U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–432 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–825

USDA’S USE OF CONSERVATION PROGRAM

TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

USDA’s Use of Conservation Program Technical Service Providers ................... 1

Thursday July 27, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ................................. 1

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ............... 6

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

Braasch, Sara ........................................................................................................... 3

Panel II 

Chapin, James ......................................................................................................... 14

Goad, David .............................................................................................................. 18

Schmidt, Gene .......................................................................................................... 15

Wolf, Doug ................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Braasch, Sara .................................................................................................... 32

Chapin, James .................................................................................................. 38

Goad, David ....................................................................................................... 41

Schmidt, Gene ................................................................................................... 45

Wolf, Doug ......................................................................................................... 50

(1)

USDA’S USE OF CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS 

Thursday, July 27, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND

RURAL REVITALIZATION

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Crapo and Lincoln. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

This is the hearing of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, 

Conservation and Rural Revitalization dealing with technical service providers. We welcome all of you hear today. 

The 2002 Farm Bill is one of the most important environmental 

laws that has ever been enacted in Congress. It has provided significant in agriculture, conservation programs and other critical 

things to America’s environmental heritage. These programs provide substantial incentives for conservation on agriculture land 

that resulted in real environmental benefits. 

However, knowing how to achieve these benefits can require expertise that spans a wide range of scientific disciplines. Some of the 

issues producers address include water, soil, air quality, endangered species, crop nutrients, and pest management requirements, 

to name just a few. There is no question that America’s farmers 

and ranchers are highly skilled individuals who are knowledgeable 

on many fronts. But the complex nature of these issues necessitates the availability of technical assistance to reach conservation 

goals. 

The soil conservation service was originally formed by Congress 

in 1935 to address the soil erosion concerns that arose during the 

Dust Bowl days and the agency became the expert in understanding and helping agricultural producers to apply the science 

required to solve erosion problems. But in 1994 the agency’s name 

changed from the Soil Conservation Service to the Natural Resources Conservation Service in recognition of the public’s interest 

in insuring farmers and ranchers get the assistance they need to 

address the wider range of environmental issues. 

2

This, along with the increasing numbers of retirements and initiatives to right-size Federal agencies began to stretch the technical 

capacity of the agency to address all issues associated with soil, 

water, air, plants, and animals. Then, in 2002, in the Farm Bill, 

a number of new conservation programs were authorized and the 

funding for conservation programs overall was substantially increased. 

The NRCS staffing levels were not sufficient to provide the 

amount of technical assistance required to implement the Farm 

Bill conservation programs, so Congress authorized the use of non–

Federal technical service providers to fill the gap. We want to be 

sure that America’s farmers and ranchers are able to obtain the 

technical advice they need to protect and restore the quality of 

their natural resources. 

This hearing provides an opportunity to review the use of technical service providers. We need to take stock of how the availability of the technical service advisors is working for agricultural 

producers. For technical service providers and for the USDA. 

First we are going to hear from Ms. Sara Braasch, who is the regional assistant chief for the west region of the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and a good 

friend. 

Welcome, Sara. 

Following her testimony we will hear from a number of people 

who have experience with how the TSP is working. 

Mr. James Chapin—did I get that right? 

Mr. CHAPIN. Chapin. 

Senator CRAPO. Chapin, Sorry. 

He is the director for the western region of the Association of 

Consulting Foresters, which is an organization that represents consulting foresters, many of whom have been certified by NRCS to 

provide technical forestry expertise needed to address natural resource issues on private lands, and on other agricultural operations 

that take advantage of the interactive benefits of combining trees 

and shrubs with crops or livestock. 

Mr. James Schmidt is a member of the executive board of the 

National Association of Conservation Districts. The NACD membership is composed of conservation districts, which are non–Federal Government entities that help control the use of land and 

water within a State or territory. 

Conservation districts have been in the business of technical 

services to landowners and operators and coordinating private sector services for more than 40 years. So, they are able to offer a 

unique perspective about how well the TSP process is working. 

Mr. David Goad is the deputy director of the Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission in Little Rock, Arkansas. I understand that the 

Fish and Game Commission had a memorandum of understanding 

with NRCS enabling it to provide fish and wildlife expertise as a 

TSP. I look forward to hearing more about this MLU process and 

what kind of benefits the agency considered the MLU to provide 

benefits to them and to landowners or to the NRCS. 

Mr. Doug Wolf, who is a member of the board of directors of the 

National Pork Producers Council, is from Lancaster, Wisconsin. He 

has actually engaged the services of a TSP to assist in livestock opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30432.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
3

erations. He has also benefited from NRCS technical assistance 

and therefore is able to offer us insights into any differences there 

may have been in these experiences. 

I appreciate each of our witnesses being here today, and I look 

forward to hearing your thoughts about how well the third party 

technical service provider process is working. I would just like to 

remind all the witnesses that we have encouraged you to keep your 

comments to the five minutes that have been allocated, if possible. 

If you are like me, your five minutes runs up before what you 

have to say runs out. So, please keep an eye on the clock. The reason for that is because we like to get into questions and discussion 

and anything you may not get out in your initial presentation I am 

sure you will have an opportunity to say during the dialogue that 

we have as we discuss matters. 

And with that, why don’t we proceed? Sara, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SARA BRAASCH, REGIONAL ASSISTANT CHIEF, 

USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know on a personal note, it was ten years ago that I 

served as a staff member of this Subcommittee, so it really is a 

pleasure for me to be back and to see the tremendous progress that 

you have made as a Subcommittee, and under your capable leadership on conservation, especially the technical service providers. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, we welcome you here. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you. 

Even though I work with the 13 western States, I am here on 

behalf of our chief, Bruce Knight, to talk, nationwide, about the 

progress we have made on the technical assistance provisions of 

the 2002 Farm Bill. 

As you know, and stated in your opening, it was designed to insure that, as a department, we have the capacity to address the 

significantly increased workload associated with implementing the 

most recent Farm Bill. In the last four years, Mr. Chairman, we 

have had tremendous success working with more than 2,100 technical service providers, obligating over $163 million, and providing 

over 1 million hours of technical assistance to farmers and ranchers through private individuals, State government agencies, and 

non-government organizations. 

These technical service providers, or TSPs, allow us to add capacity to our workforce in a very flexible manner. They enable us to 

have the right people in the right place at the right time. That enables us to provide a broad range of technical services that insure 

that we meet our mission of helping people help the land. 

Since 2002, the total investment, as you know, under the Farm 

Bill conservation programs has been more than $9.4 billion, and 

with all of those funds we have provided assistance to 1 million 

farmers and ranchers. This historic level of conservation funding 

has increased the need for technical information and advice beyond 

our capacity in the Federal workforce. It is critical to us that our 

customers receive the best technical advice available. 

NRCS has addressed this demand for technical advice through a 

combination of three methods. First, producer-selected TSPs, second, agency-selected TSPs, and third, the agricultural conservation 

4

experienced seniors initiative, or ACES, for short. I will touch on 

each of those three in detail. 

In the first case, if the farmer or rancher, he or she can select 

and hire an individual certified TSP to help them plan and apply 

conservation work on their operation. NRCS then enters into a contract with the producer. The producer works with the TSP and 

then reimburses that TSP. 

The individual farmer or rancher can locate a certified TSP from 

our internet-based system called TechReg. It is a very convenient 

way for producers to find who is certified to help them meet their 

conservation goals. 

I am thrilled, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of last month, 

NRCS had over 2,100 individuals and more than 200 businesses 

nationwide certified as TSPs on TechReg. An additional 150 applications are pending review and certification. 

In the Magic Valley area of our home State in Idaho, an example 

is a farmer contracted with a private sector TSP to design and implement an irrigation system on his land as part of an EQIP contract. The producer received immediate help from that private sector TSP. The project was funded, constructed, and certified to our 

standards and specifications as an agency, and it was done, quite 

honestly, in a much quicker fashion than we would have been able 

to do if our own permanent full-time staff were assigned to the 

project. 

The second example is the agency-selected TSP. And that, again, 

is when NRCS obtains technical support directly through a procurement contract, a contribution agreement, or other appropriate 

instruments which are typically with private sector businesses, a 

State agency, or an NGO. 

These agreements deliver very technical projects. In Montana, we 

worked with a private sector TSP firm to work on threatened and 

endangered species. Bundled practices for Bull Trout, Cutthroat 

Trout. 

Another form is when we leverage money from outside groups for 

specific projects. In Vermont, we worked with the State Department of Agriculture in the conservation districts to establish land 

treatment planners. 

And finally, I want to touch on the ACES initiative. This is a cost 

effective pilot that we have used to bring experienced older workers, such as retired employees, into our cadre of providers. So far, 

nearly $1.9 million has been obligated for this initiative, supporting 

148 staff positions just since the project began last year. The ACES 

project was so successful in filling that gap in the Federal workforce, that the Secretary has sent a proposal to Congress to broaden the authority and statute for that service. 

So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the TSP provisions of the 2002 

Farm Bill have helped NRCS be very flexible in adding capacity 

when our program workload increases, and, at the same time, in 

decreasing our services when tight budgets that you referred to necessitate that. We recognize that the future workload could be significant for conservation. We will continue to seek third party 

sources to compliment our existing resources and to meet any increased demand. 

5

So with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I am pleased with the opportunity to be here and I would be glad to respond to any questions 

that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Braasch can be found on page 32 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Well, again, thank you very much, Sara, for 

being here. I appreciate the chance to see you again. We have had 

a lot of opportunities to work closely with you over the years and 

I know that you do great work. 

The first question that I have is, I noted in your testimony that 

you indicated that we have 2100 certified TSPs nationwide and another 150 on the way, if I understand that right. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Correct. 

Senator CRAPO. That is very positive, but in the entire State of 

Idaho, there are only two TSPs identified in TechReg as certified 

conservation planners. And one of those individuals lives in New 

York. The other lives in Utah. 

At the same time, conservation planning of one sort or another 

is necessary before a producer can participate in any USDA conservation program. And, in addition, there are no certified fisheries 

TSPs in all of Idaho, yet fisheries are a critical resource, as you 

know, in the State. 

So, no doubt Idaho is not the only State that has this type of a 

circumstance. And because of that, the question I have is how is 

the NRCS able to meet the technical assistant workload associated 

with delivering conservation programs if we do not have enough 

employees and if we do not have enough TSPs certified in some of 

these needed categories? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Excellent question, Mr. Chairman. 

And it has a couple of parts to it, so if you will indulge, I would 

like to talk through the conservation planning piece of that. 

Senator CRAPO. Sure. 

Ms. BRAASCH. And the two individuals you mention. Then, at the 

same time, the fisheries example and what is happening. 

To put that in context, though, the certified planners that you referred to—TechReg is not an exclusive list of who is an agency 

work with when it comes to TSPs. TechReg only lists the individuals that want to work with producer-selected TSPs. 

Senator CRAPO. Okay. 

Ms. BRAASCH. So, in that example—but I want to follow it 

through because it is very important. 

On the conservation planning side, we have 42 practices in 

TechReg that an individual could be certified in. One of them is 

conservation planning. As you know, that is the heart of what we 

do as an agency. There are nine steps to the planning process. It 

is a very thorough process, and it is also very fluid, quite honestly. 

It is not something that a farmer or rancher would do once and 

then sit on the shelf and leave to collect dust. It is something they 

do; they typically like to work with us. They come back the next 

year, the year after, to make changes. 

So, what we have seen, in a series of required forums by our 

chief and every State across the nation is we have seen and heard 

feedback from TSPs, but their primary interest is not in doing the 

6

broad, nine-step planning for us. It is in doing the more specific 

practice based examples; cultural resources, fisheries, forestry. 

So, we do have a limited number of certified planners, but I 

think, in my discussion, there is a reason for that. It is something, 

quite honestly, we need to keep working on. We are committed to 

the individuals that want to do planning for us through TSP. 

To make that a little easier, we have put all of our training online. So, any TSP that wanted to become an expert in planning and 

the requirements could do it online. We also have a number of 

agreements with other agencies where we take their certification. 

So, we are working on it. 

Specific to the fisheries example, as I was actually surprised as 

I thought through that, because I do know that outside of the producer-selected work on fish populations, which are so important in 

Idaho, we do a lot of agency-selected TSP work. 

For instance, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, we have an 

agreement with them where they provide the expertise because 

they have got the biologists across the State. So, they work with 

us as needed on specific projects. We even have space in our offices 

now that three of their biologists are co-located in a USDA service 

center. 

A private sector example of fisheries that you would be interested in, inter-mountain aquatics. We work with them—again, 

agency-selected—to go out where needed to do fisheries work. 

So, I appreciate your question. Quite honestly, I am hoping our 

discussion today will prompt a little more interest, not only in 

Idaho and Arkansas, but across the country with potential TSPs. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much for that answer. 

I am going to interrupt my questions right now. We have been 

joined by Senator Blanche Lincoln. 

Blanche, would you like to make an opening statement of any 

kind? You are welcome to do so. If you want I will go on with my 

questions, or you can start some questions of your own. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize 

for running a bit late this morning. 

I am so grateful to Chairman Crapo. He has been a delightful 

friend and colleague to work with and I thank you for your leadership in this Subcommittee, and particularly for holding this hearing today. 

Senator Crapo and I came to the House together and then we 

came to the Senate together, and we have kind of been attached 

at the hip for a while. He is great to work with. 

Senator CRAPO. If everybody else just worked as well as we did 

together——

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I appreciate your patience this morning, 

for sure. 

And we have so many of the same interests, particularly in the 

collaborative conservation efforts that we are looking at today. It 

is always a pleasure to work with you, as well as your extremely 

capable staff. I have to give them a plug, too, because they are 

wonderful to work with. 

7

I would also like to take just a few moments here and welcome 

a fellow Arkansan to the Subcommittee. Mr. Goad, who is the deputy director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 

David, I appreciate you taking time to travel here to Washington 

and look forward to your testimony during the second panel this 

morning. 

For many reasons, I guess, I take a tremendous pride in the 2002 

Farm Bill. It is a bill that I worked hard on and I supported because of its importance to my State’s rural economy and our way 

of life. And indeed, one of the most notable parts of the legislation 

was its historic increase in conservation. 

As a member of a seventh generation farm family that enjoys 

hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities, I know well the importance of conservation programs. My dad was rice farmer in east 

Arkansas, and I never knew a greater conservationist than someone who not only depended on the land for his livelihood, but wanted to insure that future generations of our family would be able to 

do so, as well. Not to mention the fact that his favorite thing to 

do was to duck hunt and turkey hunt. 

So, making sure that the land was well cared for—having just 

picked up my children from spending three weeks in the woods 

with no plumbing and no electricity, I realize the excitement and, 

really, the heritage that my family, and particularly my children, 

now enjoy in the conservation areas that they enjoy, being out in 

the woods and being able to enjoy what we have here and what we 

have been able to preserve. 

So, I also know that the agricultural producers of Arkansas are 

enormously excited and embracing in terms of the conservation 

programs. They are not only an environmentally sound practice, 

our conservation programs, but they produce a wide range of economic benefits, and we are grateful for that. 

Environmentally, our conservation programs obviously safeguard 

millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion while improving 

air quality and increasing wildlife habitat, protecting ground and 

surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. 

Economically, the benefits are immeasurable. These programs 

not only increase our net farm income, they preserve soil productivity. They improve surface water quality. They reduce damage 

from windblown dust and increased uses of wildlife. Obviously, in 

Arkansas, they enhance the tremendous tourism and economics 

that we glean from the environment and being the Natural State. 

These dual benefits are critical to the long-term sustainability, I 

think, of American agriculture, and they provide the much needed 

bridge between an adequate farm safety net and the resources necessary to conserve our land. 

So, today’s hearing looks, I think, at the critical role that third 

party service providers can play in helping our farmers and our 

landowners reach these conservation goals. And I think if there is 

one thing that Senator Crapo and I have really worked hard at, 

that is to make sure that we can get all of the interested parties 

involved in whatever it is we are trying to do here because we 

know that we do not have all the answers. And we know that certainly we cannot do all of the lifting here in Washington alone. 

8

It is with the involvement of landowners and State agencies and 

other groups that are out there that we really achieve our common 

goal. That is why I am delighted to hear from these third parties. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look 

forward to their testimony. I will let the Chairman finish his questions, and then I may have a few. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Blanche. 

And I want to return the compliment to you. We have had a tremendous time together in Congress. I really meant it when I said 

earlier that if everybody else got along together like you and I do, 

we would have a much better—I think the public would have a better perception of Congress and we would probably get a lot more 

done. 

You and I worked very closely together on the current conservation title of the Farm Bill, and many other things, as well. I appreciate the friendship and the working relationship that we have. 

Sara, let me go back to the line of questioning I was pursuing. 

Actually, this next question is probably a little bit answered by 

your answer to the first question, but I want to indicate that one 

of the main TSP conservation planners was from New York who 

serves Idaho constituents. The question comes up, if that situation 

repeats itself a lot, the question I have is whether the providers, 

who are at a distance from the constituents—the producers they 

are providing service to—are able to adequately make a profit and 

conduct a viable business when they have that kind of distance to 

travel. 

Now, maybe, as a result of your earlier answer, it is really not 

a situation that occurs that often, but could you address that? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to. 

I have to admit, I am not familiar with the individual from New 

York. But I do have a couple of examples that I think might be 

helpful. The first one, as you know, in the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress very clearly and rightfully so, directed us to insure that these 

third party providers have the expertise, and to certify. So, when 

one of your constituents requests their help, they know they are 

getting good quality technical assistances. So, in doing that, we 

cannot, and do not want, to control who might offer up their services. We just want to be sure that they are qualified. 

I can tell you an example that I saw recently in New Mexico, was 

a very small engineering firm, only three people. Their business address was in California, because that was the first engineer that 

started work. Then he found two partners, one in eastern Oregon 

that services part of Idaho, and another one doing work in the 

Southwest. So, for business purposes, they were organized with a 

California address, even though they had staff closer to the dairies, 

in this case, in New Mexico, that wanted some TSP assistance. So, 

there could be any number of reasons, when you look at addresses 

and locations. 

Now, specific to your point of travel, I should be very clear. NTE 

rates, not to exceed rates—we found out in those forums that I described in listening to TSPs and producers, there is a little bit of 

confusion on those. What we do with NTE rates is we establish the 

cost the government would have if we provided that same service 

9

to a producer. And then we use that as the basis for what we will 

reimburse the producer. Okay? If they are finding service somewhere else, we will pay them what it would have cost us. That does 

not preclude the producer from paying more for the private individual if he or she so chooses, for that expertise. 

So, in that case, the profit motive that you mention of an individual, travel cost, those could be factored in if the producer decided to go above and beyond the cost to the government for those 

services. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

My next question, in fact, was how do you determine the NTE 

rates. So, you have already answered that. 

That raises a question for me, though. If the government is paying exactly what it would cost the government to provide the service itself—we are getting the private sector services, which I think 

is very helpful, but it is not a budget savings. Would that be a correct conclusion to reach? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is an interesting example. And, if I could—the last question 

about producer-selected TSPs—if we could switch to the agency-selected TSPs, I think that is an example that answers your question 

of, what is the benefit to the government, and all of us as taxpayers. 

In that example, we have a number of positive examples of how 

this has helped the agency. As you mentioned in your opening 

statement, all of the Federal workforce is facing a retirement bulge. 

At NRCS, it will be about 34 percent of our workforce that could 

retire in the five-year period we are in right now. 

So, one, to make that transition, to figure out how to provide expertise, we have to think creative. While we are training—if we 

cannot afford to hire new employees, we have to train them. In 

some cases, it might not make sense for one-time work to hire a 

fulltime Federal employee. In those situations, animal feeding operations are a good example. We have a short-term workload based 

on the EPA regulations for animal feeding operations. In a lot of 

the States I work with, we are better off to hire private sector engineering expertise on a one-time basis to get those animal feeding 

operations the help they need to come into compliance than to staff 

up on the Federal side and add to our workforce long-term when 

we may or may not be able to pay for it. 

So, there are savings on the government side. And I was thrilled 

in visiting with the pork producers that they are going to go into 

more detail on both those examples of how we work with animal 

operations. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

I understand that there is a bit of a lack of understanding as to 

how properly price a comprehensive nutrient management plan. I 

think one of our witnesses is going to talk a little about that. Since 

that is an issue in a number of circumstances across the country, 

is NRCS working to establish a not to exceed rate for CNMPs? 

What is being done with regard to trying to remedy that situation? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10

We actually do have a CNMP NTE rate in every county across 

the country. Now, that is based on, again, our costs as an agency 

if our employees were to do that work. We look at that every year. 

An example from the state of Iowa that I think was very creative 

and very appropriate, is they look at the CNMP rates in counties 

in Iowa, in terms of what it would cost the government. They came 

to us through NRCS and our State technical committee and they 

came up with a better way to approach that, because, quite honestly, our NTE rates in those counties were too low when we looked 

at what the private sector could provide the service for. But at the 

same time when we look at, as a government, if we contracted with 

an engineering firm through the Brooks Act, it would be much 

higher. 

So, in Iowa, they came up with a proposal and we gave them a 

waiver at the national level to classify animal feeding operations 

by size, which is a good indicator of the cost to do a CNMP. We 

approved the waiver. They have implemented that system. And 

what we are looking at now, quite honestly, is how we use that 

Iowa example of streamlining, being consistent with the workload, 

the cost, and the resource benefit, and ways that we can implement 

that nationwide and be sure all States have the flexibility. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much. 

I have a few more questions, but I will toss it over to you, 

Blanche, if you want to ask a few questions, and then we can go 

back and forth. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Braasch; is that correct? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Perfect. Thank you. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, to follow up on that last one, you talked 

about the pork producers. I know that Mr. Wolf, who is going to 

testify today, also, on behalf of the pork producers. He points out 

in his testimony that the new approach to the contract delivery, 

where the farmers contract directly with the TSP, it has significant 

merit, as you mentioned. 

And yet many farmers find that what is required of them, in 

terms of paperwork, the paperwork, the management oversight is 

so great that they are less inclined to take part in the program. Is 

that I concern that you are aware of on the national level? And, 

if so, is NRCS taking steps to make the farmers’ choice approach 

less burdensome to individual producers and insuring that they actually have access? I know that for some of our farmers finding 

those types of consultants is obviously a cost that is borne by the 

producer and sometimes difficult to find in other areas. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Excellent question. 

It is interesting, because when you look nationally at our statistics and the work that we do through technical service providers, 

there is a large number of contracts that are producer-acquired. 

States like Wisconsin, quite honestly, in the pork example, have 

been tremendous partners. They did not make that happen overnight, in all honesty. 

As I have learned from Wisconsin, quite honestly, for my use out 

West, they actually started that process in the late 1980s of working together with our agency, with livestock groups, with the State, 

and have put in a lot of good work to get to that point. 

11

Now, specific to the paperwork, we have heard that in the forums 

I have mentioned, from producers. That, for some producers and 

TSPs it can be burdensome. It is something we are looking at in 

our efforts to streamline, but we are trying to find that balance of 

guaranteeing the Federal investment and that there is a return on 

it and that we are accountable for the funds with the balance of 

streamlining and making it easy. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I think that is something that we definitely have to take into consideration. Because, if we do want to 

farm out that duty, you are right. It needs to be efficient and effective, but it still has to bring the results that we are going to be 

held accountable for. 

I am also pleased that, as I mentioned, Mr. Goad, who is the deputy director of Arkansas Game and Fish is going to be with us 

today to testify as part of the second panel. 

In his testimony, he makes observation that it would be helpful 

for State fish and wildlife agencies to be allowed to enter into three 

to five-year TSP agreements so that they can go and secure the additional positions and funding necessary from their State legislatures. 

Is that something that NRCS could do, or is considering? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Excellent question. 

What we have had to do in the agency with these agreements is 

they are typically funded through one of our programs. So, in the 

case of Arkansas Game and Fish or Idaho Fish and Game, it is the 

wildlife habitat incentives program. 

As you know, you appropriate that program to us in an annual 

appropriation. So, because it is annual funds, we cannot commit to 

a multi-year agreement. 

What we have done, though, in a number of situations—and I 

had the chance to visit with the fine gentleman before the hearing—in other States is we have looked at a clause where the agreement can be extended based on mutual agreement and contingent 

on continuing annual appropriations. What I have seen in the West 

is our State agencies are appreciative of that clause because they 

are in a similar situation with State legislatures when it comes to 

annual funds and multi-year agreements. 

So, I think there are some things, creatively, we can look it. And, 

quite honestly, we need to. Wildlife is a priority for our agency, but 

it is also an area where we do not have the depth and, quite honestly, cannot afford to hire the depth of field-level positions to do 

that work. So, we need the help of outside groups and partners in 

order to meet that resource need. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, we are continually looking for the dollars 

up here, too, to redirect towards the State side of land and water 

conservation, fish and wildlife—I mean, all of those different agencies that do a tremendous job in our States and need the resources. 

It seems like some of the actions that you have taken really do 

address that, in terms of establishing an understanding that they 

can continue practices, provided the resources are there. Our 

States are also limited in the resources they can appropriate, but 

will do so. It is kind of a Catch–22. One of us will spook the other 

one out, I guess, and actually commit the dollars. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up, if I may? 

12

It is interesting when I look at the summary, nationally, of how 

we spend technical service provider money, two-thirds of that goes 

to the private sector, which makes sense, whether it is engineering 

or other consultants. 

But the next largest category is State government, and that is 

about 16 percent, because they are invaluable partners. And then, 

following that are soil and water conservation districts. 

So, we really appreciate all those partners and, again, could not 

deliver conservation on the ground without them. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, Mr. Goad, as you will see in his testimony that the 1996 Farm Bill was the first to designate wildlife 

habitat as co-equal status with soil and water conservation as a 

goal for producers. It was a priority that was continued when we 

did the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Do you have the necessary wildlife biologists on staff, do you 

think, at NRCS, to adequately consider and implement those wildlife considerations in the conservation plans with agricultural producers? Is that something that—I know that there are outside consultants, and certainly resources are dedicated to the private sector? But, I mean, do you feel like, at NRCS, you have the sufficient 

biologists on hand? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Senator Lincoln, excellent question. 

And it really gets to the heart of the matter of human capital. 

As a Federal agency, and part of the larger Federal Government, 

what critical disciplines do we have on staff based on our available 

funds? 

Wildlife is a fascinating example to me because we do need a 

core expertise of wildlife experts. So, at a national level, a State office level, especially, we have the expertise in house to provide 

guidance, to be sure the quality is as high as it should be. But 

then, beyond that, when you look at the projects, I have seen tremendous gains. 

And, again, working with a lot of State fish and game departments, because they have the staff level dispersed throughout a 

State that we can tap as needed with specific projects. 

That comes back to what I talked about in my opening, having 

the right people in the right place at the right time, whether or not 

they are permanent employees. It is a matter of getting the product 

we need to the producers we serve. 

So I think, on balance, if we utilize the provisions of TSPs, again, 

through producers and agency selection along with our core cadre, 

we can meet those needs. But it is a constant management challenge, quite honestly. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Just another couple of questions that I have, Sara. 

And then if you have any more, Blanche, we would be glad to go 

ahead with them. 

When the NRCS contracts directly with TSPs, is this done at the 

NTE rate, or is that rate ever exceeded? Could you just discuss 

with me, a little bit, the process that is handled at that point, when 

the NRCS is directly contracting with TSPs? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

13

I have to admit that when I worked for the Committee ten years 

ago I was very excited by the concept—and probably thought of it 

in very simple terms in my younger years. So, it has been fascinating to come back to the agency and learn the details of how 

we make this work. 

There is one key detail I want to share with you to put it in perspective. Again, the not to exceed rates reflect our cost as an agency to do the job, and we use those as the baseline when a producer 

selects a TSP. 

Now, in your question, I think what you are asking about, 

whether it is producer-selected or agency-selected, do we ever exceed those rates? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. 

Ms. BRAASCH. The answer is yes, for a number of reasons. 

The Iowa example I gave you, we exceeded the initial NTE rate 

going through a thorough review and a process to look—is it an accurate reflection of the workload and the time involved. 

In other examples, and this was where, in my mind, it was fascinating to learn about the Brooks Act, which applies to all Federal 

procurement of architectural and engineering services. In those 

cases, with engineering, for the Brooks Act, we look at qualifications, first of an outside firm, cost, second. 

As you can imagine, a number of our practices involve engineering assistance. So, per Federal law, we first look at the qualifications of the people who apply, who submit to the RFP. Once we 

know who is most qualified, we then negotiate the rate, which, in 

some cases, can and does exceed that NTE. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

Now, I am aware that, in general, when contract modifications 

are made, there is also an adjustment in cost. Can you explain how 

that is handled? 

Ms. BRAASCH. Mr. Chairman, in all of our work, quite honestly, 

whether it is TSP or an EQIP contract, we do see cost fluctuations. 

As you know, from working with your constituents, fuel prices, 

right now, have had an impact on any number of parts of our economy. Specific to NRCS and agriculture, that means irrigation systems. Sprinklers, pipe line, costs can increase after the contract is 

signed. 

We do have a process to look at those costs, whether it was an 

error of omission on our part, or a reflection of the marketplace, 

and to go in to modify a contract. I have seen, specific to TSPs, 

modifications that go both up and down from the original cost. 

Senator CRAPO. I was going to ask if they ever went down. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Which, you can imagine, has mixed reactions to 

the people who we work with. 

Senator CRAPO. I would bet so. 

That concludes my questions. 

Blanche, do you have any more? 

Senator LINCOLN. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. 

Well, Sara, thank you very much for coming. You are obviously 

very well prepared and understand this program. I think it sounds 

like you and the USDA are an advocate of the program. 

Ms. BRAASCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

14

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

I would like to call our second panel at this point. I will identify 

them again. 

First, is Mr. James Chapin, of Reading, California, who is the director of the western region of the Association of Consulting Foresters. 

Second is Gene Schmidt, a member of the board of directors of 

the National Association of Conservation Districts. 

Mr. David Goad, who is the deputy director of the Arkansas 

Game and Fish—you know, in Arkansas, it is the Game and Fish 

Commission and in Idaho it is the Fish and Game Commission. It 

throws me off every time. 

And Mr. Doug Wolf, who is of Lancaster, Wisconsin, a member 

of the board of directors for the National Pork Producers Council. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you all. I again remind you to try and 

pay attention to that clock so that we will have time for our questions with. We will start out in the order that I introduced you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CHAPIN, DIRECTOR, WESTERN REGION, ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING FORESTERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, My name is Jim Chapin. Thank you 

for the opportunity to address your Committee. 

First, I would like to start out with talking a little bit about the 

organization that I represent. I am on the board of directors for the 

Association of Consulting Foresters of America, which is an organization of consulting foresters throughout the United States that 

represents consulting foresters that work strictly for private landowners. They do not represent a procurement industry. They represent private landowners in managing their forest lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and address you. A little about myself, I am a consulting forester in California. I had the 

pleasure, Mr. Chairman, of spending three years of my life going 

to the University of Idaho in northern Idaho. Probably three of the 

best years of my life. I still have a lot of good friends in northern 

Idaho. 

I spent the first 20 years of my career working for the U.S. Forest Service, and the last 25 years have been as a private consulting 

forester. So I have been on both sides of the fence. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I am glad you got your initial training 

there in Idaho, where they have the best school in the country. 

Mr. CHAPIN. I agree with you. I am glad I did, too. It was a great 

experience and it has been good for career. I still enjoy going back 

to visit. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. CHAPIN. What my comments are going to be based on is my 

experience as a consulting forester in northern California working 

with NRCS on conservation programs, primarily the EQIP program, environmental quality improvement program. 

Besides being a consulting forester, I also own 82 acres of forest 

land, myself and I am currently enrolled in the EQIP program. So, 

have about five different conservation practices that I am doing on 

my property under the EQIP program. 

15

We, as an association, and myself, personally, we really support 

the conservation programs under the Farm Bill. The EQIP program 

is being used quite a lot in Northern California on ranch lands and 

forest lands. 

As you probably know, at least in the west, and probably in the 

east, too, most farm lands and ranch lands also have forest lands 

incorporated on their property. So, we feel that the forestry part of 

the Farm Bill, and wildlife, also, is very important to include forest 

management and wildlife habitat and improvement. We support 

the program and we also support the technical service providers 

part of it. 

However, my experience in northern California is it is not working as well as it could. I spoke recently with the local conservationists for NRCS in my area and they have very few consulting foresters who have signed up for the technical service provider program under the TechReg procedure. I, personally, started to sign 

up about a year ago, and when I saw the cumbersome process that 

it took on the computer and what the cap rates were, I just decided 

that it was not worth my time. I had other things to do. I think 

that is unfortunate. 

In northern California, Association of Consulting Foresters has 

40 members who are consulting foresters. There are probably several hundred registered professional foresters in California who 

would be qualified and available to do this kind of work. But, as 

far as I know, there are none, or very few, that are actually doing 

it. 

The reasons are probably twofold. One is the not to exceed rates 

are not competitive with forests compared to work that we do for 

private landowners and other agencies. Another reason is the 

NRCS offices are still doing a lot of the work themselves. I found 

out recently that if a landowner comes into an NRCS Office and 

asks to apply for an EQIP program, unless they specifically ask to 

have a technical service provider included in the project description 

then it is not done, and it is not even mentioned. So, they have to 

somehow know through written description, or going on the internet, or something that the opportunity is there. 

Another reason is they have to pay the cost of the consulting forester upfront and then they are reimbursed by the agency, and a 

lot of times they do not like to spend that money upfront. 

So, I think it is a great program. I feel that there are a lot of 

professional foresters out there that could provide valuable services. But it is not being utilized as good as it could be. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Are there any 

questions? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapin can be found on page 38 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapin. We will hold 

our questions until the entire panel has given their testimony. 

Mr.Schmidt. 

STATEMENT OF GENE SCHMIDT, EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Committee member. 

16

Good morning, I am Gene Schmidt, and I am a farmer from 

northwest Indiana and I farm 1,600 acres of seed corn and see soy 

beans, 120 acres of wheat, and about 900 acres of that is irrigated. 

I serve on the executive board as the Chairman announced in the 

introduction, and I serve on the local soil and water conservation 

board in Laporte in northwest Indiana. 

A cross the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation districts are 

helping local people to conserve land, water, forests, and wildlife, 

and related natural resources. We share a single mission, to coordinate the assistance from all available sources, be it public, private, 

local, State, and Federal, in an effort to develop locally driven solutions to the national resource concerns in the air. 

Each day, conservation districts see the demand for technical assistance to apply conservation practices to the land, both through 

the Federal Farm Bill programs and through conservational technical assistance. 

NACD, the National Associations of Conservation Districts 

strongly believes that the use of third party public private sector 

technical assistance to help implement conservation programs 

should be seen as a complement and a supplement, not a replacement of the existing delivery system. 

Conservation districts have been a partner in the Federal, State, 

and local conservation delivery system for almost 60 years. Conservation district participation under the TSP initiative is through 

individual competition agreements where districts operate under a 

50/50 match between NRCS and her State conservation agency, 

State associations or the individual districts themselves. 

These agreements identify certain dollar figures, hours, and/or 

persons to assist in delivering that technical assistance. They also 

allow for the use of an administrative level district employee to assist with paperwork, thus freeing up time to provide technical expertise to focus on field visits and delivery of that technical assistance. 

NACD feels that this flexibility for the States to develop agreements that meet the local and State demands is very important. 

Whether it is an additional technical staff or finding ways to utilize 

time and financial resources more efficiently with administrative 

personnel working in the office, so that the technical expertise 

NRCS has—professionals can work in the field with landowners. 

In some districts, this 50/50 match has been a barrier in participation due to the lack of district funds. NACD continues to work 

with the districts to identify Federal sources for funding for their 

portion of that match to make that system work. 

The expertise of the district and NRCS employees is a very important compliment to the private sector. Conservation districts’ 

longstanding relationship with NRCS and with the farming community at the local level puts us in a very unique position to deliver technical assistance through both the TSP initiative and other 

avenues in that expertise. 

Conservation districts have developed relationships with landowners and are looked upon as a trusted source of information and 

assistance. And, as you know, this relationship is very vital in the 

farming communities, that local-led process. The data from across 

the country for fiscal year 2005 shows that TSP dollars are apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30432.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
17

proximately $53 million. Conservation districts received about nine 

percent of those funds delivered in their efforts of technical assistance. 

According to USDA, the majority, 62 percent of those funds for 

fiscal year 2005, went to private entities. And the majority of this 

system provided for us was under nutrient management, under 

those dollars. The majority of funds for TSPs come through environmental quality incentive programs, followed by the conservation 

reserve program, and then conservation technical assistance. 

States that meet TSP goals developed by NRCS, USDA, and the 

Office of Management and Budget, by contacting directly with private entities through producer-acquired contracts and through contribution agreements. 

In Indiana, we utilize a variety of approaches through the TSP 

initiative. The TSP has grown in the State of Indiana, from 

600,000 to about a million in the last four years. In 2003, the State 

focused on nutrient management, pest management, and comprehensive nutrient management plans this year, the first year 

that the TSP initiative was open to include additional practices, 

but predominantly focused on implement those EQIP contracts. 

Our utilization of the TSP funds in Indiana has been 50 percent 

architect and engineering, 26 percent individual producer assistance from the TechReg, and 10 percent in contribution agreements, 

6 percent in other agreements. Under the A&E category, the State 

can bundle work, such as the comprehensive nutrient plans, and 

contracts want businesses to do all those CNMPs in a State or in 

a region, based on the necessity. 

In Indiana, districts provide technical assistance support on engineering, and helping to check out the approved conservation practices. We believe that the success of the TSP initiative is driven by 

those overseeing and managing the program within the State, including State conservation and District conservationists. These individuals responsible for developing the program entering into the 

contribution agreement, outreach TSPs and overseeing and approving the plans and projects from these TSPs. 

This initiative from a national level to be implemented by the 

States and we understand that it has not always been a smooth 

implementation. However, with the demand for technical assistance continuing to grow, and we believe that there is a role in the 

private third party vendors. Districts and NRCS providing assistance to landowners to undertake these additional conservation 

practices on the land. 

The future success of this program depends on its flexibility in 

addressing the specific demands each State may have, including 

staffing needs, resource concerns, and most of all, the local conservation priorities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee, for an opportunity to 

present this to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt can be found on page 

45 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. 

Mr. Goad. 

18

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOAD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS 

GAME AND FISH COMMISSION 

Mr. GOAD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln. It is 

an honor and a privilege to come before you today. 

Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking you and Senator Lincoln 

for your longstanding interest in and support for fish and wildlife 

conservation, and for the role that State fish and wildlife agencies 

play in that endeavor. We look forward to continuing to work with 

you as the next Farm Bill moves through the legislative process. 

I come before you today representing this great State of Arkansas, as well as the position of the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, of which all 50 States are members. I am glad to begin 

by giving you a little background about myself so that you might 

have more confidence in my testimony. 

Although a wildlife biologist by degree and profession, I am a 

farmer at heart. My family moved to central Arkansas from Kentucky in the late 1800s. My great-grandfather purchased a sizable 

tract of land on the banks of the White River from the Iron Mountain Railroad. We have been Arkansas farmers ever since. So, I 

truly know the need for farm conservation programs. 

Mr. Chairman, the mission of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is to wisely manage all the fish and wildlife resources of 

Arkansas, while providing maximum enjoyment for the people. 

Until the 1996 Farm Bill made wildlife habitat co-equal to soil 

and water, the majority of the work that we performed was habitat 

and population management on public land. With approximately 89 

percent of Arkansas in private ownership, we were overjoyed with 

the opportunity to get a chance to help manage habitat on private 

land, thus, having the ability to affect wildlife populations, as well. 

It appeared that we might finally get to fully accomplish our mission. Prior to the availability of TSPs, the Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to cost share 

with the USDA to put habitat on the ground at no expense to the 

landowner. 

Furthermore, for a two-year period, we paid the salaries of five 

temporary biologists that were house in NRCS offices around the 

State to provide wildlife and technical assistance. And, as you referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman, with the 2002 legislation, NRCS 

was charged with newly funded programs, along with increased 

funding for existing programs. 

Knowing that NRCS has few trained wildlife biologists and that 

we were longtime conservation partners with them, financially, as 

well as providing labor, it only stood to reason that the TSP provision would finally create the cooperative conservation partnership 

we were working so hard to obtain. It was our feeling that this 

would finally insure that wildlife needs would be adequately considered and integrated into all Farm Bill programs. 

Missouri and Kentucky are a couple of States that have successful TSP agreements. These States are cost sharing with NRCS and 

have hired additional staff to provide technical assistance on multiple Farm Bill programs. And, as Ms. Braasch referred, I have just 

recently learned of a successful agreement in Idaho, Mr. Chairman. 

Three agency biologists are now working in NRCS offices to provide 

technical assistance and the results, according to Mr. Hubeck, have 

19

been great. Arkansas, as well as other States, would love to have 

similar opportunities. 

All these agreements may be successful. These State agencies are 

taking a risk, since the NRCS is only willing or able to sign oneyear agreements. Most States are going to be reluctant to commit 

funding and hire additional biologists without a longer commitment 

and adequate funding from NRCS. 

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to expect States with limited 

staffing resources to put aside State mandated work to accomplish 

Federal work. 

Mr. Chairman, I do realize that part of the intent of Congress 

was to involve the private sector and us. Certainly, I am not disagreeing with that concept. However, I guess, being a little selfish, 

I would say that they cannot possibly work with the effectiveness 

and the efficiency as our biologists can. 

Furthermore, we will cost share that program, thus leveraging 

taxpayer dollars. And I do not think that probably happens with 

the private sector. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, we owe to the American public 

to provide landowners with quality conservation technical support 

to insure the viability of farming and ranching for future generations, which includes keeping soil on the far, improving water quality, and restoring wildlife populations. 

In closing, I would respectfully request your consideration of two 

things. Require TSP agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies to effectively incorporate wildlife conservation into all conservation planning and USDA programs and fund TSP at an adequate level necessary to fully administer these programs through 

multi-year agreements that will allow State agencies to hire additional staff. 

And I believe this cooperative conservation partnership with 

USDA can provide a quality product that insures wildlife conservation as truly a co-equal objective of conservation planning and program implementation. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our perspective with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goad can be found on page 41 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Goad. 

Mr. Wolf. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG WOLF, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS FOR THE NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning, Chairman Crapo and Senator Lincoln. 

Good morning to members of the Committee and to your staff. 

I am Doug Wolf, a pork producer from Lancaster, Wisconsin. I 

am here this morning representing the U.S. Pork Industry. I am 

a proud member of the National Pork Producers Council and I 

serve on the board, and on the 2007 Farm Bill Task Force. My 

wife, son, daughter, and I own and operate a farrow to finish hog 

operation. We raise corn, soy beans, hay, and have permanent pasture. NPPC’s written comments review in detail my experience 

with the technical service providers and NRCSs technical assistance staff, as well as NPPC’s national TSP policy observations. I 

20

will briefly summarize my written comments for you. Relative to 

our farm, we have a conservation plan for our operation. Through 

a combination of conservation measures, we are keeping erosion at 

or below T. We are following a precise ergonomic plan for our manure. We have done an on-farm assessment environmental review, 

and we now have a comprehensive nutrient management plan that 

was prepared by TSP. 

Our experience with the local NRCS technical assistance staff 

has been uniformly positive. They have always been timely in their 

work, competent, effective, and helpful. They have worked with me 

to find ways to adapt their programs so they can work on our farm, 

and they have never created expectations that were not able to be 

met. 

Despite this record of strength of the NRCS technical assistance 

delivery system and their staff, there is, in my mind, a clear need 

for technical service providers. Farmers need help with certain environmental practices and the NRCS is either not trained to do this 

work or simply does not have time to get it done. 

The answer to this in our State is TSPs, in my view. Relative to 

my use of a private sector TSP to prepare our farm CNMP, the 

process worked. But if I could have changed anything, I would have 

wanted NRCS to have retained a TSP to do several CNMPs for several growers. I would have had far less paperwork and process to 

manage and oversee, and could have focused on conservation instead. 

If NRCS was managing the TSP directly, it would have been 

more efficient for me and, I suspect, NRCS and the TSP. Relative 

to the national TSP program, NPPC offers the following observations. 

First, NPPC believes that the more NRCS embraces the use of 

TSPs, the more the country will benefit from NRCSs particularly 

sound approach to natural resource conservation. 

Second, NPPC believes that far more farmers would use TSPs if 

NRCS contract with TSPs, rather than having farmers serve as the 

middleman. And we believe the process will, in many instances, be 

more efficient. 

Third, farmers are often confused by what NRCS’s not to exceed 

payment rates mean and how they are to be used. Many farmers 

hear not to exceed, and they think it means the prevailing market 

rate and do not want to pay the TSP more than this. NRCS needs 

to clear this up. 

On behalf of the National Pork Producers Council and the pork 

producers we represent and support, thank you for your continued 

and focused attention on technical service providers. The nation’s 

pork producers are grateful for your leadership on these and other 

important issues for us, and look forward with you and this Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf can be found on page 50 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf. 

I want to start out with just a general question to the entire 

panel. I take it from listening to your testimony and reading your 

prepared testimony that each of believe the TSP program is a good 

21

program. There are things that could be fixed about it and so forth, 

but that it is a program that we ought to sustain and improve. 

Many have raised concerns that we need to adjust the NTE rates 

for compensating TSPs, so that we can have a more robust system. 

The question that arises there is, given the difficult Federal budget 

situation that we have, if we have a limited amount of dollars to 

go to the TSP program—and whatever the amount of dollars that 

we end up with, it will be limited. It will be a finite number. If we 

increase the NTE rates, then will that reduce the availability of 

TSP services to a broader number of producers, do you feel that 

that is a concern? 

Anybody want to jump in on that? 

Mr. CHAPIN. I will make a comment, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the best way to approach that or alleviate that concern 

is for the agency to put out requests for proposals and contract out 

directly with consulting foresters or whatever expertise that they 

need and to try to package several programs together into one contract. And also, if possible, make multi-year contracts. That way 

you will get a better rate and the rate will be, you know, it will 

be an open bidding process where it will be the actual market rate 

and it will have to be competitive. 

I do not think that it would actually raise the cost. It would probably reduce the cost. 

Senator CRAPO. So, the idea there is to, basically, try to achieve 

some economies of scale by getting more producers satisfied by the 

same project. 

Mr. CHAPIN. Exactly. And try to make it more of a long-term 

agreement, rather than just project by project. 

Senator CRAPO. Any others want to jump in on that question before I go on? 

I will stick with you for a minute, Mr. Chapin. In your testimony, 

you indicated that there does need to be a greater capacity to deliver technical assistance to the forest landowner. What do you feel 

is the limiting factor, or what is limiting the capacity to deliver 

technical assistance to the forest landowner right now? 

Mr. CHAPIN. One thing is lack of knowledge of the forest landowner, or the producer, as the agricultural people call them. We 

call them the forest landowner. Most forest landowners do not 

know that that option is available to them. 

I think the other one is probably the agency feelings that they 

can do the job themselves. At least, in northern California they do 

not seem to be aggressive in letting the landowners know that 

there is the option to hire a consulting forester to prepare management plans or conservation plans and to oversee their projects. 

It is partly information and education, and partly just an institutional thing with the agency. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Schmidt, as you stated in your submitted testimony, the 

NRCS certifies TSPs in 42 different technical service categories, 

and there are more than 2,500—I heard 2,100 in the earlier testimony—on the TechReg. In your experience—and you heard, I assume, Sara Braaschs response to me on this general issue—in your 

experience, are there any areas of technical expertise in which cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30432.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
22

tified TSPs are not available? Do we have gaps in the TSP availability? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Through my communication, Mr. Chairman, there 

are some gaps because, when you look at the tech web—and a couple of producers have shared with me that not always, as Ms. 

Braasch indicated, is their particular expertise listed under that 

TechReg identification. 

So, in our part of the country, in the Midwest, a lot of private 

individuals, we call them CCAs, certified crop advisors, that work 

for the private sector are not listed on that web, but have done a 

great number of those, especially the nutrient management plan, 

scenarios. So, from the producer’s standpoint and the district’s 

standpoint, sometimes those local entities that are qualified have 

not, because of some inassurance of the continuation of that program and, in some cases, just the payment schedule that we do 

through the Federal agency scenario, have not stepped up and offered their services to that scenario. 

So, I am not so sure that, on an extended plan—futuristic—we 

have heard the term ‘‘multi-year contracts,’’ Mr. Chairman, spoke 

of. There are more entities out there, but, by the same token, as 

you asked the question about the rate, the scheduled payment, and 

are we economical and competitive—that onset, that there would 

not be more individuals available to do that work, but have not 

necessarily addressed and utilized their expertise to address this 

need that we are seeing in helping build those conservation plans 

throughout the country. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Goad, I have some questions for you, but I am going to let 

Senator Lincoln have the first shot at you. 

So, I am going to move on to Mr. Wolf, here. 

Mr. Wolf, you indicated in your submitted testimony that the 

NRCS could reach a significantly broader population of farmers 

with site-specific soil-based models of supporting conservation and 

environment work, if it can adapt itself to better use the TSPs. 

In your opinion, what is the most significant limiting factor for 

NRCS’s ability to use the TSPs? 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I guess in my personal opinion—and I heard 

today that, in Wisconsin, in the 1980s, they started some of these 

TSP-type projects. But, in my own personal project that we have 

done this year with the new CNMP, it seemed like it was a new 

operating style with our local office. They were having some new 

problems getting used to what they were doing, how the TSP 

project worked. So, I think there was just some time—it is going 

to take time for them to get used to. 

The other, second point that I might mention, the agency itself 

would maybe question their traditional role and jobs. This has been 

their job traditionally, and, now, why is it getting placed out? We 

can understand through downsizing and everything else they do 

not have the time, maybe some time for the training to do it. I was 

told not to mention it, but maybe a job security-type of concern. 

Senator CRAPO. And in your testimony just now, you indicated 

that you felt that it would be better, if I understood you correctly, 

if the NRCS directly contracted with the TSPs rather than having 

the producer or the farmer be the middleman. 

23

And I understand that it can be done both ways. I was under the 

assumption that I was sort of the choice of the producer as to 

whether they wanted to do the contracting or have NRCS do the 

contracting, itself. Is that not the case? 

Mr. WOLF. I cannot answer that. 

Senator CRAPO. Does anybody here know the answer to that 

question? 

Mr. CHAPIN. My understanding, at least with the local conservationists that I have spoken to, it is not the case. The agency makes 

the decision whether they want to contract it out themselves or the 

landowner can hire the technical service providers. 

Senator CRAPO. So, if the agency chooses not to do the contracting, then the landowner is left with no option. 

Mr. CHAPIN. That is right. 

And the other point that I was not aware of until recently is that 

the producer or the landowner has to identify the fact that he 

wants to use a technical service providers at the very beginning of 

the process. Once they get into the process, it is very difficult to 

say, ‘‘I have decided that I want to include a technical service provider.’’

Senator CRAPO. And was it you, Mr. Chapin, who said that they 

are not told that the TSP process is available? 

Mr. CHAPIN. Correct. 

Senator CRAPO. At least in the forestry community, they are not. 

Okay. That clears that up for me. 

Senator Lincoln, do you have any questions? 

Senator LINCOLN. I have a few questions. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Mr. Goad, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. I 

want to welcome you to the Senate Agriculture’s Committee Subcommittee on Forestry Conservation and Rural Revitalization. We 

appreciate your tireless work with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and particularly your willingness to make the trip up 

here. 

Through your testimony, and certainly our experience in the 

State, Arkansas Game and Fish is a tremendously valuable partner 

in helping landowners meet conservation goals, whether it is WRP, 

CRP, WHIP, EQIP, any of them. We know that that is a valuable, 

valuable partnership. 

Just a couple of questions I would leave out there for you. One 

of those programs that is especially near and dear to us is WRP, 

the wetlands reserve program. And, as you know, that program is 

extremely popular in Arkansas. I think we rank first in enrolled 

acres nationwide. We also have the highest number of unfunded 

applications. 

The first thing would be, does the TSP initiative have a role to 

play in addressing that backlog, in terms of expedition, moving 

things forward more quickly, making it more accessible? And, if so, 

in your view, how might that effort be more successful? 

And also, I would like for you to elaborate on the specific experience that the Arkansas Game and Fish has had working with 

NRCS in the State to approve those TSP agreements that we have 

been talking about here this morning; what opportunities, what obVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30432.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
24

stacles, other concerns that you have experienced in this regard in 

working with NRCS to approve those TSP agreements. 

Mr. GOAD. First, I guess I would start with WRP. 

There are three things about WRP—you are correct. We have enrolled over 200,000 acres in Arkansas, and we are very proud of 

that. And we do have an approximate backlog of 80,000 acres, approximately 350 landowners that we would love to get that habitat 

on the ground, as well. Three things that I believe really concern 

my Commission, our agency, and I think the public. 

The first is that there has been a change in the appraisal process, how the appraisals are valued. For example, before, I believe, 

the process was changed, whatever the property market value, appraisal was, then the landowner was made an offer for, say, perpetual easement. And States had caps, and Arkansas’ cap was in 

the $700–725 range. 

Since that change has been made at the beginning of this calendar year—I am not sure exactly when it took place, we have not 

enrolled another acre in WRP in Arkansas. We do have a piece of 

property that we were trying to buy up over in western Arkansas 

that we know the offer was about $700–725 an acre, and we have 

yet to get the appraisal back. So, we do not know what the offer 

is going to be, but our assumption is that it is going to be quite 

a bit less. 

There are three things that make up this appraisal process. To 

take the lesser of the three, one is the value of the property prior 

to the easement taken away from the value of the property with 

the easement, the geographical value of the land, and maybe the 

farmer has the option to make an offer. So, we believe it is going 

to be much less. 

And there is one example that I can tell you about in Oklahoma 

where there was 280 acres enrolled and, prior to this change, and 

I guess the money was not available; the price of the property was 

$126,000. The landowner was offered $80,000 for the perpetual 

easement. After the new appraisal, his offer was $46,000. So, it is 

a significant difference, about 36.5 percent. I do not believe the 

landowner would accept it, and I do not think you would. I know 

I would not. 

Again, the other issue is the large backlog, and then, lastly, the 

continued lack of funding for technical assistance, not only for enrollment, but for restoration on those projects. 

Will the TSP program help that? Probably not. It is going to have 

to take, maybe, a policy change to go back to the appraisal process 

that we had before and adequate funding for enrollment and restoration. 

Your question about our experience with agreements. We have 

had a couple of agreements with NRCS. We do not have any now. 

The first two, I have to admit, went not as well as we would like 

for them to have been. 

As you can see from my testimony, we have been a partner for 

a long time, actually, since 1986, when we actually created a position of Farm Bill coordinator. We have contributed hundreds of 

thousands of dollars out of our pocket to put habitat on the ground. 

So, when the TSP program became available, we felt like it was 

a golden opportunity for us. The agreements that we signed were 

25

inclusive of WRP, CRP, WHIP, EQIP. When we began to submit invoices, which included some CRP and EQIP hours, we were told 

that some mess up had caused us not to be reimbursed for anything for WHIP hours. 

So, we did leave some dollars on the table. I think it frustrated 

NRCS. We understood that State NRCSs were being chastised for 

not spending all the money. So, they have been somewhat reluctant 

to enter into any agreements with us since then. 

We have been, as of late, talking to the State conservationists 

and, hopefully, we got all that taken care of, and we would love to 

enter into a long-term agreement if we could, if that is possible, 

and hire additional staff. 

And again, I think a point that needs to be made, and I think 

you all understand, is that we cost share those positions and taxpayer dollars are leveraged and we get more habitat on the ground 

for the taxpayer’s dollar. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Just one last question, Mr. Schmidt. 

Many of your fellow panelists, and your testimony, cites concerns 

about the existing NTE rate for TSP services. You referenced that, 

in some instances, the smaller projects do not have the NTE reimbursement rates that make the project of value to private business 

to engage in. Is there anything you can elaborate on that concern? 

Maybe you could provide an example for the Committee of where 

it has been a problem, or something that you have noticed. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. In a couple of situations—and, again, I think a lot 

of it is based on the demand. In some cases, one case in particular, 

where the particular watershed was included under the new TSP 

program. And, in that watershed, the private retailer had worked 

with a lot of those producers. They had a lot of the records. 

So, they did not have a lot of additional efforts to make to help 

those individuals fill out the paperwork, which would have been 

similar to a CNMP or any other contract. Had they had to go on 

their own, because of the—and we are going back to Mr. Chairman’s question on, do we have the adequate fulfillment out there 

for the needs under this TSP provider program. This individual 

shared with me that, had she been a private entity that her business could not have withstood the timeframe of writing the program, the farmer submitting the contract, and then the reimbursement, and the farmer saying, ‘‘I cannot pay you until I get paid.’’ 

The fact that she worked for a retailer; it was part of her retailer 

agreement that they would have done that for their clients. So, 

when you are looking at, is the ability out there to do that? I think 

that is a lot of what you are seeing, is, if we are going to fulfill 

the need, there is somewhat of a hesitation by those individuals 

that are sole proprietors to do that on their own because of the 

drag in the schedule, basically, the rate of the time committed, unless it is a multi-year agreement, from that scenario. 

From a cost view, going back to Mr. Chapin’s comment, you 

know, do we combine that to make it more economical and lucrative for the private sector individuals to provide the expertise? And 

a lot of that is true, too, is when those individuals that have, as 

Mr. Chairman related, the number of categories in that conservation agreement thing, the individuals that had the expertise to fulVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:21 Mar 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30432.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
26

fill that whole scenario or can just, maybe, use their efficiencies to 

provide one component of that contract need. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I apologize that I have to excuse myself, but I do want to say that I think 

I have heard almost everyone here on this panel mention that an 

extended amount of time would be enormously productive, in terms 

of cost and ability to negotiate things. 

So, hopefully, we can work with you all further in looking at how 

some of those multiple year type agreements would be more advantageous to all of us, in terms of cost and, certainly, the final product of what we are getting. 

I have a few last questions that I will submit for the record, if 

you do not mind. Again, I thank our panelists for being here. We 

do appreciate it and, as the Chairman and I have moved forward 

in working together on the Farm Bill, we will be looking back to 

you for more suggestions and certainly recommendations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Certainly. Thank you. 

I will tell you and everyone here, now, we are going to keep the 

record open for five days, and you will probably get some written 

questions from Senator Lincoln and myself and some of the other 

Senators who are not able to be here. So, we would encourage you 

to respond to those. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

I just have a few more questions, myself. 

Mr. Schmidt, I will start with you. You indicated that, in some 

districts, the requirement for a 50/50 match has been a barrier to 

participation due to the lack of district funds. And also that it is 

expected that the NRCS will only be able to fund about half of the 

agreements that were put forward to deliver technical assistance. 

The question I have is, when that happens, does the service simply not get provided, or does it then get picked up by the private 

sector or an NGO, or does the NRCS itself provide the technical assistance? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. I think, in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, in some 

cases, when we talk about backlog of activity and, in some cases, 

that is primarily what we are saying. We make every opportunity 

in every case to make sure that the program is implemented with 

the customers. But I cannot sit here and tell you that we do not 

have a waiting list of helping those producers fulfill their opportunities. 

And that 50/50 match from the district level—and, in a lot of 

cases, the districts have received some State funding and they have 

received some county funding and, in some cases, they use their 

technical expertise to generate funding on their own. But, as both 

State dollars, in some cases, the budgets have shrunk and in county government, budgets have shrunk. 

There is a continuing effort for those districts to be able to generate that 50/50 match on their own that if, because of the limited 

staffing from NRCS in some cases and if the district cannot pick 

up that lapse in service at the local level that we have advertised 

for TSPs to come in and supplement that scenario. 

27

And then, as you indicated, what Federal dollars may be available has probably been one of the limiting factors that we can get 

more of the private sector to engage in that business opportunity, 

for fear that it will not stay there or it will just be a limited opportunity. But it truly is a concern we have of getting that technical 

assistance in the field to make sure that we do not have an opportunity for a producer to be involved in a program when we do not 

have the staffing to fulfill that need to take care of that. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Goad, I will come to you now. I noted in your testimony 

that you indicated that you feel that we need to be more effective 

in integrating the wildlife concerns into our farm programs, just by 

way of example. 

First of all, I agree with. I know Senator Lincoln does, as well. 

She and I are both working in another context on some reforms to 

the Endangered Species Act, which would help to facilitate the integration of our conservation efforts under the Farm Bill with our 

recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act. We always run 

into issues, there, but it is a very important objective, and I wanted 

to just let you know that I agree with that objective. 

The question that I want to raise with you, and I really would 

like to have the entire panel feel free to engage on this, is it has 

been mentioned by several of you, Mr. Goad, in particular, that 

these multi-year agreements could be very helpful. 

I assume you all heard the testimony of Sara Braasch, which was 

that the major limiting factor is the fact that both Congress and 

most State legislatures operate on an annual appropriations process. This is an issue, by the way, that we face in all kinds of different arenas, where the inability to engage in long-term contracting restricts our ability to be economically efficient in the delivery of services that we want to try to provide. And it is one 

which many of us struggle with here at the Federal level, in terms 

of trying to see how we can engage in an appropriations process 

that will allow us to have the long-term contracting capacity. 

So, the question I have is to the whole panel, and I will start 

with you, Mr. Goad, as to whether you can think of some creative 

ways that we could resolve that issue and achieve the kind of longterm arrangements that would still be able to be addressed with 

our annual appropriations-type processes. 

Mr. GOAD. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

going to be very difficult, I think, to answer adequately. 

However, I know in our State budget, it is a biannual budget. 

The legislature approves it for two years. And, quite often, we can 

write multi-year contracts for more than two years, with the statement I believe, that Ms. Braasch added, that it is dependent upon 

funding and approval in the years to come. So, that is one alternative. 

I believe that it would certainly make most States feel better. 

And you are correct; most States have to have legislative approval. 

The State legislatures approve not only their budgets, but extra 

staff. So, it is very difficult, but it would make a huge difference 

if we could somehow accomplish this. 

Senator CRAPO. Anybody else want to jump in on this? 

Mr. Chapin. 

28

Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, I have some experience. 

My firm has a five-year contract right now with the U.S. Forest 

Service, which is a Federal agency, as you know. It is a fairly new 

thing. I think they first started doing it about two years ago, but 

the way they work it is they have a request for proposal for providing forestry services on national forest land to prepare timber 

sales and mark and cruise timber and whatever it is that they 

think that they are going to need have done. 

All consulting firms are offered the opportunity to bid on it, and 

then they select four or five firms in the whole State that they feel 

are the most qualified and have the best cost proposal. And then, 

in turn, we received a five-year agreement to do contract work on 

forest service land based on an annual need. It is kind of a call as 

needed contract, and based on a work order. 

So, every year they will give us or some other qualifying firm a 

work order to do a certain amount of work, but that is based on 

our annual budget. That work order is only for the fiscal year. But 

the contract itself is a five-year contract, but each work project is 

a one-year project, or less. 

Senator CRAPO. So, the agency would be able to, if it didnt have 

a budget in a particular year, it would be able to solve that by not 

calling for the work. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. That is right. They would not give out any work 

orders. So, it is based on the funds being available and based on 

the need for the work to be done by a consultant. 

Senator CRAPO. I can see how that would work. 

And I am also aware—I mean, we are all aware—that in the Defense Department they have multiple year contracts, and in the 

Department of Energy they have—I am sure that in every department we could come up with examples. I am going to have to go 

check into this and see how it works. 

I know that in some that I am more familiar with, there always 

is that contingency as to whether or not the Federal Government 

will appropriate on a multiple year basis to fulfill the contracts, but 

it would seem to me that we could get around that. I mean, not 

get around it, but that we could achieve the objective of multiple 

year contracting, even facing that potential risk of the appropriations process. 

Anybody else want to jump in on that question before we go forward? 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. If I could, the EQIP program oftentimes runs in 

multi-year terms. 

Senator CRAPO. That is right. 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe some of those moneys could be used. 

Senator CRAPO. So, there is another good example, right in the 

conservation programs themselves of how we can achieve it. 

So, it seems to me that this, as well as a number of the other 

suggestions that have been made here today are very, very helpful 

and will be utilized by us as we move forward. 

I just had one more area that I wanted to get into—actually, I 

want to get back to it. It is that question of whether the direct contracting by the NRCS is preferable to having the producer do the 

contracting and then pay the TSP provider themselves. 

29

Does everybody on the panel agree that the preferred approach 

would be to have the NRCS do the direct contracting? 

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. I agree, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that the agency believes that that is the best approach, 

also. 

Senator CRAPO. Anybody disagree with that? 

That being the case, does anybody want to speculate or jump in 

on why it is that the agency does not promote it more? 

The testimony that we have had today is that it is not very well 

promoted to the producers who come in and seek the services. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. Mr. Schmidt. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. I think may be of the apprehension, as you know 

as well as I do, that as we have had that conversation here this 

morning, we do not have the availability of assistance at the local 

level for technical assistance. 

And, from a personal opinion, if I know my time is allotted, the 

last thing I want to do is market more of my skills then I am going 

to have more people dial on the phone to talk to me. And that has 

been a fear. 

In my own district, you know, we have tried to train some of our 

part-time people to answer some of the questions that we can utilize that technical staff to get the technical work done, as Mr. Wolf 

shared, you know, some of those needs might be. 

And I think if there is a reason why NRCS is not marketing that 

opportunity, it is because we know of the limited time we have 

available to actually get the work done. And the sad part is that 

you cannot be PR and then get the handwriting done at the same 

time. 

So, from that defense of NRCS—but at the same time, I think 

that the local community would appreciate knowing that we had 

the expertise locally, because in more cases it is a lot easier to deal 

with an entity locally, than it is to do, as you questioned earlier, 

you know, how would I communicate and work with somebody that 

is eight, or nine, or ten States away. 

Senator CRAPO. Right. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. That does not mean they do not have somebody in 

your local level, but it is just comfort level to deal locally, knowing 

the expertise—if you have a question, a quick visit, that kind of 

scenario. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Anybody else? 

I just have one last question, and frankly I think this question 

is probably for the NRCS, so I will submit it to them. But I wanted 

to ask it, just in case somebody knows the answer. Does anybody 

know the proportion of contracts that are done directly versus the 

proportion of contracts that are done through the producers? 

I suspected we would not know that, but we will get that information out of the NRCS. 

Well, I want to thank this panel for coming forward. Both your 

written and your oral testimony, today, have been very, very helpful to this panel. Obviously, this is a very important part of our deliberation as we develop the next Farm Bill. And the conservation 

title itself is going to be, again, one of the most significant and key 

parts of the Farm Bill. This Subcommittee is going to have a major 

30

role in crafting that, so your advice and providing of your expertise 

to us is very helpful and appreciated. 

If you feel that you would like to supplement whatever you have 

had an opportunity to say today with further ideas or thoughts, 

please do not hesitate to do so. And, as I indicated previously, the 

record is going to be held open for five days, so you may get some 

questions in writing from other members of the Committee or Senator Lincoln and myself, as well. I would encourage you to respond 

to those fully, as well. 

With that, this Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(31)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 27, 2006

32


30432.001
33


30432.002
34


30432.003
35


30432.004
36


30432.005
37


30432.006
38


30432.007
39


30432.008
40


30432.009
41


30432.010
42


30432.011
43


30432.012
44


30432.013
45


30432.014
46


30432.015
47


30432.016
48


30432.017
49


30432.018
50


30432.019
51


30432.020
52


30432.021
53


30432.022
54


30432.023
55


30432.024
56


30432.025
57


30432.026
58


30432.027
59


30432.028
60


30432.029
61


30432.030
62


30432.031
63

Æ