cropland,
forestland, grazing lands, coastal lands, and developed or developing
lands; and facilitate changes in land use as needed for natural
resource protection and sustainability.
Question Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Question 1. It is estimated that by 2050, the global demand for
food will be 60 percent higher than it is today. To meet this daunting
challenge, it is essential that farm conservation programs promote
technologies that will help growers produce more with less, while
preserving water and other natural resources.
Cloud-based remote telemetry data systems for irrigation scheduling
help growers maximize efficiency and increase productivity in a
scalable and cost-effective manner. For example, in field trials Omaha-
based Lindsay Corporation found that remote telemetry with cloud-based
irrigation scheduling allowed growers to realize:

A 3% increase in corn yield (driving profit of $25 per
acre);

A 17% reduction in water usage (saving more than 9.25
million gallons on a 130 acre field);

A $10/acre reduction in energy costs; and

A 75% reduction in time spent going back and forth to the
fields (another $5/acre saved).

The 2018 Farm Bill states that USDA may provide EQIP payments for
water conservation scheduling. The accompanying report goes on to state
that USDA should recognize remote telemetry data systems for irrigation
scheduling as a best management practice. I sincerely hope that NRCS'
irrigation efficiency conservation practice standard is updated to
incorporate this important water and energy saving tool.
What is NRCS' timeframe for updating its conservation practice
standards?
Answer. Each national conservation practice standard is to be
formally reviewed at least once every 5 years from its date of issuance
or date of review. There are 169 conservation practice standards and 13
innovative trial practice standards.
Currently, NRCS is performing an expedited review of every national
conservation practice standard as required by the 2018 Farm Bill. NRCS
released a Federal Register notice soliciting public feedback on any
current conservation practice standard on March 29, 2019. In addition,
NRCS held a public hearing and is offering review opportunities with
state technical committees, partners, and any other interested parties.
NRCS received more than 100 comments on the Federal Register and is
now reviewing comments and updating the standards. The expedited review
and update are targeted for completion by December 2019.

Question 1a. How does NRCS plan to educate states and growers about
changes to its conservation practice standards and about the benefits
of technology such as cloud-based remote telemetry data systems for
irrigation scheduling?
Answer. NRCS reviews and revises its Conservation Practice
Standards on a 5 year cycle. In conducting these reviews, comments are
solicited both internally from NRCS state offices and publicly through
a Federal Register Notice. Comments are taken into consideration and
applied to the standards as necessary. Once finalized, national
standards are released through an announcement of changes to the
National Handbook of Conservation Practices and placed on an NRCS
webpage. NRCS state offices then have 1 year to adopt the new national
version of the standard and add additional criteria to address state
laws and rules, as well as soils and climate. NRCS State offices work
with their respective State Technical Committees on the adoption of new
standards and criteria.
NRCS operates the Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN), a national
network consisting of 221 stations that measure soil moisture, soil
temperature, air temperature, precipitation, and many other climatic
parameters and provide this data in near real-time on the internet. In
areas where a SCAN station is in proximity, the data can be used to
manage irrigation, thereby reducing water use. The data also can be
used to determine when to plant based on soil temperature, access to
fields based on soil moisture, and many other crop management
practices.

Question 1b. Is NRCS working to incorporate water conservation
scheduling payments for technology such as cloud-based irrigation
scheduling tools into its EQIP regulations?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill offered many new opportunities for NRCS
to target water conservation. One such provision is the addition of
water management entities (such as state irrigation districts,
groundwater management district, Acequias, or similar entities) which
focuses on addressing water management issues across a larger
landscape. This provision also includes the opportunity for NRCS to
provide payments to producers or water management entities through EQIP
to adopt scheduling practices that balances crop water needs and
available water supplies with other water conservation needs (such as
protecting in-stream flows). NRCS will be incorporating these new
opportunities into the EQIP interim rule and implementation guidance.

[all]