[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 28, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-29
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-599 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
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
JOSH HARDER, California RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
KIM SCHRIER, Washington TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DON BACON, Nebraska
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
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
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 11
Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from Washington:
Submitted article............................................ 31
Submitted letters............................................ 33
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
Joint prepared statement..................................... 6
Submitted questions.......................................... 36
USDA submitted questions..................................... 45
Fordyce, Hon. Richard, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 9
Joint prepared statement..................................... 6
Submitted questions.......................................... 42
USDA submitted questions..................................... 45
HEARING TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2020
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,
O'Halleran, Axne, Schrier, Peterson (ex officio), LaMalfa,
Johnson, and Conaway (ex officio).
Staff present: Prescott Martin III, Felix Muniz, Jr., Anne
Simmons, Alison Titus, Josh Maxwell, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia
Straughn, Dana Sandman, and Justina Graff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
The Chair. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation
and Forestry to review implementation of farm bill conservation
programs will come to order.
Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone and thank
you all for joining us today as we review USDA's implementation
of the 2018 Farm Bill conservation programs.
In 2018, this Committee reauthorized the farm bill and
amended several of the conservation programs. Farmers in my
district in central Virginia know how important these
conservation programs are, because they use them to boost soil
health, improve water quality, protect wildlife habitat, and
reduce soil erosion. And by doing so, they can improve their
crop quality and increase their crop yields, all while better
adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
We are now a year in, and we are watching as those
conservation programs take shape. And I have been glad to see
an increased focus on important issues like soil health, water
quality, and water supply. Specifically, in the area of soil
health, the farm bill boosts incentives for soil health
practices like cover cropping, crop rotation, and advanced
grazing systems, all of which are utilized in my central
Virginia district. And a new Soil Health Demonstration Trial
provides financial assistance for soil health and carbon-
related practices, continuing efforts to test new and
innovative conservation approaches.
One of the advancements made in the 2018 Farm Bill was the
encouragement of conservation strategies at the local and
regional level. You can appreciate how important that is to my
district in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and districts across
the country. Our farmers in Virginia know what works for their
land and for their ecosystems, the land that they have operated
for generations, and they know it far better than anyone else.
Through voluntary conservation programs like the ones we
will talk about today, they are given more of a role in helping
to expand clean water and soil strategies in their own
operations.
Now, our focus should be on implementation and watching to
see what is working and what, if any, barriers there are to
making sure that each of these programs is operating in a way
that is consistent with what this Committee intended when it
wrote the bill, and what the overall goals of the programs are.
I look forward to receiving a candid look at those efforts, as
well as a discussion of the agency's rulemaking process.
But when we talk about implementation, we must also talk
about the staff doing the implementing. Programs, no matter how
good they are, or no matter how noble their goals may be, will
only ever be as good as the people delivering them. And because
of that, it is extremely important that both NRCS and FSA are
operating at full staff to achieve program benefits. And in
that regard, there are some serious questions about the ability
of other USDA agencies to retain and empower staff to achieve
their mission, and I want to ensure that that isn't an issue at
NRCS and FSA.
Furthermore, it is just as important that NRCS and FSA
staffers are enabled and equipped by their agencies to deliver
these programs in a manner that is consistent with what we want
them to achieve, and that means consistent and genuine
engagement with farmers and landowners on the ground.
We are not here today to challenge the Administration, bash
the Administration, nor are we here today to greenwash the
efforts already underway. We are here for an honest look at
where we stand, what is working, what needs more time, and I
look forward to hearing ideas from USDA and from my colleagues
on how we do just that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Good morning, and thank you for joining us today as we review
USDA's implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill conservation programs.
In 2018, this Committee reauthorized the farm bill and amended
several of the conservation programs. Farmers in my district in central
Virginia know how important these conservation programs are, because
they use them to boost soil health, improve water quality, protect
wildlife habitat, and reduce soil erosion. By doing that, they can
better adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change
So, we're a year in and we're watching as those conservation
programs take shape. I've been glad to see an increased focus on
important issues like soil health, water quality, and water supply.
Specifically, in the area of soil health, the farm bill boosts
incentives for soil health practices like cover cropping, crop
rotation, and advanced grazing systems. And, a new Soil Health
Demonstration Trial provides financial assistance for soil health and
carbon-related practices, continuing efforts to test new and innovative
conservation approaches.
One of the advancements made in the 2018 bill was the encouragement
of conservation strategies at the local and regional level. You can
appreciate how important that is to my district in the Chesapeake
Watershed. Our folks know what works for their land and for the
ecosystems they've operated in for generations far better than anyone
else. Through conservation programs like the ones we'll talk about
today, they're given more of a role in helping to expand clean water
and soil strategies in their own operations.
Now, our focus is on implementation and watching to see what's
working, and what if any barriers there are to making sure each of
these programs is operating in a way that is consistent with what this
Committee intended when we wrote the bill, and what the overall goals
of the program are. I look forward to receiving a candid look at those
efforts, as well as a discussion of the agencies' rulemaking process.
But when we talk about implementation, we must also talk about the
staff doing the implementing. Programs, no matter how good they look on
paper, or no matter how noble their goals may be, will only ever be as
good as the people delivering them. Because of that, it's extremely
important that both NRCS and FSA are operating at full staff to achieve
program benefits. In that regard, there is serious question about the
ability of other USDA agencies to retain and empower staff to achieve
their mission, and I want to ensure that isn't an issue at NRCS and
FSA.
Furthermore, it's just as important that NRCS and FSA staffers are
enabled and equipped by their agencies to deliver these programs in a
manner that's consistent with what we want them to achieve. That means
consistent and genuine engagement with farmers and landowners on the
ground.
We're not here today to bash the Administration, nor are we here to
greenwash the efforts already underway. We're here for an honest look
at where we stand, what's working, and what needs more time. I look
forward to hearing ideas from USDA and from my colleagues on how we do
that.
The Chair. And with that, I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from California,
Congressman LaMalfa.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Thank
you, panelists. I appreciate you, Chair Spanberger, for calling
this hearing today to update and review on the implementation
of these important conservation programs in the Agricultural
Improvement Act of 2018.
Over the course of 2019, we heard from many producers about
the benefits of the conservation and the assistance they
receive from the programs. I heard about many of the innovative
conservation practices that California producers are
implementing. We have, among many crops, \1/2\ million acres of
rice in the northern part of the state, which is ideal for some
of the habitat and conservation we are talking about, including
building healthy soils through cover cropping and reducing
inputs through the use of precision agriculture, are some of
these practices.
Additionally, when the Subcommittee reviewed the USDA
programs last spring, we did receive a good update from USDA.
We look forward to hearing more about the progress USDA is
making in implementing 2018 Farm Bill conservation programs
today.
Congress has prioritized voluntary incentive-based
conservation programs, which have achieved good bang for the
buck over the years, and certainly over the last several farm
bills, helping farmers and ranchers reduce soil erosion,
protect wetlands and wildlife habitat, and improve water
quality and quantity. In an effort to modernize the delivery of
these programs, the 2014 Farm Bill made significant reforms
consolidating over 20 conservation programs into 13, while
preserving the fundamental goals of these conservation
programs.
In writing the 2018 Farm Bill it included efforts by the
House Agriculture Committee to build upon these successes by
streamlining, simplifying, and improving program
administration. We also fought to protect mandatory funding in
the conservation title.
The 2018 Farm Bill includes more flexibility in the
delivery of CSP, a significant increase in funding for both
EQIP and ACEP, the establishment of Conservation Incentive
Payments, and separate funding allocations for RCPP, as well as
an increase in the acreage cap for CRP. In addition to these
improvements, we made significant investments in
infrastructure, emphasizing protection of drinking water
sources, created the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot
Program, expanded Conservation Innovation Grants, the CIG.
I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish as a
Committee, and I am very proud of the farmers and ranchers who
voluntarily participate in these conservation programs to
preserve not only their land, but also their way of life.
Thank you to our panelists again for being here today,
Chief Lohr and Administrator Fordyce, for taking time to update
us, and I thank each of you and your teams' support that was
essential to writing the farm bill, and then ultimately helping
the people in the field to implement it.
Thank you, Chair Spanberger. I will yield back.
The Chair. In consultation with Ranking Member and pursuant
to Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware
that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Conaway for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. I have no statement. Thank you very much.
The Chair. Thank you. The chair would request that other
Members submit their opening statements for the record so
witnesses may begin their testimony, and to ensure that there
is ample time for questions.
I would like to welcome our witnesses today. Thank you very
much for being here. It is my pleasure and privilege to welcome
Mr. Matthew Lohr, the Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service at the United States Department of
Agriculture. 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, and prior to
NRCS, Mr. Lohr served as Virginia's Commissioner of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, and in the Virginia House of Delegates.
Since 2017, he has farmed full-time on his family's operation,
which includes poultry, beef cattle, row crops, and sweet corn.
Our next and final witness is Mr. Richard Fordyce, the
Administrator of the Farm Service Agency at the United States
Department of Agriculture. As FSA Administrator, Mr. Fordyce
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 Executive Director for FSA in Missouri, and
as Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.
We will now proceed to hearing from our witnesses. Each of
you will have 5 minutes to present testimony. When the light
turns yellow, that indicates there is 1 minute left to complete
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. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Spanberger. I
am one of those proud Virginian farmers you mentioned in your
opening comments, so it is an honor to be here.
Chairman Peterson, Ranking Members Conaway and LaMalfa, and
Members of the Committee, good morning and thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the programs that we deliver, the
conservation.
I know I speak for Secretary Perdue and Under Secretary
Northey when I say that we appreciate the ongoing efforts of
this Subcommittee for voluntary private lands conservation and
the improvement of our natural resources. We are also grateful
for the Committee for providing us the authority to implement
our programs in 2019 through existing regulations.
Since we visited last May, NRCS has been working hard to
implement our farm bill programs. I am pleased to report that
as of today, three of our four farm bill interim rules have
been published, including the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program, or ACEP, Conservation Stewardship Program, or
CSP, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP.
We have also published a miscellaneous rule that strengthens
and streamlines our services delivered through the Healthy
Forest Reserve Program, as well as expands the membership of
our state technical committees.
I am also pleased to announce that last night, we got
clearance from OMB on the interim rules for our final farm bill
program, the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP. I
know there has been a lot of anticipation around this
announcement, so the rules are being sent to the Office of the
Federal Register today, and they should be published early next
week for public comment.
Following the publication of each of our interim rules, we
invited agriculture and conservation stakeholders to our
headquarters and held meetings to discuss the changes made to
the programs. These meetings have been very constructive, and
the feedback has been positive. So far, we have received over
100 public comments to our CSP interim rule, expressing a
desire for program support for both existing and new
conservation activities. We expect to review our comments in
response to EQIP and ACEP later this winter. And following the
public comment for each of these interim rules, we will
immediately begin developing final rule to publish sometime
later in 2020.
As we continue making progress towards full implementation,
I wanted to highlight just a few of our 2019 accomplishments:
$300 million was invested and made available under RCPP; $37\1/
2\ million was announced for the Feral Swine Control Pilot
Program in partnership with USDA's APHIS; $37\1/2\ million was
made available for both our Conservation Innovation Grants, or
CIG, and the new CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials.
Under CSP, our funds were used to cover 6.3 million new acres,
bringing the total program acres to 53 million across 60,000
contracts, and EQIP financial assistance obligations totaled
over $1.2 billion for over 41,000 active contracts, covering an
estimated 13 million acres.
As all of us know, 2019 was filled with numerous disasters
all across the nation. Through our Emergency Watershed
Protection Program, or EWP, we provided over $330 million in
assistance to communities, the recovery payments and floodplain
easements. Also through our EQIP emergency funding, we provided
$62 million in assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private
forestland owners.
I would also mention that last Friday, we launched the
Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool, or CART. Throughout
2020, our staff will be working hard with customers throughout
the country to utilize this tool which will help assess land
conditions and resources concerns. The designs and improvements
made by this tool will certainly enhance our customers'
experience and streamline the application process over all of
our programs, saving a significant amount of staff time each
year.
We recognize that we had challenges last year administering
producer payments through CSP, but as a result of those
challenges, we have begun revamping our internal processes to
ensure that payments can be delivered efficiently and timely.
As Chief, I am committed to making timely producer payments a
top priority, and will continue to evaluate and make
appropriate changes moving forward.
Throughout 2019 and to now, balancing farm bill
implementation with our program delivery has certainly been a
heavy lift, but we could not have done it without the support
of Under Secretary Northey and his team at the Business Center.
His leadership has enabled us to advance our coordination
efforts with the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management
Agency. NRCS and FSA continue to work very closely and
collaboratively to address our customer concerns, especially in
the delivery of Conservation Reserve Program, and provide
excellent customer service to producers all across the nation.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening statement. I look
forward to sharing more with you and the Committee, and
certainly welcome your questions. Thank you for the invitation.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Lohr and Mr. Fordyce
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Hon. Matthew J. Lohr, Chief, Natural
Resources Conservation Service; Hon. Richard Fordyce, Administrator,
Farm Service Agency, 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) and Farm Service Agency (FSA). We
appreciate the ongoing support of this Subcommittee for voluntary,
private lands conservation and the improvement of our soil, water, and
other natural resources. We are also grateful to the Committee for
providing us the authority to implement our programs in 2019 through
existing regulations.
We are pleased to report today that the NRCS and the FSA, under the
leadership of Secretary Perdue and Under Secretary Northey, have made
significant progress with the implementation of the conservation title
of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. We would like to provide
you an update on the progress we have made on conserving resources on
our nation's working lands.
NRCS moved quickly to implement the 2018 Farm Bill provisions.
Agency staff held dozens of meetings across the country to evaluate
policy and prepare recommendations for improved services, develop
streamlined directives, and draft the rules and associated analyses all
while conducting sign-ups for a variety of conservation programs in
2019. This could not have been accomplished without support from our
dedicated staff, partners, and our customers.
NRCS field offices held 2019 sign-ups and approved the contracts
and agreements for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Field offices concurrently serviced
farm bill program contracts and agreements that were enrolled in prior
years. Extensions for CSP and Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP) agreements were offered to eligible participants.
The 2018 Farm Bill required NRCS to revise its program rules and
provided an opportunity to improve program implementation through the
evaluation of how each can be used in conjunction with one another to
improve efficiency. Four of the five interim rules have been published,
including those for ACEP, CSP, and EQIP; and one we refer to as the
``miscellaneous rule'' that streamlined minor changes to multiple rules
in one Federal Register publication. The rules updated through the
``miscellaneous rule'' include Technical Service Providers, Healthy
Forests Reserve Program, Administration of State Technical Committees,
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, and the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act program. The RCPP interim
rule is expected to be published soon. Following public comment periods
on each interim rule, NRCS will begin development of final rules that
will publish sometime in 2020. Below are highlights of changes to our
flagship programs and additional key components of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)--The 2018 Farm
Bill added provisions to improve partnership implementation
opportunities through reduced requirements on the ACEP Agricultural
Land Easements (ALE) partners. For example, it removed a planning
requirement, added buy-protect-sell provisions, and adjusted cash match
requirements. The public comment period runs through March 20, 2020. In
FY 2019, NRCS enrolled approximately 160,000 acres through over 450 new
enrollments.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)--The 2018 Farm Bill
reauthorized CSP through 2023 and changed the program from an acre-
based to a cash-based program. As required, we have been working to
streamline the program and better align it with EQIP. Our improvements
will result in more efficient programming whereby EQIP and CSP are
complementary programs rather than competitors. The bill also added the
CSP Grassland Conservation Initiative, simplified the ranking criteria,
incentivized conservation activities such as cover crops, advanced
grazing management and resource-conserving crop rotations, and
continues support for organic production. The public comment period
closed on January 13, 2020. We are evaluating comments and considering
recommendations as we continue to review the program's procedures and
guidelines internally to provide the best level of service to producers
in subsequent years.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--The 2018 Farm Bill
expanded program focus by adding ``weather volatility'' and ``drought
resiliency'' to the list of program purposes. It expanded program
enrollment opportunities for participants by inserting conservation
incentive contracts as an enrollment option and special outreach for
advance payments and subsequent election. It expanded the program's
reach by adding eligible applicants to include ``water management
entities'' identified as state, irrigation district, groundwater
management district, acequia, and land-grant-merceds. Increased payment
rates were also authorized for certain high-priority practices and
source water protection. NRCS announced the availability of On[-]Farm
Conservation Innovation Trials in 2019. Through these trials NRCS and
partners will work together on the adoption of innovative practices
with a specific focus on soil health strategies for carbon capture. The
comment period for the EQIP rule closes February 17, 2020. In FY2019,
EQIP financial assistance obligations totaled over $1.2 billion in
41,471 active or completed contracts covering an estimated 12 million
acres.
Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program--The farm bill
provided $75 million in mandatory funding for Fiscal Years 2019 through
2023, and this funding is equally divided between NRCS and the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to carry out the pilot
program. Pilot areas were identified collaboratively by NRCS and APHIS
state personnel in consultation with the state technical committees.
In this first year of the program, USDA has identified 20 pilot
projects and has prepared for project implementation beginning in early
FY 2020. These pilot projects have been identified in ten of the eleven
states that APHIS determined have the highest density of feral swine.
These states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.
California did not identify pilot projects for implementation in FY
2020.
In June of 2019, NRCS solicited partner proposals to carry out
NRCS-funded activities. This solicitation closed in August 2019.
Partners submitted 34 proposals, and at least one proposal was received
for activities in each of the pilot areas.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--The 2018 Farm
Bill made a number of changes to RCPP that will provide greater
opportunities for partners and enable NRCS to implement the program
more efficiently. Of note, RCPP is now a stand-alone program with $300
million in annual funding. Moving forward, landowners and agricultural
producers will enter into RCPP contracts and RCPP easements. NRCS may
award up to 15 Enhanced Alternative Funding Arrangement (AFA) projects,
which are more grant-like and rely more on partner capacity to
implement conservation activities. The announcement offering AFA
opportunities will be released after the rule is published. And, all
RCPP projects must now develop and report on their environmental
outcomes, providing a greater emphasis on project outcomes.
Throughout 2020, NRCS staff will be working with customers
throughout the country on the newly-launched Conservation Assistance
Ranking Tool (CART). This tool was designed to conduct conservation
planning and deliver our programs more efficiently. CART will also
track conditions on the land, including resource concerns. The
information collected through CART will enable NRCS to better report on
the outcomes from our conservation efforts and will inform future
conservation planning efforts. Overall, the improvements made through
CART will enhance our customer experience and is also expected to save
200,000 hours of staff time each year.
The 2018 Farm Bill also provided for some of the most extensive
changes to FSA conservation programs in recent history. As we
implemented the farm bill provisions, FSA made administrative decisions
that prioritized the conservation goals of the programs and ensured
that the programs would not adversely impact new farmers and ranchers
who are critical to the future of American agriculture. Administrative
decisions were facts-based, data-driven, and customer-focused.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--This year marks the 35th
anniversary of the CRP, administered by FSA. This farm bill program
provides a variety of conservation and economic benefits. By enrolling
in CRP, producers are improving water quality, reducing soil erosion,
and restoring habitat for wildlife. This in turn spurs hunting,
fishing, recreation, tourism, and other economic development across
rural America. Following an abbreviated signup in 2019, updating of
rental rates, and publication of our regulation, FSA opened CRP signup
under the broader suite of 2018 Farm Bill provisions for both
continuous and general CRP on December 9, 2019.
CRP Continuous Signup--The continuous signup is noncompetitive and
ongoing, targeting certain high-priority conservation practices.
CRP General Signup--The general signup is now an annual competitive
opportunity for producers to enroll acres in CRP, which ends this year
on February 28. This signup includes increased opportunities for
enrollment of wildlife habitat through the State Acres for Wildlife
Enhancement (SAFE) initiative.
While some practices under SAFE will remain available through
continuous signup, CRP continuous signup now focuses primarily on
water-quality practices under the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers
(CLEAR) Initiative. The 2018 Farm Bill prioritizes water-quality
practices such as contour grass strips, filter strips, riparian
buffers, wetlands, and ``new'' prairie strips.
CRP CLEAR30 Pilot--In addition to the CLEAR Initiative practices
already being enrolled through the regular 10 to 15 year continuous
signup contracts, FSA will also offer a new CLEAR30 pilot beginning
later this year. CLEAR30 will provide an opportunity for producers to
re-enroll in CRP CLEAR initiative practices for 30 years.
CRP Grasslands--A separate CRP Grasslands signup will now be
offered each year following general signup. This year CRP Grasslands
signup begins March 16 and ends May 15. CRP Grasslands helps landowners
and operators protect grassland, including rangeland and pastureland
and certain other lands while maintaining the areas as grazing lands.
Additional information on CRP Grasslands will be provided in the next
few weeks.
CRP Soil Health and Income Protection Pilot Program (SHIPP)--The
signup for SHIPP will be announced soon. SHIPP will allow producers in
the prairie pothole region the option of a 3 to 5 year CRP contract to
establish cover on less productive cropland.
CRP Transition Incentives Program (TIP)--TIP is also now available
to all owners and operators of expiring CRP acres and enables the
transition of that land to a beginning, veteran or socially-
disadvantaged farmer or rancher to return land to production for
sustainable grazing or crop production. TIP participants may have a
lease of at least 5 years with an option to purchase, and they have 2
years before the end of the CRP contract to make conservation and land
improvements.
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)--FSA has also implemented all
2018 Farm Bill provisions related to ECP. This program provides
emergency funding and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to
rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters in order to restore
the land's productive agricultural capacity and to implement emergency
water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. Farm bill
changes included advanced payments for fencing, increased cost-share
for socially-disadvantaged participants, added wildfires as an eligible
disaster event, and increased payment limits.
Farm Loans for Conservation--FSA continues to support farmers and
ranchers to promote and fund conservation practices through its direct
and guaranteed loan programs. Family farmers unable to obtain
commercial financing may use direct and guaranteed farm ownership and
operating loan funds for costs associated with land and water
development, or to promote soil and water conservation and protection.
Larger and financially stronger fa[r]mers may use guaranteed
conservation loan funds for conservation activities included in a
conservation plan or Forestry Stewardship Management Plan.
Additionally, existing borrowers may qualify for a reduction in
indebtedness in exchange for a conservation contract (also referred to
as Debt for Nature) that restricts the type and amount of development
that may take place on marginal cropland and other environmentally
sensitive lands for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes.
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program (GSWPP)--FSA also
oversees GSWPP, providing $6.5 million annually under the 2018 Farm
Bill to the National Rural Water Association to implement the Source
Water Protection Program.
Conclusion
We are proud to update this Committee on the thoughtful and
coordinated actions to implement the provisions of the farm bill that
both the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency
have taken. We continue to work together to ensure our programs work
for the benefit of our nation's farmers and ranchers as intended.
And while we have worked very hard to implement these changes as
quickly as possible, we have done so while continuing to provide
consistent delivery for these impacted programs throughout this past
year. We recognize the need to continue our efforts and to work closely
with our partners inside and outside the agencies to build and conserve
our nation's natural resources.
[Madam] Chair this concludes our statement. We are happy to answer
your questions and those of the other Subcommittee Members.
The Chair. Thank you, Chief Lohr. We appreciate your
comments.
Administrator Fordyce, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD FORDYCE, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Fordyce. Thank you, Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member
Conaway, Madam Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and
other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am honored
to be with you this morning. Thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you and represent FSA.
The 2018 Farm Bill provided for some of the most extensive
changes to FSA conservation programs in recent history. We are
dedicated in our outreach to ensure producers understand the
many options they have to benefit from these programs.
As we implemented the farm bill provisions, FSA made
administrative decisions that prioritized the conservation
goals of the programs, and would not adversely impact new
farmers and ranchers, who are critical to the future of
American agriculture. Our decisions were fact-based, data
driven, and customer-focused.
2020 marks the 35th anniversary of the Conservation Reserve
Program. The tens of millions of acres farmers and ranchers
have chosen to enroll under CRP since 1985 provide a variety of
conservation and economic benefits. Currently at 22 million
acres, CRP is one of the largest private lands conservation
programs in the U.S. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized 27 million
acres by 2023, which means continued successes like preventing
more than 9 billion tons of soil from eroding, enough soil to
fill 600 million dump trucks, protecting more than 175,000
stream miles, enough to go around the world seven times, and
increasing populations of birds and other wildlife. After
updating rental rates and publishing our regulation in December
2019, we were able to open sign-up for both general and
continuous CRP. This includes the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program.
We reminded producers today that we are only 1 month from
the end of the general sign-up, which is now an annual
competitive opportunity for producers, where offers will
continue to be ranked based on environmental factors. We set
this deadline to ensure decisions on acceptance are made in
early spring, prior to planting, so farmers and ranchers can
use best management practices on that ground in preparation for
CRP.
A separate CRP grasslands sign-up will follow general sign-
up annually, which will run from March to May this year.
The ongoing continuous sign-up continues to target high
priority conservation practices, and now focuses primarily on
water quality practices prioritized in the 2018 Farm Bill under
the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and Rivers Initiative, or CLEAR.
Producers will also have the opportunity to re-enroll CLEAR
practices in a 30 year CRP contract for the first time under
the new CLEAR30 Pilot, which will be announced later this
spring.
We also anticipate announcing soon the Soil Health and
Income Protection Pilot Program, or SHIPP, in the prairie
pothole region of the country.
For producers that have CRP contracts nearing expiration,
we encourage them to re-enroll in one of these sign-up options,
or take advantage of expanded options under the CRP Transition
Incentives Program, or TIP. With $50 million available under
the 2018 Farm Bill, TIP now allows all contract holders with
expiring CRP acres the opportunity to transition land to a
beginning, veteran, or socially-disadvantaged farmer or rancher
to return land to production. FSA also has funding tools for
farmers and ranchers who implement conservation practices
through guaranteed conservation loans, and for those that
qualify, our more traditional and direct and guaranteed loans
programs may be a funding option.
Our efforts to implement conservation programs could not be
realized without talented and dedicated staff. The additional
appropriations from Congress for staff and direct hire
authority from the Office of Personnel Management are helping
us help our staff, who in turn help America's farmers and
ranchers.
And as I bring my comments to a close, sitting next to my
colleague and former farmer, Chief Lohr, I want to emphasize
that FSA continues to strengthen our relationship with NRCS and
the Risk Management Agency in the farm production and
conservation mission area. We work very closely with NRCS on
CRP and our other programs in our nearly 3,000 offices in
communities nationwide, and through the outreach that we
provide to our producers, which is unparalleled. Together, our
conservation programs make up a tremendous tool kit that USDA
provides to America's primary land stewards and drivers of our
agriculture economy, the U.S. farmer and rancher. Information
about all of our programs is available at farmers.gov.
Thank you again for this opportunity to update on the
implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill. Madam Chair, this
concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer your
questions, and those of the other Subcommittee Members.
The Chair. Thank you very much for your comments today. We
appreciate them on this very, very important topic.
Members will be recognized for questions in order of
seniority for Members who were here at the start of the
hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
I would like to first begin by recognizing Chairman
Peterson of the full Agriculture Committee for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me.
Chief Lohr, we had a meeting a couple weeks ago before
this, but I never heard in that meeting anything about this
ranking thing, what did you call it?
Mr. Lohr. The CART, Conservation Assistance Ranking Tool.
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. Where did that come from?
Mr. Lohr. Mr. Chairman, this has been an idea that has been
in the works for many years as a way how we can streamline our
programs and our processes, because as you know, we offer a
variety of farm bill programs, and many times, it is very
cumbersome for a producer to know which program would make the
most sense, and ranking different programs have different
ranking techniques.
CART is a tool that has been developed over the last
several years, but the goal is to have one centerpiece of
technology where one of our employees can work hand-in-hand
with the producer, identify their farm, get the farm
information inputted, look at all of the resource concerns that
they have. That information is inputted. Look at what programs
we have, what pieces of technical assistance we can provide.
All of that gets inputted into the computer software, and then
it will actually do an assessment on which practices would be
the most beneficial to affect that operation, and it will
automatically rank them for which program would be the best fit
for that.
Mr. Peterson. In other words, you don't need the people in
the county offices anymore?
Mr. Lohr. No, there is still going to be much work for our
employees.
Mr. Peterson. Well, this streamlining, this is more
bureaucracy. I don't see that it is going to do any good, other
than give people a chance to come in and lobby your department,
come up with more damn crazy regulations that are going to
screw things up, like what you are doing with CRP and EBI
(Environmental Benefits Index).
I just think that this is going in the completely wrong
direction, to have some kind of top down deal. I mean, it is
just--I don't know. That is the first I have heard of this. I
don't think my staff has heard about it either. Yesterday. You
say it has been going on for years?
Mr. Lohr. No, actually we just rolled the program out last
Friday.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, but you said you were working on this
for years?
Mr. Lohr. A goal of the agency--certainly even a goal of
Secretary Perdue--is how we can better streamline our programs
to make them more efficient. We all have participated in
government programs, and one of the complaints by producers is
the red tape and the amount of paperwork and the redundancy.
Mr. Peterson. Are people going to come in here and put
things into this system that are going to drive what kind of
things happen, or is this going to be neutral and that stuff?
Mr. Lohr. No, sir. Yes, so we are still accomplishing the
same end goal of helping producers match their resource
concerns with the proper assistance that is needed and the
proper farm bill program. This is just a way to make the
process easier.
Mr. Peterson. But, the EBI is going to try to figure out
what is the most environmentally sensitive land was, and then
people came in and lobbied and got all this stuff put in there.
We ended up spending $600 an acre planting these crazy mixtures
that they got, and so forth.
I just have no confidence that that is not going to be the
end result of this kind of a system.
Mr. Lohr. Well, I can assure you----
Mr. Peterson. You got a bunch of work to do to convince me
that this is a good idea.
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir. Well, it is debuting in our offices
this week, and I would be happy to come back and give you an
update on the progress and success of the program.
Mr. Peterson. We better do that.
I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair. I now recognize Ranking Member Conaway of the
full Agriculture Committee for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fordyce, on the rental rates for CRP, can you talk to
us about the criteria for setting up those rates, because we
are getting some differences between neighboring counties, and
obviously, farmers talk to each other and it creates a ruckus.
Can you give us some insight in how that is coming about?
Mr. Fordyce. Absolutely. We start with the NASS cash rent
survey that NASS does every year to gauge what the rental rates
are in that particular county. And then there is a proration.
General CRP is prorated at 85 percent of that cash rental rate
from the NASS survey. Continuous is prorated at 90 percent of
that. I would say that once the rental rates are posted,
counties--driven by the county--the locally elected county
committee can submit an opportunity to adjust those rates, and
we do have a formula in place that allows them to readdress
those if they see that they are disparate, say, compared to a
neighboring county.
Mr. Conaway. But, if the NASS data is wrong in your
analysis--I mean, if you have counties side-by-side, there
shouldn't be market differences between the two.
If I could get my team and I to work with you on the
specific counties in District 11 that are giving me the most
heat about this issue, can we work with you on that and find
out why that is happening?
Mr. Fordyce. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Conaway. Because, the goal in the 2018 Farm Bill was to
lower rental rates to be more reflective of market, but some of
these were set at levels that got the farmers back home
scratching their heads over it. We can work with you on that?
Mr. Fordyce. Yes, absolutely, sir.
Mr. Conaway. Okay.
Mr. Fordyce. We would be more than happy to work with you
on the processes that we are currently utilizing, and again,
the counties do have an opportunity to--I guess the word is
appeal----
Mr. Conaway. Appeal, okay.
Mr. Fordyce.--those rates, and we do have a process by
which we follow.
Mr. Conaway. All right, and the other thing, Chief, I am
keenly interested in the implementation of the Feral Swine
Eradication Program, your pilot projects. Can you give us some
specifics, I think you said $37 million was made available. Can
you talk about the specific projects that we can look forward
to seeing the results of?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir. In my travels throughout the Southeast
primarily, hardly a trip goes by without someone mentioning the
impact of feral swine. The farm bill gave $75 million that was
split between us and APHIS, so we have $37\1/2\ million. Our
goal was to take \1/2\ of that money in year 1 and then \1/2\
of that money in year 2, and work with partners to be able to
put some pilot programs together, delivering the money in the
first 2 years, we would have several years to assess the
impact, and hopefully see what the successes can be.
We targeted ten states primarily from Oklahoma, Texas, all
the way around the Southeast up to North Carolina. These were
the states that had the highest percentage of feral swine
infestation. APHIS state director and our NRCS state
coordinator worked together with the state technical
committees. They identified pilot programs or pilot projects in
each of those ten states, and then they applied and we
selected--I think there were 18 areas that were selected, ten
pilots were selected, and then they have begun to start putting
their proposals together.
From NRCS' point of view, we are focusing on the trapping
of feral swine, and so most of these proposals are going to
focus on surveillance equipment and cameras, and the actual
monitoring, and then be able to see how collaboratively they
can come together to try to get a handle on feral swine.
Some of the projects are going to be focusing on doing
videos, maybe training videos to help other people once they
gather some of these successes so they can share with other
farmers to see what would be the most beneficial, going
forward.
We are well underway. Like I said, we have \1/2\ of the
money that has been obligated. We have the partners in place.
They put their proposals together, and we are anxious to see
them get started and see what successes we can find.
Mr. Conaway. Well thanks for getting the quick start on
that project, because you had a lot to get done, both of you
guys did, and I appreciate that.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
The Chair. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Chief Lohr and Administrator Fordyce, again, thank you for
being here. We have a number of Members who are coming and
going from multiple committee hearings, so thank you for your
patience, and thank you for your presence here today.
I wanted to first ask about the implementation of some of
the significant changes to the farm bill. Staff at USDA are
working to implement these changes to the conservation programs
made in the 2018 Farm Bill, and my question is, how are you all
engaging with producers at the various state levels regarding
sign-up timelines? Are you meeting with groups on a monthly
basis, and if not, what are the meeting schedules that you are
carrying out, and what can you commit to, going forward?
Mr. Fordyce. Thank you for the question, and certainly,
outreach and the ability to communicate all of the
opportunities that we have to offer under our conservation
programs is critically important.
In every state, we have dedicated outreach and public
affairs coordinators that work individually with county
offices, and we find that certainly we can have larger
statewide meetings with stakeholders, but a lot of times that
outreach and that communication works really best at the local
level. And so, I can get for you, I don't have the number, but
I can get for you the number of outreach kind of meetings, town
hall meetings in which our local staff, folks on the ground
that understand the needs of the local producer and landowner,
have undertaken. But it is quite numerous, because as you can
imagine, with just CRP, for example, with a new general sign-up
and some of the things that are offered through the continuous
sign-up. Lots of questions and certainly lots of interest.
The Chair. I would be interested in receiving that as
follow-up, so thank you for offering it. My focus really here
is ensuring that localities and communities across Virginia and
across the country have access to the information so that they
can be as responsive as possible, and make sure that they know
about these programs and are meeting the timelines.
And Mr. Fordyce, you had mentioned that your staff is the
staff that helps America's farmers and ranchers, and I
appreciate that understanding of how you view your workforce.
Congress has invested significant resources into these
conservation programs. We have also raised the NRCS staff
ceilings and provided FSA funds to hire additional field staff
to efficiently administer their programs, with an eye towards
meeting producer needs and conservation goals.
Can both of you talk through your plans and timelines for
hiring staff, NRCS field staff, and when can producers in my
district expect to have additional NRCS and FSA staff on board?
Mr. Lohr. Very good. Thank you, and please know that for
both of us, staffing is one of our top priorities to make sure
we have enough employees in the field being able to service the
needs of our producers.
Very quickly, we are about 8,800 employees right now at
NRCS, and we have been given a ceiling cap of about 10,445. We
have a tremendous opportunity to bring a lot of new employees
into the field, and for NRCS, we have a targeted three-prong
approach, one focusing on the Pathways Program, the Student
Intern Program. We derive a lot of our employees that go
through this program. Right now, we have made 569 offers to
college students. Right now, 450 have been selected that will
intern with us next summer, and the thing about Pathways, when
you do two summers, 640 hours, then you have an automatic
conversion into being a full-time employee. We put a lot of
emphasis into that program. It gives them the opportunity to
see who we are.
The second one is our direct hire authority, which we are
very appreciative for OPM for giving us 273 positions in about
25 states, focusing on disaster work and farm bill
implementation. We are working very aggressively to meet that
obligation we have for those positions, but we certainly
appreciate the flexibility being able to work at a local level
to get those right folks in place.
And finally for us, we realize that if we are going to make
progress in our staffing numbers, we need to focus on those
entry level positions that are the most farmer-facing. Our soil
conservationists and soils contacts, soil scientists, the ones
in our district offices who are putting an emphasis on allowing
our states to put that as a priority to make sure that we can
have folks that are coming into the agency that are going to be
the ones that are working most directly with our farmers.
We have an aggressive timeline. Our hope is that by
probably May we should have an additional 500 employees that we
will have on staff, so the farmers in your district hopefully
will see some new faces pretty soon, and then once we get them
hired, we have processes to train them and mentor them to
ensure they will be effective.
I apologize if I took all the Administrator's time.
The Chair. Thank you. We will be doing a second round of
questions, so out of respect for my colleagues' time, we will
proceed through and I will get back to you hopefully, Mr.
Fordyce, when we come back to it.
I now recognize Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
Administrator, I will start with you. Of course, you know
how incredibly wet the last year has been in South Dakota,
really, the entire northern Great Plains, it seemed like. And
as producers try to grapple with how best to deal with that
land resource on a going forward basis, one would think CRP
would play a big role and would be an important tool in the
toolbox. The producers that are talking to me are mindful, of
course, that in the 2006 CRP, I mean, only two contracts were
signed in South Dakota. As we look toward sign ups in the
future, how optimistic should they be that CRP is a worthwhile
tool that will be available to them?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, that is a great question, and I would
say that farm country, under a lot of those kinds of decisions
that are being made, right?
As a farmer, I am always trying to understand what those
decisions are, and you mentioned the 2016 sign-up where there
were only two contracts taken. If I were to answer that as to
why that was, we were very close to bumping up against the cap,
and so the level at which we were accepting contracts, the bar
was set fairly high. The current sign-up certainly is a
competitive sign-up, and we will have to see what kind of
offers we get and at what level do we set that bar of accepting
contracts.
I do believe, though, that you are absolutely correct, that
CRP could be an option for some of these areas that have seen
some real weather impacts.
Mr. Johnson. Let's talk with some additional specificity
about what might change. Of course, the EBI tool you all used
to do the evaluation is the same. You know, the cap was raised
in the farm bill, but are the prospects dramatically different
in the future than they were in the recent past, do you think?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I would just answer that by saying that
certainly there is an increase in the cap, and we do have a
good number of acres that are expiring by the 1st of October of
this year, of 2020. There is going to be more room than there
was in that 2016 sign-up.
Mr. Johnson. If we could talk a little bit, gentlemen,
about pheasants. Of course, we all know that many producers
across the country are looking more and more to diversified ag.
I guess they are looking back again to diversified ag as an
important risk mitigation tool, buy down some volatility. And
in South Dakota, pheasants, that is an important part of the
diversification story.
I am just curious if we can get an update on progress as we
move towards some of the working lands conservation, some of
the grazing conservation? Where are we at with that?
Mr. Lohr. Certainly, both of our agencies support habitat
and certainly pheasants are a major part of that, especially in
your neck of the woods. We continue to do work. We have farm
bill biologists through Pheasants Forever, a contract position
that works with us and our offices that continues to help
provide guidance to producers through several of our programs.
The Working Lands for Wildlife Program, as you know, also
allows farmers to be able to be paid to put habitat practices
on their operation that can enhance habitat like for pheasants
and quail. Definitely, I know with our agency, that remains a
top priority as we go forward in the new farm bill, and being
able to help producers be able to be compensated for addressing
those habitat concerns for birds like pheasants.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I know any time you get a new farm bill,
of course there are 100 things that have to be done
immediately. But do we have some sense of when producers might
be awarded contracts for the CRP Grasslands Program?
Mr. Fordyce. The CRP Grasslands Program sign-up will run
almost right after the general sign-up comes to an end, and
that is February 28. CRP grasslands sign-up will start March 16
and run through May 15, and we hope to have folks notified by
early summer of their acceptance into the CRP Grasslands
Program.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I would just add, Madam Chair, for our
two witnesses as well as for yourself, if anybody ever wants to
come shoot some ring necks, let me know. I will make sure we
have a good time. Thank you.
Mr. Fordyce. Thank you.
The Chair. I now recognize Mrs. Axne of Iowa, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dusty, I will tell you what. We will have to fight for
that, because you know we got a lot of pheasants in Iowa, too.
Anyhow, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, thank you so much for
having this hearing on the implementation of the conservation
programs. Thank you, Chief Lohr, and Administrator Fordyce, for
being here.
My home state, as you are probably fully aware, is the
largest recipient of conservation program enrollment in the
country, so I appreciate the work that you do to help us with
that. Thanks so much.
I am going to talk a little bit about flooding, because I
am sure you all know that we are still suffering in Iowa. But I
would like to also thank the USDA for the prompt reply to my
request from Secretary Perdue for the status update on the
flood recovery funding that has been allocated to Iowa. Thank
you so much for that.
I am sure you know, as I mentioned, that southwest Iowa had
our devastating flood last spring. We are expecting, of course,
to see more flooding this spring because of the runoff, and
certainly a lot of precipitation on the ground, and we have
still have a lot of levees that need repairs.
But, the recovery has been long and arduous. Many
expressions from Iowans are that they are really frustrated
with the inability to get the funding that they need as quickly
as they would like to from the different agencies.
To help with that and to provide some transparency, I
started an Iowa Flood Funding Tracker to make sure that the
money we appropriated for the Midwest floods is actually
getting out to the flooded areas. And I have asked multiple
Federal agencies involved to provide specific answers related
to that. Thank you for giving us the information we needed.
Please help us to continue to keep that updated as you put more
funding towards the recovery process in Iowa.
Of course, my first question is related to the disaster
that we are still seeing. Many Iowans have taken advantage of
the Emergency Conservation Program which provides financial and
technical assistance to farmers whose land has been damaged to
help restore their land.
But, Administrator Fordyce, what kind of outreach, and I am
asking for outreach in particular, not our folks having to go
and ask for the support, but outreach does NRCS do on these
programs when a natural disaster hits? And then the second
question would be how are local communities made aware of the
assistance that is available through ECP?
Mr. Fordyce. I am very aware of your situation. My farm is
just 18 miles from the Iowa line, not in the Missouri River
flooded areas, but certainly a lot of friends have been
impacted by that as well.
Again, as we talk about outreach and we talk about how do
we communicate those things that are available, we have--and I
will probably mention this quite a bit during the hearing--the
opportunity to really commend our staff that are on the ground.
Whether it is the executive director within the county, the
county executive director or the program technicians that are
there, have great relationships with the local producers and
landowners. Constantly refer to those farmers and ranchers and
landowners in their county as their farmers. And so, there is a
great deal of outreach and communication at the local level,
and certainly from a state level as well, working with
stakeholders, whether it is commodity organizations, farm
groups, and others, to be able to get the word out about those
kind of programs that are available.
Mrs. Axne. Okay. Basically just through local folks on the
ground. Is there any other way that people can get what they
need?
Mr. Fordyce. And partnering with stakeholders. That is
another key way that we can communicate those messages out.
Mrs. Axne. Okay. Is there anything else you think that you
could be doing to help with this process?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I know we had a couple of calls with you
to talk through the ECP and the other programs. You know, as
part of the disaster funding, there was a component of on-farm
stored grain that is not directly related to ECP, but it was a
program that we administered, and I believe Iowa was the
largest recipient of that program. Over $3 million went to
producers that had grain that was damaged and literally washed
away that was, certainly, very meaningful dollars to those
producers that lost that grain.
Mrs. Axne. Well, I appreciate that. I was able to get that
statutory language changed to cover that uninsured grain in
bin, so we really appreciate your help with that.
Mr. Fordyce. Thank you.
Mrs. Axne. We couldn't have made it happen.
I do have some additional questions, but I am running out
of time, so I will wait for the second round.
The Chair. I now recognize Congresswoman Schrier from
Washington, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
allowing me to participate in today's Subcommittee hearing. I
am not normally part of this Subcommittee.
I wanted to speak about an issue of critical importance in
Washington State, and this is the status of the SAFE Program,
the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement.
Sage grouse are currently state listed as threatened, and
sharp tail grouse are also state listed, but as endangered. And
their population estimates in 2019 were only 676, and 834
individuals respectively. Now, most of the habitat that is
remaining to support prairie grouse in Washington State is on
private land, so these are our farmers. CRP and SAFE in
particular is one of the only programs that is available to
conserve this habitat at a meaningful scale, and has been
successful and probably is keeping these species off the
endangered species list.
My question is to you, Administrator Fordyce. Can you speak
to the decision to move SAFE acres within CRP general sign-up,
rather than on continuous sign-up as has historically been
done? And my concern is that by moving it to general sign-up
means there is a 10 year maximum contract length instead of 15,
lower rental rates, and less allowance for incentive payments.
And this makes it less likely that producers, farmers will
apply for the SAFE Program, and it puts these species at risk.
Mr. Fordyce. That is a good question. Moving SAFE to
continuous or to the general sign-up, the thought around that
was that a lot of the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement
covers are more grass type covers and opportunities for folks
that want to participate in SAFE, our general practices have
more of an opportunity for larger blocks of land as opposed to
more resource concern focused areas.
Moving SAFE to general, the general thought was that this
offered literally more opportunities for folks that wanted to
engage and participate in SAFE, and also allows for even SAFE
practices. SAFE practices can also go in under continuous.
SAFE-like practices could go under continuous that would
enhance wildlife habitat as well.
Ms. Schrier. Can you tell me more about those SAFE-like
practices that could be continuous? Because in our state, it
turns out that we will exceed the maximum acreage, and so, it
is going to put these species at risk. What are the other ways
around this?
Mr. Fordyce. Are you referring to the 25 percent?
Ms. Schrier. Yes.
Mr. Fordyce. I have been communicating a great deal in the
last probably 2 weeks, 2\1/2\ weeks with the state executive
director there about that and what are opportunities for those
areas of the state that are going to bump up or go over that 25
percent crop land limit? And so, we have communicated what the
process is for them to request a waiver, and that is in
progress. As far as I know, we have not received anything at
headquarters from them yet, but certainly we have talked about
the process for a waiver for them to apply for.
Ms. Schrier. That would be phenomenal. They would very much
appreciate that, and I would like to stay in touch with you to
make sure that I can facilitate that.
Mr. Fordyce. And I absolutely would offer the opportunity
for us to stay in communication on this issue and work with our
staff to see kind of what the progress is of that.
Ms. Schrier. Okay, thank you.
Also, Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy
of an article from the January 2020 issue of Wheat Life, which
highlights this change in the implications and the impact on
conservation for farmers in Washington State; also a letter
sent by our State Fish and Wildlife Director and the Washington
State Conservation Commission Director; and I would like to
submit a letter that was sent to me and Congressman Newhouse
from the Foster Crate Conservation District.
The Chair. So granted. Thank you.
[The documents referred to are located on pp. 31 and 33.]
Ms. Schrier. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Administrator Fordyce. I don't believe it was
Congress's intent to halt SAFE exemptions when it passed the
2018 bill, and I am happy to hear that there is an opportunity
for a waiver that we can pursue. Thank you.
Mr. Fordyce. Thank you.
The Chair. I now recognize Congresswoman Fudge, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for
being here.
Chief Lohr, I am sure you are aware that the urban
agriculture movement has grown rapidly in northeast Ohio, of
course, where I am from. In fact, the City of Cleveland is now
recognized as having the second most active successful U.S.
urban agriculture movement in the United States. In my area of
Cleveland, we have more than 120 seasonal high tunnel homes,
which I am sure you are aware.
Mr. Lohr. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Fudge. And I want to thank NRCS for programs and
services and partnerships like the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives, because it does assist us in extending the
growing season. And you know, right now it is very cold in
Ohio.
But, I will say that I am disappointed that the most recent
announcement for Conservation Innovation Grants funding did not
include socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and black
farmers in the definition of historically under-served farmers
and ranchers. Could you tell me why?
Mr. Lohr. I will say first of all, thank you for the
efforts you have done and led in your district over the years.
You have an amazing number of high tunnels that have been
constructed, and certainly serves as a blueprint for other
urban areas.
In the past, we did not have a structured process for
administering grants to different types of groups, outreach
grants. At the urging of the Secretary and the Under Secretary,
we wanted to try to make sure we could streamline that process,
put a more structured process in place to make it more fair. As
part of that, we set $35 million aside that we are going to be
administering the opportunity soon, Conservation Collaboration
Grants, and $10 million of that is aimed towards historically
underserved----
Ms. Fudge. But how could you be historically under-served
if you are not socially-disadvantaged? Please help me.
Mr. Lohr. Well, ma'am, in my opinion, that will certainly
be included in that definition of historically under-served.
Ms. Fudge. But it isn't included. The fact is it is not
included.
Mr. Lohr. Okay.
Ms. Fudge. Could you at least take a look at it?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Fudge. I mean, because when you don't include black
farmers, I don't know who else you include.
Mr. Lohr. Sure. Well, I can tell you that when I think of
historically under-served, I certainly would include African
Americans and other minority populations.
Ms. Fudge. Let me just ask you, how many African Americans
do you have in your leadership, either of you? Because I don't
see any sitting in this room.
Mr. Lohr. I don't know offhand, but there are several.
Ms. Fudge. If they are in your leadership, you can just
probably count them on your hand right now and tell me.
Mr. Lohr. It depends on definition of leadership, but out
of a team of 30, we probably have at least ten or twelve, I
would say.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. Could you send it to me?
Mr. Lohr. Sure.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge. It seems to me that the rules or the direction
that you are going is really pushing minority farmers and
community-based organizations out of conservation programs. I
am certainly hopeful that you will take a look at where that
is, and my office would be happy to have conversations with you
about it. But it is just unfortunate to me that everything that
I am seeing out of this particular USDA either hurts poor
people or people of color or hungry people, even though your
motto says we feed everybody, I don't know who those
everybody's are, because I don't see what you do. But I am
hopeful that at some point you will recognize the fact that
there are many under-served farmers in this country, including
in cities like mine. Everybody thinks farming is solely rural.
It is not. My children need healthy foods just like everybody
else's children do in our schools.
And so, I just would like for you to get back to me with
the questions that I have asked you and to at least consider
the fact that what you have done has left out an entire group
of people that, through the farm bill and everything other
thing we have done, we have tried to lift. Now you are pushing
them back down.
I yield back.
Mr. Lohr. Yes, ma'am. If I could respond, I would be happy
to get you answers to your questions, ma'am, but I will say I
can promise you that as Chief of this agency, it is not our
intent to limit the opportunity to serve our under-served
populations, and through our programs of EQIP, we have an
advanced payment option where they can receive 50 percent----
Ms. Fudge. With all due respect, it probably isn't your
intent, but that is, in fact, the effect. Thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
The Chair. With the first round of questions completed and
without objection, we will begin a second round of questions.
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes in order of seniority.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Chief Lohr, I understand that CSP had significant unused
funding last year, and some of the changes being made to CRP
are likely to going to score as saving money, money that should
be reinvested in CRP. Both of these programs consistently have
more producer interest than we have funding to support.
Do you expect to fully spend the CSP carryover money this
fiscal year? If so, how, and if not, why?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, ma'am. I will say CSP, one of the major
changes from the 2014 Farm Bill to the 2018 Farm Bill is that
before it was an acre-based program, and it converted to a
dollar-based program. Because of that transition, there were
some carryover funds that we ended up ultimately having about
$100 million that we had in carryover money. The descriptions
in the farm bill actually specify how that money is to be
distributed. It actually goes back to the 2014 and 2015
contracts that were based on RCPP. This gets really wonky in
the weeds, but the old RCPP was a donor-based program, so there
were dollars that were contributed through the various
programs. Starting in 2018, going forward, RCPP is a standalone
program. But in the previous farm bill, CSP dollars were tied
to some of these RCPP projects.
The carryover money that we had from the 2014 Farm Bill
will be directed towards funding the CSP through the RCPP
programs. Starting in 2018, going forward, since we have a
dollar-based program, we will not have an issue with carryover
funds anymore. That is part of making the transition. The
change in the program will eliminate the carryover situation
that we had this past year.
The Chair. Specifically, does that mean that we intend to
see that money being used?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
The Chair. Okay, and just noting my concern is based on the
fact that in 2016, CRP general sign-up, in that sign-up, only
22 percent of the acres offered were accepted, and as you well
know, if we don't spend this money, we will have less money
towards the baseline in the future. And that is our concern
that we are depleting this program by not actually allocating
those dollars.
Mr. Lohr. I think we are blending programs. I was speaking
to CSP, and CRP would be under my counterpart, Mr. Fordyce,
here.
The Chair. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Fordyce. And I would answer the 22 percent of offers
that were accepted in the 2014 Farm Bill, we have had a number
of conversations about that with staff, and probably solely due
to the fact of how close we were to hitting the acreage
ceiling, the cap would be the main reason it was a 22 percent
acceptance.
The Chair. And do you anticipate that those dollars will be
spent as we were discussing on the CSP side with CRP as well?
Mr. Fordyce. Once the general sign-up deadline is here, we
will have all of those offers. They are ranked according to the
EBI, and then we will make a determination as to what score we
take as far as what is above the line or below the line, and as
I had indicated earlier, we do have a lot more room under the
cap, and so we will have to wait until the sign-up is over and
see what offers we get before I can answer that more closely, I
guess.
The Chair. Great, thank you. Well, I just can't stress how
important it is that producers have access to these vital
dollars.
Chief Lohr, our work to improve soil health in Virginia
supports the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and NRCS has funded
a number of projects related to soil health recently. What else
are you doing in Virginia to support soil health and water
quality, and how do you anticipate leveraging the next round of
CSP and EQIP to further that work?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely, and I know we are limited on time,
but I will say, first of all, soil health is a top priority. As
Chief this year, when I unveiled the top priority, soil health
is certainly top of mine, and really, it helps to make sure
that we are making sure all of our employees understand the
importance of our decisions and the positive impacts they have.
Training is a key component of that. We have 27 trainings
planned for 2020, both in person and through AG Learn, to make
sure that all of our employees understand that soil health is
key to every one of the decisions that they make.
One of the cool things of the farm bill was the CIG
(Conservation Innovation Grants) On-Farm Trial. As you
mentioned, $10 million of that is dedicated towards the
research that is done on farms. I am very excited to see the
success of what these projects will propose, and how we can
take that data, gear it towards specific localities, and make
sure that we can incorporate those practices, help us update
our conservation practices, and make sure that we are being as
current as we can.
And very briefly--well, we are out of time, but there is
more I can say, as you know, but we are limited on time.
The Chair. Thank you so very much. Soil health is a
tremendously important issue for so many of us here on this
Committee.
I now recognize my colleague from South Dakota, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Last week, the Trump Administration released the final
WOTUS rule, which will do a great deal to provide more
regulatory certainty for landowners. It won't be any surprise
to you, gentlemen, that this Committee and its Members get a
lot of contacts from producers who are concerned about wetlands
compliance violations. And of course, as you know, those
violations can keep people from accessing programs in the
future, and sometimes even requires a payback of past
assistance provided.
To what extent does USDA provide good guidance to producers
who are trying to navigate the ambiguity surrounding Waters of
the U.S.?
Mr. Lohr. Well, I will say certainly as I have been chief
the last year, being able to look at these wetlands compliance
issues has been, again, a top priority because in the past, we
have maybe had a culture that we were more enforcers instead of
informers. And so, my goal has been how can we work with
producers, treat them fairly, and address these needs?
But, it all comes down to making sure that our staff are
properly trained, and we are communicating that message to work
hand-in-hand with our customers. We have implemented several
changes, going forward, working with our state
conservationists, making sure that we have trainings. We have a
dedicated staff in many states where they do a lot of
determinations where that is all they do, focusing on wetland
determinations. We are in the process of creating a national
review cadre that before we would actually administer a ruling
of a converted wetland, that this review team will look at over
all of the documentation and paperwork to make sure we have
everything correct before issuing that conversion, because we
want to make sure we got it right the first time.
And so, really it comes down to being able to have open
communication, making sure that our staff is trained, and
making sure that we are doing everything we can to treat the
farmer fairly, making changes to the NAD (National Appeals
Division) process. There have been cases in the past 10 years
where farmers--where they would win an appeal and then there
would be another appeal and another appeal that we would keep
coming back several times. Basically after a second adverse
determination, if the producer prevails, then we are going to
back away.
I certainly understand that wetland compliance is a very
sensitive issue. Our job is to make sure that we are making
these determinations in a very fair way. Our staff, they are
making proper determinations, and that we are being able to
convey that fairly to the producer. Rest assured we will
continue making progress in that area.
Mr. Johnson. And I apologize to go way back in history, but
you know, if memory serves, the 1996 Farm Bill provided for
USDA to grant a certain number of--I think they were called
limited effect exemptions----
Mr. Lohr. Minimal effect, yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, minimal effect. And so, to my knowledge,
I don't think that rule was ever promulgated. Is that right?
Mr. Lohr. That is correct, sir. When we look at minimal
effects, we have actually made some progress to make those
determinations, but you are right. That rule was never
promulgated.
I will say that we are definitely looking at making that
happen this year. When I came on board as Chief back a year
ago, we were in the process of updating our interim rule for
wetlands compliance and highly erodible land determinations.
But the process had already passed as far as being able to make
changes to that. That interim rule was released last--gosh, it
has been many months ago now, and then we are in the process of
posting a final rule. But to try to make a change to that
interim rule would require public hearings, and we just can't
do it. But we are committed as an agency to looking at being
able to pick up the pieces again and try to go forward to
rewrite the rules on this to make sure that we can have a
chance to actually put that into regulation.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I would just, by way of closing, Madam
Chair, I thank this department, these agencies, the
Administration at large. I mean, clearly we all care about the
environment, we care about conservation. We want to make sure
that there is substantial and material compliance with the
goals and the mission and the objectives of these great
programs.
I want to thank you all for really trying to focus on
compliance through education and through information, and not
focusing quite so much on trying to catch people. I mean,
ultimately we are going to get a better environment and we are
going to get better conservation practices long-term with the
approach you are taking, both through rule and practice.
Thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Chair. I now recognize my colleague from Iowa for an
additional 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to touch base again about now incentivizing
conservation practices. I am pleased to hear that there are
some carryover funds, and I am hoping we can get all of those
out the door.
I have heard from too many farmers in my district who
absolutely want to participate in certain practices like cover
crops, but they feel it is too expensive for them to get into.
They don't have the support they need to afford it, especially
when our overall farm economy is really suffering, and I am
sure you are fully aware that Iowa has the greatest farm debt
right now. We want folks to get into these practices, but they
have a lot of debt. They don't know how they are going to be
able to afford it.
What sense do you have of the impact of these increased
incentive payments for CSP? Do you think that they will really
have an impact on application enrollment?
Mr. Lohr. Incentive payments for EQIP? I am sorry.
Mrs. Axne. Yes, for CSP. Yes, for EQIP, absolutely.
Mr. Lohr. Okay.
Mrs. Axne. I mean, I want to know what we can do to get
more folks into these programs that they think they can't
afford them.
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely. I think you are exactly right. There
are lots of things we can do, but certainly the enhanced
payments will help. Certainly, for a cover crop, being able to
pay 150 percent where we were paying 100 percent, to pay these
enhanced payment rates will certainly help.
But, the best thing that we can do really is to continue to
tell the story and have farmers share their successes. Farmers
listen to farmers, and I have seen so many times across the
Midwest where farmers will come and speak at certain events and
share the successes they have had and how it has such a
positive impact, not only on the environment, but on the bottom
line. Definitely, we continue that outreach, continue having
farmers tell their story, and at the same time, everything that
we can do to help provide cost-share money to producers to make
sure they can take advantage of that.
Within our interim farm bill rules that were released with
EQIP, states can select a targeted resource area, those areas
that affect the biggest environmental threat that they
determine, and within that, they can take certain practices and
put an incentive payment on that as well. If a certain area
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed has been deemed that it is
a priority area, they can pay more for some of these practices.
We also have what are called EQIP incentive contracts, which
are brand new, which are like CSP where farmers can actually be
paid to actually experiment, if you will, and actually target
some specific resource concerns that they have on a particular
area without it being on the entire farm, like traditional CSP
works. They are longer contracts than typical EQIP, up to 10
years, and they will be paid both on the improvement practice
as well as the existing conservation efforts that they do.
Part of our goal in creating these rules is to streamline
the process, but also give more flexibility to states and give
more flexibility to producers to be able to take advantage of
the programs we have to meet those resource concerns.
Mrs. Axne. I appreciate that.
Is there anything else that you think that Congress can be
doing to incentivize the use of these programs? What are we
missing out on?
Mr. Lohr. Well, it all starts with money, you know. For
example, with EQIP, we only are able to approve about 25
percent of all our applicants, so it is $2 billion a year, but
there is a greater demand, and so we do the best to deliver the
program dollars that are allocated to us through Congress. But
certainly, the more opportunities we have with funding, we
would be able to help more farmers put that conservation on the
ground. I know we are not before the Appropriations Committee,
but certainly dollars certainly drive action in many cases.
Mrs. Axne. Okay. Am I hearing you correctly? We have excess
revenue in some areas because we have a carryover, but we have
other areas we are not able to fulfill the requests by as many
people who would like it? Is there an option for us to be able
to move some of these funds?
Mr. Lohr. Well, for example, the carryover funds that we
had in CSP, it is actually dictated in the law where that money
needs to go. As we shift it to the new dollar-based program, we
are not going to have those carryover funds.
Now, rest assured those funds are still being delivered and
administered to help producers. It is just limited to the uses
that it can go to and the programs that it can fund. But the
dollars are still being put on the ground.
Mrs. Axne. Yes. Okay, all right. Well, if there are any
other ways that you can think of, I will continue to push
Congress to put more funding overall in the next farm bill, but
let us know. We would love to hear it.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Axne. I would let you know that a couple of my farmers
who I spoke with since we have had this trade war have said
that the conservation practices have been very helpful with
their bottom line during this downturn with the economy. I
didn't ask them did it save you, because that is not the case,
but it has absolutely been a key player in helping them weather
this downturn.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you very much.
The Chair. With the second round of questions completed and
without objection, I will do a brief third round, primarily
because we were having such a good conversation related to soil
health, and I would like to begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes and allow Chief Lohr to continue his statements that he
was making related to my question that had been about soil
health, what we have seen in the Chesapeake Bay, and I would
like to give you a couple minutes to finish wrapping that up.
And Administrator Fordyce, if you would like to add anything, I
invite you to do so as well.
Mr. Lohr. Sure, thank you.
What I was going to explain was how the states are now
being able to set their own priority areas, and within those
areas, they can put incentive payments on certain practices, up
to ten practices. I really think that is going to be very
beneficial. Again, we are a locally-led agency, but every state
is different. Every state has different resource concerns. This
will allow our states, through working with their state
technical committees and their conservation districts, to see
what needs that they have for that particular state and area.
And as I was explaining as well with these incentive contracts,
being able to give more flexibility to producers to be able to
address soil health issues and concerns that they have. They
are CSP-like contracts, but it does not have to cover the
entire farming operation. They can be very prescriptive and
specific over where they would like these practices to go, plus
it gives them the flexibility. Maybe a farmer with cover crops
wants to experiment planting cover crops, or a certain mix on
this particular land, and then the next year try over here so
they can compare the difference. It is not so prescriptive as
some of the other contracts have to be.
Just know that we believe strongly with soil health, and we
will continue making that a priority, emphasizing that across
our agency with our employees, the training that we do. And we
have a soil health division within NRCS made up of experts
around the country. In the past, they have primarily focused on
external partners and producers and being able to go to various
shows or workshops and present externally, but they are a great
resource of information. I am going to try to steer them back a
little more internally as well, and have them do more training
for our staff and employees to make sure that we feel like that
our staff has the training that they need to be able to help
our producers understand the importance of what soil health can
mean to their operation.
The Chair. Thank you.
Administrator Fordyce?
Mr. Fordyce. Well, I feel like I need to say something. I
think the Chief probably needs to take a drink.
We are very anxious to roll out the pilot, the Soil Health
Income Protection Pilot. We are very anxious to see what the
results of that will be. Just very briefly, I think the intent
of Congress was to roll out a pilot program that you could take
lower producing soils, put a cover on them, and shorter
contract periods, so 3 to 5 years, and at the end of that,
determine if you have improved soil health. Certainly, the
Chief has touched on it, and NRCS works in this space every
day.
But when we talk to farmers, when I travel the country and
talk to farmers about what is important to them, certainly the
economics of the ag sector right now is top of mind. But
certainly, how can we proactively improve soil health, and once
we drive more adoption of soil health practices that improve
that soil health and that soil structure, that profitability
kind of follows. But it is almost--we have talked about
incentives. We have talked about other things. It is almost a
chicken or the egg kind of approach because we know--I mean, my
farm personally, we have been doing cover crops and investing
in soil health, different types of technologies for 7 or 8
years, and we are seeing the results of that.
And so, it is incredibly important that we continue to
drive, incentivize, and promote soil health, not only as being
the right thing to do, but also drives some economic benefits
as well.
I would like to just--one half of a minute, just--we talked
about being able to get dollars out the door and will we be
able to spend the money in CRP, and I will just remind everyone
that CRP has an acreage cap, not a dollar cap, so depending on
what--once the offers come in and we set that bar, that will
kind of drive what our investment is in CRP, as opposed to
having a dollar cap that limits us.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Administrator Fordyce, and
I am excited about this pilot program. This Subcommittee has
held hearings related to soil health, and we have heard the
chicken or the egg story from so many producers where they try
it on one field and kind of tiptoe their way into the use of
cover crops and other technologies.
This is pretty exciting and I look forward to hearing about
the success of this pilot.
I now recognize my colleague from South Dakota, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I was done,
but then the discussion we are having prompted another question
in my mind.
I mean, clearly very important, I mean, the conservation
incentive payments, there is a lot of interest on the field.
You mentioned talking to producers, Mr. Administrator. Some of
them want to know how they can provide input. I mean, what is
the best way--I mean, what should I tell them? I mean, if they
want some input into what practices should be accepted, what
guidance should I provide to them?
Mr. Fordyce. Again, we have a network of 2,124 county
offices, 51 state offices, and our state executive directors
are incredibly engaged on a lot of different issues from
engaging in your part of the world with the late or the early
fall storms and how we were engaging on services that we would
provide. State Executive Directors in South Dakota, North
Dakota, Minnesota, kind of that area were heavily engaged in
conversations about how can we interact. And this happens
literally across the country, and a lot of times, those state
executive directors are engaged with longstanding issues that
have existed for a long time, or things that have just
presented themselves that are driven either by weather or
certain things.
But, certainly, great assets across the country in those
state executive directors.
Mr. Johnson. I mean, I could tell them to just go to their
local FSA office and they probably assume that, but are there
any kind of working groups at a state-by-state level that are
being formed that maybe they could volunteer for?
Mr. Fordyce. A state technical committee is more probably
overseen by NRCS, but certainly a great opportunity from
presenting ideas or concepts about how to participate in
different types of conservation programs.
Mr. Johnson. But there is new mechanism being created
specifically for the CIG?
Mr. Lohr. I can't speak for FSA, but on the NRCS side, we
work very closely with our local conservation districts.
Certainly, we encourage involvement in that. We have local
working groups that meet to determine what the local needs are,
and that all filters up to our state technical committee, as
the Administrator mentioned, that is made up of all kinds of
partners, from FSA to producers to Farm Bureaus and all of
those groups that all come together. The state technical
committees are led by our state conservationists. They meet
quarterly, and they help shape and guide the direction of the
states. They are a very important part of that locally-led
process. Certainly, with the producers you visit, ask them to
visit with their local NRCS/FSA office, ask about their local
work groups, and that is what makes the process work.
Mr. Johnson. Perfect, and the technical committee would,
ultimately, it might be a good venue for them to engage as
well.
I mean, are there any efforts being taken to make sure
producers understand that their voices are desired in this
process?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely. We, as the Administrator said, at
NRCS, we have public affairs specialists in every state that
work very actively with all of their district offices through
social media, through communication. It is a big part we always
stress. Whenever I speak to groups, I stress the effects that
every person has with their voice. We need them involved in
telling the story, especially our soil health champions. I
mean, farmers listen to farmers, so if we can get those folks
willing to step up, take the microphone and tell their story,
that impacts farmers more than someone working for the
government.
But, you are exactly right, being able to let people know
what options are out there and help them be able to see what
can work on their farm.
Mr. Johnson. Well thank you, and you know, please continue
with that outreach. As you all know better than I do, there is
almost no substitute for engagement to increase compliance and
excitement and morale in the country, in the field, about these
programs. People will forgive you for the product, but man,
they never forgive you for the process. As you continue moving
forward, just engage the country as much as you can.
Thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you again to our
witnesses for being here today. Thank you for joining us. We
have heard a lot of great themes related to engagement,
engaging directly with the farmers and producers on the ground,
ensuring there is ample staff to be able to do that. And I
appreciate the update that you have given us on the programs
and where they are and where they are going.
As we talk about conservation and on the ground programs
and their impact on everything from climate to the overall
impact of productivity, we do navigate a lot of preconceived
notions about what works and what doesn't, and the one thing
that I like most about this Committee is that we do focus on
what works, and we hear from you all about the programs that
are working and what they mean to the farmers and producers
across this country.
The farm bill is full of conservation programs that farmers
and land owners can use to achieve their clean air, soil, and
water goals, and to optimize the productivity of their land,
and they use these programs because they work and because they
are based in science, and because they are practical. And that
doesn't mean there isn't room for us to do better, to scale up
and to make changes, but we have to first think about what
farmers on the ground will implement, and if a program is not
put in place well or isn't well communicated, it faces
challenges.
And so, in the interest of always working towards achieving
these goals, I appreciate your attendance here today and your
willingness to talk about how we are communicating some of
these great programs out to the farmers and producers who use
them. We can and we should aggressively pursue cleaner water,
cleaner air, cleaner soils, and a more stable climate, and we
have these good voluntary programs that do just that. They
benefit soil health. They benefit overall output, and overall
profitability for our farmers and producers across the country.
And we start by looking exactly at what the great work that
farmers are doing through these conservation programs in the
farm bill, and I appreciate your time here today. Thank you for
participating in this hearing, and it is always good to see you
all. We hope to have you back in the coming months.
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 adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Article by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wheat Life
https://wheatlife.org/p_0120_CRP.html
FSA opens CRP general signup
Rule changes mean lower rental rates, no sig[n]up for Douglas County
January 2020
By Trista Crossley
After several years of 1 year extensions and months of
anticipation, the first Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) general
sign-up under the 2018 Farm Bill--and the first general sign-up since
2015--has finally arrived.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
According to Farm Service Agency (FSA) records, there are nearly
190,000 acres expiring in Washington in 2019, with another 195,000
expiring next year. Rod Hamilton, farm programs chief for the Farm
Service Agency's Washington state office, said this is expected to be
one of the bigger sign-ups in state history.
The general sign-up began Dec. 9, 2019, and will run through Feb.
28, 2020. Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the acreage cap was raised from 24
million acres to 27 million acres. For most Eastern Washington farmers,
the most significant change they will see in this general sign-up is a
reduction in rental rates, Hamilton said. To help pay for the increased
acreage cap without negatively impacting other conservation programs,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reduced rental rates to 85
percent of a county's average rate for the general sign-up. Rates for
continuous sign-up were reduced to 90 percent of the county's average.
How much of an impact those reduced rental rates will have on Eastern
Washington farmers remains to be seen, as Hamilton said they'll have to
wait until the offers are processed.
``The other thing that folks would be interested in is SAFE (State
Acres for Wildlife Enhancement) acres used to be under continuous sign-
up, so if they were in a SAFE area, their land was (automatically)
eligible. But now, they will have to meet normal general CRP sign-up
requirements and compete just like everybody else,'' he said.
Under the 2018 Farm Bill, many SAFE acres are no longer exempt from
counting towards a county's CRP acreage limit, which is 25 percent of a
county's total cropland that is eligible for CRP. In Douglas County,
which has slightly more than 187,500 acres in CRP, 63,000 acres of
which are in SAFE, their county acreage cap is 143,700 acres, meaning
they are roughly 43,800 acres over their cap. According to Hamilton,
that means farmers in Douglas County will not be able to participate in
this general sign-up. To change how SAFE acres are classified would
require Congressional action, and he said that there are folks in
Congress who are looking at this.
Michel Ruud, FSA's Douglas County Executive Director, said they've
made the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) aware of the
situation. She added that NRCS is equally concerned and is exploring
options that might temporarily help producers with expiring contracts.
Under current rules, Douglas County won't have a CRP general sign-up
until 2022.
While there are other counties throughout the U.S. with the same
problem, Douglas County is the only county in Washington state in this
predicament. There seems to be a broader trend within this farm bill's
CRP rules to move more towards water quality initiatives, something
that is seen in a new initiative, the Clean Lakes, Estuaries, and
Rivers (CLEAR) initiative. That move is not necessarily in the best
interests of parts of Eastern Washington.
``Congress clearly said water quality is an emphasis (in this farm
bill). If you are going to have water quality issues, then you have to
have water,'' Hamilton said. ``Water is more abundant back east than
here in the West. Although we clearly have water quality issues, we
also have land miles from any water source.''
For the most part, Hamilton said CLEAR is in some degree a new name
for water quality practices they've had in the past. One of the big
differences is that expiring contracts that are eligible for CLEAR will
have the opportunity to re-enroll under a 30 year contract.
``I think we will see, when the handbook comes out, that a riparian
buffer is still a riparian buffer, but now it will be considered a
CLEAR practice,'' he explained, adding that the rules are still being
ironed out.
Another thing that could impact some wheat growers are changes to
the haying and grazing provisions in CRP. Hamilton said while the rules
for haying and grazing are ``convoluted,'' there may be more
opportunities for grazing CRP as a midcontract management practice with
no payment penalty. Under previous rules, if a producer used grazing as
a midcontract management practice to help stimulate the plant stand,
there was a 25 percent loss of income (except under certain emergency
conditions).
``The question becomes, how often will we let people do midcontract
management?'' Hamilton said. ``One of the challenges with the new
grazing opportunities provision says whatever we allow, we can't allow
grazing that will cause long-term damage to the stand.'' FSA will be
working with producers and NRCS to figure out how much grazing will be
allowed.
Hamilton said no changes were made to the state's conservation
priority areas (CPA), but he is hopeful that there will be a potential
opportunity for revision in 2020 for 2021. In order for land to be
eligible for a CRP general sign-up, it either has to be in a CPA, have
a calculated erodibility index of 8 or higher or be in a CRP contract
expiring that year. In 2015, in order to meet Federal acreage cap
requirements, Washington State had to trim the amount of cropland that
was in CPAs by more than 600,000 acres, leaving some farmers with less
opportunity to enroll during a general sign-up.
Some of the other changes to CRP, as outlined in FSA's press
release, include:
Grasslands Sign-ups. CRP Grasslands sign-up helps landowners
and operators protect grassland, including rangeland, and
pastureland and certain other lands while maintaining the areas
as grazing lands. A separate CRP Grasslands sign-up will be
offered each year following the general sign-up. The sign-up
period for CRP Grasslands in 2020 runs from March 16, 2020, to
May 15, 2020.
Land Transition. The CRP Transition Incentives Program (TIP)
is an option for producers interested in transitioning land to
a beginning farmer or rancher or a member of a socially-
disadvantaged group to return land to production for
sustainable grazing or crop production. CRP contract holders no
longer need to be a retired or retiring owner or operator to
transition their land. TIP participants may have a lease less
than 5 years with an option to purchase, and they have 2 years
before the end of the CRP contract to make conservation and
land improvements.
Previously Expired Land. Land enrolled in CRP under a 15
year contract that expired in September 2017, 2018, or 2019,
may be eligible for enrollment if there was no opportunity for
re-enrollment and the practice under the expired contract has
been maintained.
Despite such a large number of acres expiring, Hamilton said he
wasn't concerned about hitting the CRP cap, because everything that is
expiring is already under the cap. Currently, in the U.S., there are
approximately 22.3 million acres in CRP, and the cap for the 2020 sign-
up is 24.5 million acres (each year of the 2018 Farm Bill, the cap will
increase incrementally until it hits the overall cap of 27 million
acres).
Hamilton urged farmers who are interested in submitting a CRP
application to contact their local FSA office sooner, rather than
later. He expects local offices to be extremely busy with a number of
other deadlines during the first few months of the year, including
acreage reporting and Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage
program sign-ups.
______
Submitted Letters by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
letter 1
November 26, 2019
Hon. Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
RE: Support for State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) CRP
initiative
Dear Secretary Perdue:
We are writing to express strong support from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington State
Conservation Commission (WSCC) for the State Acres for Wildlife
Enhancement (SAFE) initiative under the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). CRP's purpose is conservation of soil, water, and wildlife
resources. SAFE addresses state and regional high-priority wildlife
objectives by providing habitat for rare and declining species and
species of social or economic importance. SAFE also provides an
additional incentive for landowners to provide important wildlife
habitat while receiving payments that help keep the farmer in business.
We appreciate your consideration of the critical role that SAFE plays
in the conservation of wildlife species while maintaining viable
agriculture production in Washington State.
Washington has five SAFE programs, primarily focused on developing
shrub-steppe habitat in the Columbia Basin. The Columbia Basin is a
major agricultural hub with prime soils and irrigation provided through
the Columbia Basin Project. Historically people viewed shrub-steppe
habitat as having little value, leading to conversion of over 50
percent of the state's shrub-steppe wildlife habitat to other uses,
primarily agriculture. This conversion has fragmented habitat and
created isolated populations of several shrub-steppe-dependent species
including greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse. Abundant at the
outset of human settlement, both grouse populations have been in
decline for decades. Sage-grouse are currently state-listed as
threatened, and sharp-tailed grouse are state-listed as endangered;
their population estimates in 2019 were only 676 and 834 individuals,
respectively. Most of the habitat remaining to support prairie grouse
and other shrub-steppe dependent wildlife is on private lands. CRP,
SAFE in particular, is one of the only programs available to conserve
this habitat at a meaningful scale. WDFW has years of research
documenting the importance of CRP as habitat for both non-game and game
species alike.
Since it started in 2008, SAFE has been a component of continuous
CRP (CCRP). The continuous sign-up approach and partnership between
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and WDFW has allowed for
targeting wildlife conservation benefits where they are most needed.
For example, the Sage and Sharp-tailed Grouse SAFE, the largest SAFE
program in Washington, is located in Douglas County, the core area for
the remaining populations of these two species. Farmers have partnered
in conserving grouse habitat by enrolling nearly 73,000 acres in the
program. CCRP offers additional financial incentives including Signing
Incentive Payments (SIPs) and Practice Incentive Payments (PIPs) that
general CRP does not offer.
The Washington SAFE programs require a diverse seed mix of mostly
native species to provide maximum habitat benefits to the focal
wildlife species. These seed mixes have higher costs than low diversity
introduced species seed mixes, but they provide much higher wildlife
habitat value. The majority of the Washington SAFE programs are located
in arid landscapes that make it a challenge to establish CRP cover.
These projects often take years to establish and can require
significant work from farmers controlling weeds to ensure success. The
additional incentives from SIPs and PIPs are important to farmers; WDFW
and WSCC support providing incentive payments to farmers who invest the
time and resources needed to establish successful SAFE projects.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State
Conservation Commission value the voluntary and incentive-based
approach of farm bill conservation programs. WDFW and the WSCC have
partnered for years with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide technical assistance
to farmers enrolled in farm bill programs including CRP. WDFW Private
Lands Biologists provide technical assistance to farmers enrolled in
SAFE. SAFE has been a popular program in Washington; during some of the
early sign-ups farmers camped outside of county USDA Service Centers to
ensure they could sign-up while acres were available. Through October
2017, farmers enrolled over 112,000 acres in SAFE, representing just
under ten percent of the 1.19 million acres of CRP in Washington. WDFW
sincerely appreciates USDA for its investment in wildlife conservation
through SAFE. However, despite popularity and demonstrated success, FSA
has not offered an opportunity for farmers to enroll in SAFE since
October 2017. The state has 17,297 allocated but unenrolled acres for
these programs that could provide important wildlife habitat. WDFW
biologists have been fielding questions from farmers interested in
enrolling in SAFE for over 2 years but have had to direct farmers to
other opportunities--most of which do not provide wildlife conservation
benefits or financial incentives comparable to SAFE. The 2+ year freeze
on SAFE enrollment has resulted in lost opportunities for both wildlife
conservation and farmers.
SAFE is a critical tool for conserving wildlife habitat for
multiple state-listed and declining species in Washington. It is
imperative that USDA reopen the program for enrollment under the
current CCRP structure and provide sufficient financial incentives to
compensate farmers who enroll in SAFE. In the interest of furthering
wildlife conservation through SAFE and other CRP wildlife practices and
offering voluntary incentive-based conservation options to farmers,
WDFW and the WSCC request the following:
USDA prioritize enrollment and implementation of SAFE and
other wildlife practices--including Habitat Borders for Upland
Birds (CP33) and Pollinator Habitat (CP42) through future CCRP
sign-ups;
USDA offer SIPS and PIPs for SAFE and other CCRP practices
as authorized in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018
Farm Bill);
USDA offer 50 percent cost share of seed costs for SAFE and
other CCRP practices as authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill; and
To the maximum extent practicable, USDA maintain at least
the minimum CCRP enrollment levels directed in the 2018 Farm
Bill (8 to 8.6 million acres through 2023) including wildlife
practices as well as the water quality practices that have been
the focus of CCRP sign-ups under the new farm bill thus far.
We appreciate your consideration of these requests. WDFW and the
WSCC value our partnerships with farmers and USDA to provide quality
wildlife habitat through SAFE and other CRP wildlife practices and we
want to continue these efforts in the future. We look forward to
working with you and your staff to continue the success of CRP in
conserving soil, water, and wildlife resources.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Kelly Susewind,
Director, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Carol Smith
Executive Director, Washington State Conservation Commission
CC:
The Honorable Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State
The Honorable Patty Murray
The Honorable Maria Cantwell
The Honorable Suzan K. DelBene
The Honorable Rick Larsen
The Honorable Denny Heck
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
The Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler
The Honorable Dan Newhouse
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal
The Honorable Kim Schrier
The Honorable Derek Kilmer
The Honorable Adam Smith
Casey Katims, Executive Director, Governor Inslee's D.C. Office
letter 2
December 20, 2019
Congresswoman Kim Schrier,
1123 Longworth HOB,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congresswoman Schrier,
The Foster Creek Conservation District Board of Supervisors and
staff are extremely concerned that, over the next few years, because of
the new farm bill rules Douglas County, in central Washington, stands
to lose up to 50,000 acres currently in the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). The problem has come about because areas enrolled in the
associated State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) program and
previously exempt from the CRP County Cap are no longer eligible for a
waiver. SAFE acres were considered continuous CRP, the same as acres in
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and were not
subject to a county cap. In the new farm bill, however, SAFE was not
included in the exemption.
The Foster Creek Conservation District works closely with
agricultural producers farming in a region with a unique landscape of
high elevation, low rainfall shrub-step habitat, bordered on three
sides by the Columbia River. The SAFE acres with CRP in Douglas County
provide critical habitat for four species of interest: the Columbia
basin pygmy rabbit, the Greater sage grouse, Washington ground
squirrel, and the Columbia sharp-tail grouse.
Douglas County currently has approximately 191,000 acres in CRP/
SAFE. It has taken years to properly establish these acres, and have
required considerable maintenance and weed control efforts by
participating farmers. The program has remained very popular with the
landowners and has proven to be successful for the wildlife targeted.
The local sage grouse population is the only one in western United
States that is increasing in numbers. The pygmy rabbits that were
nearly extinct are being re-introduced from captive breeding colonies
into the county. Recently, it was discovered they were also breeding
successfully outside of these controlled areas. The Douglas County
Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) is based on these lands continuing
to provide habitat, by protecting and enhancing critical areas ``within
the area where agricultural activities are conducted''. These acres are
also necessary for producers to have the ability to enroll in the
District's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and receive U.S. Fish and
Wildlife's Safe Harbor Agreement protections in order to continue their
farming operation.
We urge you to help fix the rule in the new farm bill, amending it
to allow SAFE acres to be considered continuous CRP and exempt from the
county cap. Over the last decade, the government has made a significant
investment in our county to create critical habitat for threatened
species while providing agricultural producers with risk management
tools such as Safe Harbor. Let's not squander this effort of money and
time. We ask you to help us find an exemption for SAFE acres in Douglas
County.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
John McLean,
Foster Creek Board chair,
on behalf of the Foster Creek Conservation District Board and staff.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Matthew J. Lohr, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question 1. Chief Lohr, can you provide a figure for the number of
outreach and town hall meetings field staff have conducted? At the
national level, how are you informing producers of the various state
level sign up timelines, in addition to their county and state email
lists?
Answer. Although we do not keep count of each meeting conducted at
the state and field levels, we can advise that State Conservationists
are required to post program signup information in the state and local
media 30 days prior to signup. Public announcements are made at State
Technical Committee meetings and information is also distributed to
local community-based organizations. At the national level, through our
Outreach and Partnerships Division, we distribute, via email, program
signup information to over 60 different community-based organizations
who then distribute to their respective customer segments.
Question 2. Chief Lohr, you mentioned NRCS's student intern
program, the Pathways Program, during the hearing. Can you elaborate on
how that program works? How many interns do you typically have in the
program each year? How many interns end up working 640 hours, enough to
be automatically converted into a full-time employee?
Answer. The Internship Program is one of three components of the
overall Pathways Program (interns, Recent College Graduates, and the
Presidential Management Fellows Program). The Pathways Programs are
limited in nature, intended to provide agencies a supplemental
authority to use as part of an overall workforce planning strategy. The
Pathways Programs are intended to be more than simple excepted service
hiring authorities; they are intended to fulfill a need for
developmental programs that will inspire interest in more permanent
Federal service. The purpose of the program is to foster a positive
experience for participants that will help prepare them for successful
careers in government--either immediately or at some future date.
The Internship program is designed to provide students enrolled in
a wide variety of educational institutions, from high school to
graduate level, with opportunities to work in Federal agencies and
explore Federal careers while still in school and while getting paid
for the work performed. Students who successfully complete the program
may be eligible for conversion to a permanent job in the civil service.
Interns generally work over the course of two to three summers and
are in a leave without pay status during the school sessions, at times
they can work throughout the school year on a part-time basis if school
schedule and location is conducive. To be eligible for conversion,
interns must: Complete at least 640 hours of work experience acquired
through the Internship Program; Complete their degree or certificate
requirements; Meet the qualification standards for the position to
which the Intern will be converted; Meet agency-specific requirements
as specified in the Participant's Agreement, and Perform their job
successfully.
Since 2013 NRCS has hired just over 1,900 interns, an average of
nearly 317 new hires per year. Currently NRCS has 416 active interns
and is projecting nearly 300 to 400 additional interns from recent
recruitment initiatives. Approximately 200 of the current Interns will
be completing the program and may be eligible for conversion to
permanent appointments during Fiscal Year 2021.
At this time, we do not have the data to say exactly how many
interns meet the 640-hour requirement, however from fiscal years 2013-
2019 the average number of conversions of those entered into the
program has been 51 percent. We are projecting 60 intern conversions
from December 2020 graduates and approximately 125 are eligible for
conversion after spring graduations.
Question 3. Voluntary conservation programs authorized by the farm
bill provide financial and technical assistance for practices that have
co-benefits, including increasing soil carbon. Please explain how each
of the conservation programs administered by your agency supports
greenhouse gas reduction and carbon storage practices? How is NRCS
evaluating the effectiveness of these practices to help farmers and
ranchers mitigate and adapt to climate change?
Answer. NRCS administers many farm bill programs with the most
prominent being the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Conservation Stewardship Program, Agriculture Conservation Easement
Program-Wetland Reserve Easements, and the Regional Conservationist
Partnership Program. The common thread running through these programs
is the site-application of conservation practice standards to address a
producer's resource concerns. Many of the 170 individual conservation
practices offered have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas and
increase carbon storage. Please recognize it is difficult to
specifically measure either greenhouse gas reductions or carbon storage
increases because of the specificity of the farming conditions (soil
type, rain fall, growing days, length of practice establishment, etc.).
NRCS models the effectiveness of practices through the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Utilizing statistical modeling the
CEAP team can calculate at a large scale (river basin) how conservation
practices from farm bill programs are affecting carbon storage and
greenhouse gas emissions. These reports are used by USDA to inform our
conservation planning efforts.
NRCS has a tool to estimate greenhouse gas emissions on farms,
COMET-Farm. The estimates produced are calculated at the field or farm
operation level and attempt to model farming activities. The tool is
not used to document greenhouse gas levels at the farm bill program
level as multiple programs may be used on a farm operation. The tool
can be used at the field level by our local planners to go over
specific results and aid in the tailoring of conservation practices for
farmers and ranchers to mitigate and adapt to the local environment.
NRCS is confident that farm bill programs are having positive co-
benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing soil
carbon. An example would be programs that install cover-crops and no-
till practices.
Question 4. CSP sign-ups are continuous and ongoing. Based on the
FY 2019 sign-up, please provide an update of interest in the program.
How has interest in the FY 2019 sign-up compared to previous years'
sign-ups?
Answer. Interest in CSP remained consistent in FY 2019 when
compared to FY 2018 and lower than FY 2014 through FY 2017. The largest
difference appears in the number of contracts obligated due to changes
introduced by 2018 Farm Bill, including the introduction of the
Grasslands Conservation Initiative, and the conversion from an acres-
based to a cash-based funding cap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Applications Received Contracts Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 * 22,464 5,692
2018 22,530 10,596
2017 26,577 12,317
2016 30,404 12,336
2015 28,827 17,174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In addition to the numbers reflected in the table, CSP-Grasslands
received 12,348 applications and 9,507 contracts obligated
Question 5. Overall, what assistance and resources has NRCS made
available to landowners to improve soil health? How have the resources
been utilized and what additional authorities, if any, are needed to
further additional soil conservation across the country?
Answer. Soil health is one of NRCS' top priorities for 2020. Each
state is developing a strategy to increase delivery of soil health
assistance to farmers. NRCS programs, such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program, provide
technical and financial assistance. A new Soil Health Management
Conservation Activity Plan and Soil Testing activity through EQIP
expands opportunities for assistance to producers. The plan helps
producers evaluate soil health concerns and develop a transitional
cropping management plan that follows the four principles of soil
health, and the soil testing activity is used to measure the physical,
biological, and chemical characteristics of the soil and monitor the
effectiveness of agronomic conservation practices. NRCS is also
providing soil health training to all its field employees.
The Conservation Innovation Grant Soil Health Demonstration Trials
provide additional opportunities to further soil conservation by
providing awards for partners to work directly with producers to
demonstrate long-term, successful soil health management systems, or
production systems being transitioned to a management system that
incorporates all the soil health principles.
NRCS is coordinating the Science of Soil Health project with 12
cooperating universities, collecting soil health metrics from a range
of soils, crops, and management systems across the country. We will use
the information to make recommendations about measuring soil health
through scientific methods. We are also assisting with the
interpretation of laboratory data, making it useful for landowners and
decision makers.
NRCS has adequate authorities to facilitate soil health
improvements.
Question 6. How is NRCS working with research organizations
(including Federal, state, and nonprofit) to examine and develop soil
conserving practices and to assess their impact on production? How has
the agency transferred this research and other technology advancements
to its field office practices?
Answer. NRCS has robust working relationships with Federal and
state agencies, nonprofits, and academia with respect to research.
NRCS is coordinating the Science of Soil Health project with 12
cooperating universities. The project is designed to collect soil
health metrics from a range of soils, crops, and management systems
across the country. Each project includes a business as usual practice,
a soil health practice, and a reference/native condition. The projects
have already yielded an increased understanding of sampling and
laboratory limitations and updated guidance. The data gathered will be
stored in a newly developed interim database. The database model
development team is working across USDA, non-profit organizations and
state universities and agencies to write guidance documentation for a
permanent database for interoperability and data-sharing. This will
require some new techniques that allow us to protect private
information while getting the most possible good out of all information
gathered.
The data gathered and conclusions generated will be supplied to all
agency personnel, landowners, non-government institutions and the
general public. Agency personnel will use the information to make
recommendations about measuring soil health through scientific methods.
The results will also inform soil health scoring and assessment
software and systems such as the Soil Management Assessment Framework.
The agency recently developed a soil testing activity to help quantify
the effect of agronomic conservation practices. In addition, the Soil
Health Demonstration portion of the Conservation Innovation Grants On-
Farm Conservation Trials is a prime example of how new technology
advancements are transferred to producers.
Another example is the PLANTS database and website
(plants.usda.gov) that provides basic information (e.g., scientific
names, common names, distributions, nativity, legal status) on plants
occurring in the United States to be used in conservation planning. The
PLANTS website is one of the Department's most visited websites, the
information on this site serves as a national and international
standard. In 2019, PLANTS had 2,535,767 users (2,517,508 were new) with
3,968,507 sessions involving 12,666,076 page views. Regarding users,
1,784,272 (69.89%) were from the U.S., including Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. There were 748,576
(30.00%) users from outside the U.S. The National Plant Data Team has
dozens of working relationships with researchers, including formal
agreements/relationships with the Academy of Natural Sciences at Drexel
University. Harvard University, Smithsonian Institution, University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S. Geological Survey.
Question 7. CSP was amended to require contract renewal applicants
to compete with new applications. During FY 2019, how many existing CSP
contract holders sought to renew or expand their contract? Describe the
process by which these contract renewals competed with new
applications? How many of those that applied for renewal were
ultimately not re-enrolled in the program?
Answer. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, authorized NRCS to
extend contracts eligible for renewal for a sixth year so that
producers would be able to compete for a contract renewal under the new
regulation. As such, the NRCS did not hold a CSP renewal sign-up in
Fiscal Year 2019. However, over 3,000 producers elected to extend their
contracts for a sixth year, thus making them eligible to compete for a
renewal contract in fiscal year 2020.
Question 8. This past November, NRCS announced its 1st round of
funding for the On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials, which includes
a new Soil Health Demonstration Trial. How much funding was requested
amongst competitive applications this award round? When will you begin
learning from the first demonstration projects? When will the next
round of funding become available?
Answer. The first On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials funding
announcement, released in May 2019, made available $25 million to
partners. Seventy-three proposals were received requesting almost $140
million. Projects began in spring 2020 and we anticipate that it will
take some time for results to emerge. Initially, partners need to
recruit participating producers and then implement conservation
practices and systems on their lands. In most cases, a full
understanding of the conservation and financial effects of these
projects will not be available until the projects are completed.
The 2020 On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials funding
announcement was made on March 12, 2020.
Question 9. The 2018 Farm Bill established new ``Incentive
Contracts'' under EQIP. Can you please provide specifics for how this
program will be implemented?
Answer. Some aspects of these new provisions are still under
development. NRCS requested comments on the new EQIP incentive
contracts through the public comment solicitation in the preamble of
the EQIP interim rule. Specifically, the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 did not set a payment limit for incentive contracts so NRCS is
requesting feedback on the $200,000 payment limitation set by the
agency. NRCS chose this limit to allow producers participation in both
EQIP incentive contracts and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
which also has a $200,000 payment limit, as a streamlining and
coordination decision between the two similar programs.
The agency created a new subpart D ``Incentive Contracts'' in the
EQIP regulation. This subpart outlines the processes and requirements
for high priority areas, incentive contract selection, contract
requirements, contract period, and payment rates and restrictions. A
brief summary follows:
High priority areas--States will determine high priority areas, in
consultation with the State Technical Committee. These areas must
encompass every region in the state (to allow participation by all
eligible applicants) and may overlap with other high priority areas.
States will also identify up to three priority resource concerns within
each high priority area, and the incentive practices that will address
these resource concerns.
Incentive contract selection--NRCS will give priority to
applications that address eligible priority resource concerns, and will
evaluate these applications relative to other similar, agriculture and
forest operations.
Incentive contract requirements--Participants must agree to
complete at least one incentive practice. The minimum contract area is
the planning unit (typically the field level) which differs from CSP
which requires the producer to enroll the entire area of operation.
Incentive contract period--NRCS will base the contract period on
the time needed to achieve the desired conservation benefits. This
period will be no less than 5 and up to 10 years.
Incentive contract payment rates and restrictions--Incentive
contract payments will be comprised of two types of payments:
implementation payments for conservation practices and activities (same
as general EQIP conservation practices and activities), and annual
payments for operation and maintenance of incentive practices, and
income foregone by the participant. NRCS is developing criteria for
annual payments.
Incentive contract restrictions--The aggregate payment limitation
to a person or legal entity may not exceed $200,000 directly or
indirectly. Additionally, the agency will allow an eligible joint
operation a contract limit of up to $400,000. This increase in payment
and contract limits aligns with CSP.
Question 10. Chief Lohr, you mentioned NRCS wants to focus on
hiring for entry-level, farmer-facing positions. When interns are hired
full-time, what types of positions are they typically hired for? What
percentage of entry-level employees come from the Pathways Program?
From the Recent Graduate Program? Are new employees hired from the
Pathways Program able to be trained more quickly? What kind of outreach
and advertising do you do to find candidates for the Pathways Program?
Answer. The majority of the Pathway Program positions within NRCS
that are converted to full time positions are Soil Conservationists,
Rangeland Management Specialists, Soil Scientists and Civil/Agriculture
Engineers in that order. From Fiscal Years 2013 through 2019, NRCS
converted approximately 787 interns to permanent appointments, which is
46 percent of entry-level positions. Pathways interns typically work
for the agency prior to conversion, which accelerates their
professional development. The Recent Graduate Program allows for hiring
applicants that are within 2 years of their graduation date; although
the majority of them are hired within the first few months of
graduation, there is a small percentage that may have been in the
workforce for a period of time before being hired. Many states perform
outreach within their area of operations at local universities.
Opportunities are posted on the USAJobs.gov website.
Question 11. The 2018 Farm Bill provided additional funding for the
Conservation Stewardship Program, how much of it has been spent on CSP
renewals and how much remains? What are your plans for the remainder of
CSP funds?
Answer. The table below shows the distribution of CSP financial
assistance (FA) funds in FY 2020. CSP--Grasslands Conservation
Initiative (GCI) funds were allocated first. The remaining FA funds
have been allocated between classic (new) and renewals at a 60:40
ratio.
Conservation Stewardship Program Allocation of Financial Assistance
October 1, 2019-January 28, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSP-GCI $123,734,000
CSP--Classic (New) $272,533,545
CSP--Renewals $170,121,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NRCS Financial Assistance Programs Division.
Question 12. NRCS is currently well below the authorized staffing
ceiling for FY 2020 of 10,445. The Committee greatly appreciates the
increase in the ceiling approved last fall to help alleviate the
workload pressures we continue hear about, but notes that NRCS was
already well below their prior ceiling. Please walk the Committee
through how the agency plans on addressing this large staffing gap to
ensure that landowners receive the customer service that we all strive
to provide?
Answer. Fully staffing the NRCS to the levels budgeted continues to
be a high priority. Leadership in NRCS is working diligently with the
Farm Production and Conservation Business Center to fill vacancies
across the nation.
Over the next 9 months, NRCS will focus hiring efforts to bring on
entry-level employees. We will maximize the use of direct hire
authority which has been given to us by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management as well as special authorities to increase the hiring of
veterans and Pathways students. NRCS is committed to continual
improvement in our hiring and retention efforts.
Question 13. We have also heard that the Farm Production and
Conservation Business Center has been somewhat of an impediment to the
hiring process creating an extra ``hoop to jump through'' rather than
providing for the efficiencies as intended. Can you please speak to the
business center's role in the hiring process and whether you feel that
they are responding in a timely manner to allow NRCS to meet its
staffing ceiling.
Answer. The Farm Production and Conservation Business Center Human
Resource Division (HRD) works collaboratively with hiring managers in
NRCS to provide technical, operational, regulatory, and advisory
support throughout the hiring process. The process is very much the
same process that existed when HRD was within NRCS. The HRD support
role begins when the agency notifies them of a hiring need and
continues through each step of the process until the new employee is on
board. HRD provides technical and advisory support by developing job
descriptions, conducting job analysis, developing assessment tools, job
opportunity announcements, evaluating candidate qualification, applying
veteran's preference, developing certificates of qualified candidates,
making job offers, and on-boarding new employees.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Chief Lohr, we've heard concerns the last several years
about changes in tile setbacks that weren't officially shared with
landowners or industry and seem to just have started to appear during
NRCS' interactions with landowners and contractors. Can you walk us
through any changes that have happened over the last decade to the
requirements on tile setbacks? In addition to the confusion among those
designing water control systems, we're also hearing concerns that you
are creating more soil salinity issues, rather than addressing them,
with these changes. And have there been changes in some states and not
others?
Answer. Since the dramatic increase in demand for wetland
determinations and interest in drainage starting in 2009, NRCS has been
working to provide consistent and timely information to producers so
they can make land management decisions. In 2010, NRCS in the 4-State
Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) began collaborating on a consistent
methodology for providing setback distances between wetlands and
drainage systems. From 2015 through 2018, NRCS implemented a consistent
methodology and recalibrated setback distances following Web Soil
Survey updates in North Dakota. It is important to note that producers
who act in reliance on information provided before a soil survey update
will not be found in non-compliance of the wetland conservation
provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act if they adhere to that
guidance. It should also be noted that due to unique environmental
factors, there are certain classes of wetlands that require site-
specific analysis in order to ensure that drainage does not cause the
conversion of wetlands and that provides unique setback distances for
each site.
NRCS is currently working to improve drainage setback methodology
in the PPR by freezing soil survey data for this analysis, seeking
scientific peer review, and delivering the results to producers through
a common self-service web platform, as well as providing assistance
through their local field offices. In addition to these enhancements,
the improved process will reduce the number of sites requiring site-
specific analysis.
With increased precipitation and rising water tables in the PPR,
NRCS is actively working with producers to address soil salinity issues
to the maximum extent possible. It is true that water leaving
subsurface-drained fields can contain salts that have leached from
cropland fields; however, no amount of drainage can effectively
``cure'' a naturally saline site in times of elevated water tables.
Most salinity is not associated with wetlands and producers are using
management techniques on a large scale to capture soluble salts when
leached in high precipitation years. These techniques are not effective
for soils naturally high in sodium. NRCS can assist producers in
identifying whether the soils are saline or sodic and can properly
prescribe voluntary technical and financial assistance for conservation
practices like soil salinity management and drainage water management
to help reclaim saline soils and to guard against soils becoming
saline.
Question 2. Chief Lohr, as you're aware, we specifically made
community colleges eligible for EQIP Conservation Innovation Grants in
the 2018 Farm Bill. I encourage you to build a working relationship
with the community colleges throughout the country who have their own
farms and play a key role in educating and training farmers on the best
conservation and agronomic practices for their operations through hands
on experiences. I know that the Community College Alliance for
Agriculture Advancement are eager to partner with NRCS and use their
farming operations and teaching expertise.
Answer. We look forward to working with community colleges, in
particular the Community College Alliance for Agriculture Advancement,
to explore ways to work collaboratively through CIG.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question 1. Chief Lohr, would you be willing to continue our
dialogue on conservation collaborative grants and work with my office
to ensure all farmers, including socially-disadvantaged farmers, can be
served by this opportunity.
Answer. I welcome the opportunity to continue our dialogue on the
conservation collaboration grants. NRCS has consistently increased our
efforts to assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Since
Fiscal Year 2015, NRCS has invested $33.2 million in partnership
agreements with community-based organizations and other private
entities to assist all historically under-served groups. Of this
investment, $20.4 million was awarded to Black entities specifically to
assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, primarily black
rural and urban farmers. This new conservation collaboration grant
process provides us an opportunity to increase our investment and
include additional partners to expand our outreach and technical
assistance efforts to more historically under-served groups.
Question 2. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program is of
great importance to the State of Ohio. The 2018 Farm Bill modernized
the program to include new flexibilities for both partners and
producers. Chief Lohr, could you walk us through the rollout process of
the new rule and outreach steps the agency will take to educate
stakeholders of the new changes. Additionally, please walk us through
the roll-out timing for the program's next few funding announcements.
Answer. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program Interim Final
Rule was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020. NRCS
issued a companion press release inviting public review and comment on
the rule. State Conservationists were provided detailed materials that
explain the contents to enable them to conduct outreach efforts at the
state and local levels. Nationally, a stakeholder meeting to review
details of the rule was held on February 14, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
The comment period for the Interim Final Rule closed on April 13, 2020.
In addition, NRCS updated its website to include links to the Interim
Final Rule and related documents for easy access by the public.
In calendar year 2020, NRCS released the Alternative Funding
Arrangement funding announcement and the announcement of 2019 RCPP
awards; the 2020/2021 RCPP ``Classic'' funding announcement took place
during the summer; and the announcement of 2020 Alternative Funding
Arrangement awards took place in the fall. The final rule will not be
published until calendar year 2021 though the evaluation and
consideration of the public comments on the interim final rule was
completed in Fiscal Year 2020.
Question 3. The 2018 Farm Bill included many common-sense changes
to RCPP, including increased funding for Critical Conservation Areas or
CCAs. Ohio is part of the Great Lakes Region which is designated as a
CCA. I thank the Department for maintaining this region as part of the
CCA, as there continue to be critical resource concerns in this area.
Chief Lohr, can you please share what steps the agency is taking to
ensure adequate funding is going towards these Critical Conservation
Areas and ultimately, working to address high-priority concerns for
producers in my state?
Answer. The Agriculture Improve Act of 2018, requires that 50
percent of RCPP funding go to CCA projects. The statute also requires
USDA to do outreach to CCA partners to encourage proposal submissions.
The RCPP Interim Final Rule requests stakeholder comment on the CCA
and priority resource concern designations.
Question Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question. Chief Lohr, California has had great success using both
EQIP and RCPP for conservation projects targeting the Tricolored
Blackbird. Producers are receiving payments through these programs to
allow their feed crops for their dairies to serve as habitat for the
birds and they are therefore unable to harvest their entire crop.
However, AGI caps have limited participation for some landowners in
this initiative. Can the AGI waiver authority that was re-instituted in
the 2018 Farm bill be applied to these projects?
Answer. The Agricultural Act of 2014 authorized Adjusted Gross
Income (AGI) waivers for RCPP, so AGI waivers have always been
available for the program. Producers interested in participating in the
Tricolored Blackbird RCPP project, as is true for all active RCPP
projects, are eligible to apply for an AGI waiver. The RCPP AGI waiver
was maintained in the 2018 Farm Bill statute.
Response from Hon. Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question 1. The 2018 Farm Bill made a number of changes to the CRP
payment structure including, one-time sign-up incentives, reduced
annual rental rates, and cost-share payment limits. How are these
changes expected to impact continuous and general sign-up interest?
What additional incentive payments does FSA plan to make available
under CRP?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill lowered payment rates and used those
savings to increase the acreage caps. USDA will monitor enrollment
relative to the acreage caps and will take appropriate actions to
educate producers on the financial and environmental benefits of CRP,
and will consider using the Secretary's discretion to encourage signup.
Question 2. FSA is required to enroll a minimum number of acres in
CRP grassland contracts, achieve minimum enrollment targets for
continuous contracts, and allocate available CRP acres to states based
on historical enrollment levels. How does FSA plan to meet these
enrollment requirements?
Answer. USDA has reviewed historical enrollment and will continue
to monitor signup under CRP; we will revisit any administrative
latitude as necessary to encourage additional signups where appropriate
and possible. Both the national office and our field offices have
undergone extensive outreach efforts to encourage producers to consider
the financial and environmental benefits of participating in CRP.
Question 3. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded TIP eligibility to all
expiring CRP contract holders. How is this change expected to increase
TIP participation rates for eligible CRP contract holders? What
outreach actions is FSA taking to promote TIP to historically under-
served producers (e.g., beginning, socially-disadvantaged, and veteran
farmers and ranchers)?
Answer. FSA relies heavily on partner organizations to assist with
outreach and education efforts. Through a cooperative agreement with
the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and Center for Rural
Affairs, FSA was able to identify barriers for Transition Incentives
Program (TIP) participation by beginning, socially disadvantaged, and
veteran farmers and ranchers. Efforts to improve outreach include
notifying landowners earlier and more frequently about enrolling in
TIP, increasing targeted outreach to landowners, and improving
communications and outreach with landowners who utilize third parties
to manage their CRP contracts. Plans are underway to develop employee
training, utilize USDA's Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development
network, and coordinate with State Departments of Agriculture and
state-based land link programs to gain buy-in on being a listed
resource for TIP to offer landowners support on land transition issues.
Question 4. How is the inclusion of nongovernmental organizations,
from the 2018 Farm Bill, expected to impact CREP?
Answer. USDA will work with nongovernmental organizations
interested in becoming a partner in a CREP project under the new
statutory provisions. USDA does not expect any significant impact to
CREP resulting from the 2018 Farm Bill allowing nongovernmental
organizations as CREP partner.
Question 5. Forested riparian buffers are a key component of the
Chesapeake Bay states' clean-up plans. Virginia's goal is to plant
48,354 acres and, and yet, as of 2018, the state only had 4,372 acres
on the ground. CREP is key to achieving these goals. Please provide
additional information regarding implementation of riparian buffers
payments and how is this expected to expand the number of CREP
applications.
Answer. USDA will work with CREP partners to best implement the new
CREP provisions under the 2018 Farm Bill to further appropriate goals
regarding riparian buffer acres in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The
payment for riparian buffers under a CREP is just one of the changes
specified in the 2018 Farm Bill that could impact the number of offers
submitted. In addition, each CREP is based on the terms and conditions
negotiated with the CREP partner (e.g., the state). The combination of
these factors, and others such as commodity prices and land values
which vary over time, will impact whether the number of offers to
enroll land increase.
Question 6. How does FSA plan to include the new provisions from
the 2018 Farm Bill and other changes into existing CREP agreements? How
long will it take? Can the Agency provide standard language for
amendments and expedite the process? Are there any new CREP agreements
forthcoming? Are there states seeking to amend existing agreements?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill ``grandfathered'' existing CREP
agreements. Any state that wants to keep the provisions of the existing
agreement unchanged may do so and any state that wants to revise their
agreement may contact FSA. We will work with the state to make sure
they understand the new CREP provisions under the 2018 Farm Bill. The
timeline to reach a new agreement is predicated on the extent of the
changes. FSA will work with states as they request to amend existing
CREP agreements.
Question 7. In addition to CRP, FSA is also implementing a disaster
program, ARC-PLC and dairy program sign-ups. We've already heard about
field staff shortages. Given that, how is staff managing that workload?
It's important producers have access to and enough time with FSA staff.
Answer. FSA has allocated more than $3 million in overtime funds to
County Office staff to assist in the implementation of programs. In
addition to this, FSA has also provided over 569 staff years in
temporary allotments to states to help bolster service to farmers
across the nation. FSA has worked closely with State Executive
Directors to develop action plans for the completion of program signups
and to determine if additional resources are needed to ensure producers
are efficiently and effectively served.
Question 8. Is FSA able to measure the amount of carbon stored in
the soil through CRP?
Answer. Here are the most recent estimates for carbon. We are
working on the updates for 2018 and 2019.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction (CO2 Equivalent per Year) **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Sequestered (in millions of
Year metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 42
2013 38
2014 37
2015 35
2016 34
2017 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Annual estimate.
Question 9. Administrator Fordyce, can you provide a figure for the
number of outreach and town halls meetings field staff have conducted?
At the national level, how are you informing producers of the various
state level sign up timelines, in addition to their county and state
email lists?
Answer. As of November 25, 2020, FSA offices have conducted an
estimated 2,585 outreach activities nationwide specific to CRP. This
includes meetings, participation in conferences, webinars, workshops,
newsletters, and text messages. FSA relies heavily on partner
organizations and community-based organizations to assist in
publicizing signups and deadlines. We often post stakeholder toolkits
on our online stakeholder page so partners may include program messages
in their publications, social media platforms, and newsletters to
members.
Question 10. Administrator Fordyce, can you comment on concerns
that by moving SAFE to the general sign up that has a lower rental rate
and less allowance for incentive payments that it is less likely
producers will apply for the SAFE program?
Answer. General CRP Signup 54 had over 95 percent of offers
submitted under State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) that were
accepted. USDA will continue to monitor signup under CRP and revisit
any administrative latitude as necessary to encourage additional signup
where appropriate and possible. Stakeholders had an opportunity to
submit new and modified proposals for SAFE that would allow for
potential increases in SAFE acres. States have been notified of
approvals and disapprovals of those submissions. Newly approved SAFE
projects will be deployed in Continuous Signup 55 and the upcoming
General Signup 56.
Question 11. Can you explain why FSA chose to only offer practice
incentive payments at 5% of the total cost of the practice rather than
your statutory authority of up to 50%?
Answer. As we make administrative decisions related to implementing
programs like CRP, our guiding principle is to ensure that we meet the
conservation goals of the programs and ensure that we are implementing
in a way that will not compete for land against new farmers and
ranchers who are critical to the future of American agriculture. Our
decisions are facts-based and data-driven, with a decision-making
mindset that is customer-focused. We have set incentive levels with the
goals of the program in mind and an understanding of the current demand
for CRP. We will be carefully monitoring enrollment and adapting our
decisions under the law to ensure we meet program goals and best serve
producers.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Administrator Fordyce, what is the status of SHIPP (3-5
year contracts) and when can we expect the Department to announce a
signup period? What's the rental rate that you will paying on these? I
am also hearing that SHIPP may be limited to the Prairie Pothole
Region, rather than the Prairie Pothole States as expressly authorized
in the farm bill. Can you clarify what the plans are?
Answer. On February 24, USDA issued a news release announcing the
Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP), a new pilot program
under the Conservation Reserve Program that enables farmers in the
Prairie Pothole region to receive payments for planting cover crops on
their land. SHIPP was made available to producers in Iowa, Minnesota,
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota within the Prairie Pothole
Region during a signup that started March 30, 2020 and end November 20,
2020.* Through SHIPP, producers have the option of 3, 4, or 5 year CRP
contracts to establish perennial cover crops on less productive
cropland in exchange for payments. This pilot enables producers to
plant cover crops that, among other benefits, will improve soil health
and water quality while having the option to harvest, hay and graze
during certain times of the year. Rental rates vary by county and are
established using NASS's Cash Rent Survey. For SHIPP, the 15% or 10%
rental rate reduction generally applied to CRP contracts is not
applied, however, all payments under a SHIPP contract have a reduction
of 50%, with the exception of limited resource, beginning farmer and
ranchers and socially disadvantaged farmers, who have a 25% reduction.
Up to 50,000 acres can be enrolled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Decision to extend signup was made in August 2020. Signup ended
November 20, 2020, preliminary results of this signup are 228 offers
submitted for a total of 3,323.7 acres resulting in estimated annual
rental payments in the amount of $156,051.
Question 2. Administrator Fordyce, we hear that some FSA offices
are open only 1 day a week, sometimes by appointment only. Can you tell
us how many county offices are only open 1 day a week? How many are
open 2 days a week? How many are open less than 5 days a week? What
does this mean for CRP enrollment?
Answer. FSA currently has 98 of our 2,124 county offices open on a
part-time basis, less than 40 hours per week. Producers are provided
contact numbers for county offices and FSA has implemented a process
that affords all interested producers the opportunity to schedule an
appointment. Office hours are also publicized and provided on the
building for producer information. Program signups are on-going and
widely publicized so that producers and FSA staff can plan and execute
the needed paperwork by signup deadlines.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
Question 1. Administrator Fordyce, thank you for clarifying that
waivers are available for counties who find themselves above the 25%
acreage cap and wish to enroll in SAFE. Has guidance regarding this
waiver process been communicated to field offices? If not, when can
local FSA offices expect to hear from headquarters on this?
Answer. FSA State and County offices were provided with the 25
percent cropland limit waiver process through a notice issued on
December 6, 2019. The handbook for CRP was issued on December 9, 2019.
Staff also have been reminded of the process in conference calls during
general signup.
Question 2. The 2018 Farm Bill adds a requirement that FSA maintain
at least 8.6 million acres in continuous CRP (CCRP) enrollment by the
end of FY 2023. Currently 1.95 million acres are enrolled in SAFE out
of the 7.82 million acres total in CCRP. How would FSA plan to meet
this minimum acreage requirement for CCRP if the majority of future
enrollments in SAFE, which makes up nearly 25% of CCRP acres, is moved
to general signup?
Answer. The existing SAFE acres will continue to be categorized as
continuous enrollment and will be included in the total number of acres
enrolled through continuous CRP signup. We will continue to conduct
extensive outreach to ensure producers are aware of the financial and
environmental benefits of continuous enrollment. USDA will continue to
monitor signup under CRP and revisit any administrative latitude as
necessary to encourage additional producers to sign up where
appropriate and possible.
Question 3. Administrator Fordyce, you mentioned that ``SAFE-like''
practices were available for continuous enrollment. What are these
practices and how they might provide the same benefits as existing SAFE
practices?
Answer. A number of SAFE practices which specifically target water
quality are still available under Continuous CRP. These practices
include riparian buffers, filter strips, grassed waterways, contour
grass strips, prairie strips and wetland restoration practices.
Response from U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Can you tell us how your agencies collaborate with other
USDA agencies like ERS, ARS, and climate hubs?
Answer. FSA has collaborated with ARS and ERS on numerous analyses,
many of which are ongoing. FSA is currently working with ARS to
estimate water quality impacts of CRP/CLEAR practices, buffer
effectiveness in tile-drained agriculture land, and increasing
conservation cover establishment success. ERS collaborations include
nudge and reverse auction experiments to increase CRP efficiency. FSA
has also collaborated with climate hubs, most recently on expansion of
the AgRisk Viewer decision support tool.
The National Ecological Site Team is located in the ARS Jornada
Experimental Range Facility on campus at New Mexico State University.
NRCS, ARS and NMSU staff and faculty have collaborated on the
development and implementation of Ecological Site principles and
protocols, which are essential for conservation planning, and have
worked together to develop an online information system that contains
ecological site information and is connected to other NRCS databases
and information systems.
An NRCS staff person is co-director of the Southwest Climate Hub
located at Las Cruces, New Mexico and the Southwest Climate Hub has
hosted three NRCS liaisons developing tools for drought management,
wind erosion assessment, and forage supply forecasting.
Question Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question. Administrator Fordyce and Chief Lohr, is there still an
effort to co-locate offices in the field? Do you have the flexibility
to make that work and, how do you make it work in situations where you
may have a conservation district that is willing to house your
employees?
Answer. The Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are co-located in approximately 2,100 offices
across the country. Forty-six FSA offices are not co-located and 67
NRCS offices are not co-located. Together we are working to ensure
Secretary Perdue's vision to be efficient, effective and offer the best
customer service in the Federal Government. Therefore, the agencies
continue to explore co-location opportunities when it is in the best
interest of producers and is economically feasible. FSA, NRCS, and
conservation districts are co-located in over 1,900 offices nationally.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Question 1. FSA and NRCS have established minimum staffing
targets--that is--a minimum of 90 percent of the workforce in field
positions (GS Scale 12 and below) shall be employed at all times. Are
the agencies currently meeting that goal? If not, when will you be?
Answer. For FSA, 94 percent of current employees are in field
office positions GS-12 and below. NRCS allocates 90 percent of staff to
state and field offices and 10 percent to agency headquarters. Total
NRCS staff on board as of February 15, 2020 was 8,631. Headquarters
accounts for 836 (9 percent) of these with the remaining 7,854 (91
percent) allocated to state and field offices. As of PP23, NRCS has
9,495 onboard.
Question 2. I know that your agencies have set optimal staffing
levels at the state-level and at headquarters, can you tell me the
number of current vacancies compared to those optimal staffing levels?
Answer. NRCS had an approved ceiling for Fiscal Year 2020 of
10,445. The total permanent staff on board as of February 15, 2020, was
8,631. This total is comprised of 777 in Headquarters and Technical
Centers, and 7,854 in States. NRCS currently has 1,305 vacancies to
reach the FY21 hiring ceiling of 10,800 total staff.
FSA had an approved ceiling for Fiscal Year 2020 of 10,293. FSA's
estimated staffing need of 11,644 is based on staffing data analytics
but is unable to incorporate forecasted, future workload. FSA had about
705 vacancies as of Feb. 15, 2020 and currently has 346 as of PP23.
Question 3. Chief Lohr and Administrator Fordyce, how many African
Americans do you have in senior leadership at national headquarters?
Answer. As of February 15, 2020, NRCS African American leadership
included three (3) members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) in its
Headquarters and 14 in states as State Conservationists. FSA African
American leadership included one (1) employee in a state leadership
position as a State Executive Director.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA State
NRCS FSA NRCS State Executive
Headquarters Headquarters Conservationists Directors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States 0 0 14 1
Leadership
SES 3 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
Question 1. The Farm Production and Conservation Business Center
was meant to streamline the agencies and increase efficiency, but I
have heard it has actually slowed down the hiring process. What is the
Business Center's role in the hiring process--including at the county
level--and how has the Business Center impacted the agencies' ability
to meet its staffing ceiling?
Answer. The Farm Production and Conservation Business Center
(Business Center) Human Resource Division (HRD) works collaboratively
with hiring managers in both NRCS and FSA to provide technical,
operational, regulatory and advisory support throughout the hiring
process. The HRD support role begins when the agency notifies them of a
hiring need and continues through each step of the process until the
new employee is on board. HRD provides technical and advisory support
by developing job descriptions, conducting job analysis, developing
assessment tools, job opportunity announcements, evaluating candidate
qualification, applying veteran's preference, developing certificates
of qualified candidates, making job offers, and on-boarding new
employees.
Since the standup of the Business Center in October of 2018, HRD
has developed and implemented a number of process improvements to
streamline the recruitment process. This includes automated SF-52s,
standardized position descriptions, job analysis tools, assessment
questions and job opportunity announcements. As of PP23, FPAC on-board
strength has improved since the stand up with a gain of 751 employees
for total on-board strength of 21,374. [FSA--213; NRCS--477; RMA--0;
FPAC BC--61]
For county office (non-Federal) hiring actions, the process remains
largely the same as it did prior to Business Center standup. FSA has
established a team of administrative specialists from across the nation
to focus primarily on non-Federal hiring and assist State Offices
throughout the process. This team assists with non-Federal job
announcements, hiring actions and works with county leaders and FPAC-
HRD to fill non-federal roles in a more streamlined manner as
authorized in Title VII.
Question 2. In the last year, on average, how long has it taken
NRCS and FSA to hire new employees, from when the job application
closes to when an applicant is offered the job?
Answer. From February 15, 2019, to February 14, 2020, the average
number of days from when a job application closes to when an applicant
is offered the position was 33 days for FSA county office positions,
and 28 days for NRCS and FSA General Schedule field positions.
Question 3. How many people are currently employed by NRCS and FSA?
How has that number changed over the last 5 years and 10 years?
Answer. There are currently 9,495 permanent employees (not
including interns and temporary staff) employed at NRCS; and 9,588
permanent employees were employed at FSA. Over the past 5 to 10 years,
NRCS and FSA have had significant decreases in their on-board staffing
levels. FSA has about 9 percent fewer staff than 5 years ago, and about
22 percent fewer than 10 years ago. NRCS has about 7 percent fewer
staff on-board than five years ago, and about 12 percent fewer than 10
years ago.
Question Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question. As you may know, USA Rice and Ducks Unlimited formed the
Stewardship Partnership. One of the benefits of that working
relationship has been joint projects through the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP). These projects not only protect our natural
resources but also provide financial assistance to producers for
installing important conservation practices. Can you talk about the
importance of these types of relationships and can you give us an
update on RCPP and the role RCPP can have in our conservation toolbox?
Answer. The Rice Stewardship project has been a standout RCPP
project. It exemplifies the goal of RCPP for NRCS to work
collaboratively with partners on natural resource challenges of mutual
interest. In addition, the resources that USA Rice, Ducks Unlimited and
other partners have brought to the project have expanded our collective
ability to have a positive conservation impact on rice farms in
multiple States.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 established RCPP as a
standalone program with its own authorized funding. Unique among NRCS's
farm bill programs, RCPP provides partners with opportunities to direct
NRCS funding toward solving critical natural resource challenges. In
addition, the Act puts a new emphasis on the reporting of conservation
outcomes for RCPP projects, and includes provisions highlighting the
potential for innovation through RCPP. In many ways, RCPP and our
partners will be breaking new ground and informing conservation
activities across NRCS's farm bill programs.
Questions Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Question 1. Section 2504 of the 2018 Farm Bill gave USDA interim
authority to operate the conservation programs under the 2014 Farm Bill
regulations for the remainder of the last fiscal year. The purpose was
to continue conservation delivery while working towards implementation
of the 2018 Farm Bill changes. Can either of you further comment on the
importance of this authority?
Answer. We appreciate the flexibility from Section 2504, which
allowed FSA and NRCS to implement programs immediately following
enactment of Farm Bill programs while developing regulations. For the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), FSA was able to continue to enroll
environmentally sensitive lands in CRP, while promulgating the CRP
regulations. NRCS was able to continue servicing producers through its
farm bill programs, including its major programs, the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program in FY 2019 while developing applicable
regulations.
Question 2. The Committee has heard concerns FSA might need to
extend the current deadline for CRP general signup past February 28.
With concurrent sign-ups for ARC and PLC, does FSA need an extension in
order to meet the demand from landowners for these various programs?
Answer. FSA is utilizing data analytics to monitor ARC/PLC
enrollment, as well as CRP enrollment. In addition, each State
Executive Director was instructed to create a plan of operation to meet
all enrollment deadlines. This included specifying resource needs
relating to hiring additional temporary employees and overtime. General
CRP Signup 54 was not extended, however, States were able to utilize
registers for any producer that the county office was not able to
service by the last day of signup. Producers listed on registers were
able to complete the offer process after the February 28 deadline and
were ranked with all other offers submitted during the signup period.
Question 3. 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. On March 11, 2019, NRCS published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing its review of the conservation practice standards
found in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices and provided a
45-day comment period to receive input from the public about how best
to improve these conservation practice standards. NRCS has considered
this public input as it revised its conservation practice standards and
provides notice of such revisions in the Federal Register. More
particularly, NRCS has updated its Conservation Practice Standard code
449 Irrigation Water Management Practice, as part of this comprehensive
review of all NRCS Practice Standards and language has been added that
explicitly recognizes remote telemetry data systems inclusion. Language
was added that explicitly recognized remote telemetry data systems with
cloud-based irrigation scheduling capabilities as a best management
practice. On October 23, 2019 the practice standard was published in
the Federal Register for a 30-day public review and comment period.
Following the review and response period, the updated code 449 was
published on September 30, 2020, in the NRCS National Handbook of
Conservation Practices for implementation. The September 30, 2020
edition of code 449 reflects the aforementioned computerized irrigation
scheduling method within the standard.
Question 3a. 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. As NRCS conservation practice standards are updated, new
fact sheets explaining the additions, are created and posted on our web
sites. Training sessions at the State Office level and aided by our
National Technology Support Centers are created and implemented across
the country. Often new updates are the subject of professional meeting
presentations to ensure we keep the field office staff as well as
farmers and ranchers up to date on our best science and conservation
efforts.
Question 3b. Is NRCS working to incorporate water conservation
scheduling payments for technology such as cloud-based irrigation
scheduling tools into its EQIP regulations?
Answer. NRCS incorporated the statutory changes about water
conservation projects that include water conservation scheduling, water
distribution efficiency, and soil moisture monitoring practices as part
of the updates to the EQIP regulation. NRCS typically does not include
specific details on how practices will be implemented in the program
regulations so as to not inadvertently limit actions that would
otherwise assist in treating a resource concern. Therefore, the EQIP
regulation defers to the practice standards for the requirements
participants must implement in order to receive a program payment.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress
from Mississippi
Question 1. What percentage of EQIP and CSP funding is being used
for Technical Assistance (TA)? How does this compare to recent years?
Answer. Technical assistance has been 27.1 percent of EQIP funding
and 20.4 percent of CSP funding for each year since 2017.
Question 2. Can you speak to the potential of public-private
partnerships and how they can complement your agency's delivery system?
Congress made changes to the Technical Service Provider program to
streamline and provide more flexibility to work with the private sector
especially in such areas as precision agriculture. How is this effort
going?
Answer. NRCS has historically utilized public-private partnerships
to deliver conservation to the nation's farmers and ranchers.
Provisions like the Technical Service Provider (TSP) and the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program enable NRCS to expand the reach of
technical resources.
We have a two phased plan to streamline the TSP program. For phase
1, we will be taking immediate actions to streamline the program within
the abilities of the current management software (techreg). For phase
2, we are in the process of migrating to a new system (TSP registry)
which will open up additional streamlining options. We are putting
together a TSP advisory committee to help us review and implement
additional streamlining opportunities.
At the same time, we intend to put out a solicitation for third
party review of alternative certification opportunities and how best to
incorporate them into the TSP program. A draft solicitation is working
through the clearance process.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
Question 1. What was the reasoning behind the decision to limit
practice incentive payments to 5% of the cost of the practice rather
than the statutory authority of up to 50%. It seems Congress gave you a
guide in authorizing the 50% cap. Comparatively, the 5% seems awfully
low.
Answer. As we make administrative decisions related to implementing
programs like CRP, our guiding principle is to ensure that we meet the
conservation goals of the programs and ensure that we are implementing
in a way that will not compete for land against new farmers and
ranchers who are critical to the future of American [a]griculture. Our
decisions are facts-based and data-driven, with a decision-making
mindset that is customer-focused. We have set incentive levels with the
goals of the program in mind and an understanding of the current demand
for CRP. We will be carefully monitoring enrollment and adapting our
decisions as possible under the law to ensure we meet program goals and
best serve producers.
Question 1a. The 2018 Farm Bill created a new authority in EQIP
known as ``Conservation Incentive Payments.'' This simplified
contracting authority is intended to target natural resource concerns
in specific regions of a state and serve as a more flexible and
scalable alternative to CSP. I have had many inquiries from
constituents on how they can provide input on the resource concerns and
the practices that should be applied.
Can you provide any guidance on how best to provide locally-led
input for this new authority?
Answer. NRCS relies on input from State Technical Committees, and
from local Soil and Water Conservation groups, grassroots, locally led
processes, for determining state priority areas, resource concerns to
be addressed, practices and activities to be offered, and any other
technical or financial assistance available to producers in the state.
Typically, local soil and water conservation districts will hold an
annual, locally led working group meeting to discuss resource issues
and priorities at the local (often the county) level. All soil and
water conservation district meetings are posted to the state public
notices website (as a minimum) and all are open to the public.
Constituents may provide feedback through their local soil and water
conservation districts. Additionally, constituents can write or contact
their NRCS State Conservationist if they are unable to meet with their
local soil and water conservation district.
Question 1b. Additionally, how is NRCS educating producers on the
availability of this new authority?
Answer. We are still working through a number of issues associated
with this new authority. Additionally, NRCS business tools are under
development to ensure EQIP participants under incentive contracts are
held to incentive contract rules and not general EQIP rules regarding
contract and payment limitations and minimum contract length
provisions. NRCS will begin approving incentive contracts in calendar
year 2021. NRCS will conduct outreach efforts at the local and state
levels to ensure producers will understand how the provisions will be
implemented at the local level.
Question 1c. The EQIP regulation requires the Chief to identify
``high priority areas'' for Incentive Contracts. Will this limit
eligible producers and land from being enrolled?
Answer. The EQIP regulation requires that every region of a state
be included in a high priority area. This may consist of a single area
encompassing the entire state, or the state may be split into different
regions. This will allow all eligible producers to apply for EQIP
incentive contracts. Producers also maintain the option to apply for
other available EQIP opportunities.
Question 2. Congress authorized language in the 2018 Farm Bill that
emphasized the protection of sources of drinking water throughout the
conservation title. The language also illustrated the potential of USDA
and drinking water utilities working collaboratively to protect
something that is a basic human need, clean drinking water. Can you
update us on how the Department is implementing this farm bill language
and talk a little bit about the potential for this collaborative
relationship?
Answer. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has been
working diligently with the American Water Works Association, the
Source Water Collaborative, the Environmental Protection Agency, local
drinking water utilities, and State Technical Committees to address
this issue. To date, NRCS has identified high priority geographic areas
of consideration for accelerated conservation investments in 48 states.
NRCS has also provided guidance to State Conservationists on
identifying critical conservation practices within these targeted
watersheds for elevated payment rates. State Conservationists are
working with their State Technical Committees to identify which
conservation practices, within their respective states, are best suited
to address the potential pollutants of concern. To emphasize the
importance of this issue, Chief Lohr hosted partnership representatives
of the Source Water Collaborative at a recent National Leadership Team
meeting to help facilitate relationships that will help make this focus
a success.
Question 3. The 2018 Farm Bill included very clear language
requiring USDA to allocate 60 percent of available acres each year in
accordance with historical state enrollment rates. Can you tell us more
about FSA's plans to implement this provision, and how you will ensure
states with high levels of historical CRP acreage are not adversely
impacted by changes to ranking criteria and other policy changes?
Answer. The 2007-2016 state enrollment rates have been calculated
and used to identify the historic proportion of acres in each state. In
any given year, the current distribution of acres will depend on how
many acres are expiring relative to how many new enrollments are
offered in a particular state. While FSA cannot control how many offers
will be made, we keep track of the total available acres for enrollment
each year. In general, we expect that the distribution of general
signup offers will follow historical enrollment patterns, and that many
of the contracts expiring this year will be re-enrolled. FSA assesses
the current year allocations, considering the balance between both
general and continuous signup enrollments. FSA closely monitors
enrollments to ensure that 60 percent of available acres stay within
the historical enrollment rates to the maximum extent practicable.