U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–134 PDF 2015

IMPLEMENTING THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 

2014: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–17 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New Hampshire, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 4 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .............................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 55 

Dolcini, J.D., Val, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 67 

Van Dyke, Brent, First Vice President, National Association of Conservation 

Districts, Hobbs, NM ........................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Allen, William ‘‘Buddy’’ H., Member, Conservation Committee, USA Rice Federation; rice producer, Tunica, MS ..................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Martynick, Hon. Karen L., Executive Director, Lancaster Farmland Trust, 

Strasburg, PA ....................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Inglis, James E., Governmental Affairs Representative, Pheasants Forever, 

Inc. and Quail Forever, Upper Sandusky, OH .................................................. 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

(1) 

IMPLEMENTING THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 

2014: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Gibson, 

Allen, Bost, Conaway (ex officio), Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, 

DelBene, Kirkpatrick, and Peterson (ex officio). 

Staff present: Jackie Barber, Josh Maxwell, Matt Schertz, Mollie 

Wilken, Patricia Straughn, Skylar Sowder, Faisal Siddiqui, John 

Konya, Anne Simmons, Evan Jurkovich, and Nicole Scott. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry to review implementing the Agricultural Act of 2014: conservation programs, will 

come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing. Since 1985, Congress has created 

over 20 farm bill conservation programs to address specific natural 

resource concerns. With this piecemeal approach over the past 30 

years, we were left with programs that started as regional initiatives and were duplicative of national approaches. And many programs had overlapping functions and goals. 

The Agricultural Act of 2014 reversed this trend by looking at 

conservation programs in a more comprehensive way. The 2014 

Farm Bill made significant reforms by streamlining and consolidating 23 conservation programs into 13, while still maintaining 

the core function and goals of conservation initiatives. These reforms are estimated to not only save the American taxpayer over 

$6 billion but were also intended to improve conservation delivery. 

Through assistance and incentives provided by farm bill conservation programs, our farmers and ranchers have voluntarily reduced 

soil erosion, protected wetlands, improved water quality and quantity, and preserved farmland and wildlife habitat. These environmental gains they have achieved are testimony to our producers 

who truly are the most dedicated conservationists. 

Today, we will hear from Chief Jason Weller of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Administrator Val Dolcini of the 

2 

Farm Service Agency, whose agencies have spent the last year and 

half implementing the many reforms and changes found in the conservation title of the farm bill. I will be interested to hear about 

the status of implementation for each program and hear the Administration’s view on how consolidation has impacted program delivery. 

Since June 1, the deadline for producers to file their AD–1026 

form has recently passed. And it is very timely to receive feedback 

on issues related to conservation compliance, with crop insurance. 

And I appreciate both gentlemen taking the time to be here today. 

We are also going to hear from a panel of stakeholders who are 

directly impacted by the implementation of these programs and the 

changes made by Congress. Consolidation of programs was necessary for funding and administering the programs. But we need 

to make sure it actually works on the ground. These stakeholders 

will be able to give us their perspectives on how they feel implementation is going and how the different programs are working. I 

look forward to hearing about our witnesses’ experiences with the 

newly created Regional Conservation Partnership Program, RCPP 

in the acronym world. 

RCPP is an innovative approach to targeting conservation initiatives and leveraging funds. In the initial roll out, RCPP funded 115 

projects across all 50 states and matched $370 million in program 

dollars with $400 million with partner contributions. Important 

programs like EQIP and CSP had relatively small changes in the 

Agricultural Act of 2014. However, they remain integral tools in 

conserving our natural resources. 

The longest-standing conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, saw a significant reduction in the maximum 

acres allowed to be enrolled in the program. But in exchange the 

the 2014 Farm Bill afforded landowners more flexibility, especially 

for haying and grazing. It will be interesting to see the impacts the 

reduced acreage cap has had on the CRP program. And I am intrigued to hear our witnesses’ opinions on it. 

Easement programs are an important conservation tool in my region. I would like to personally welcome Ms. Karen Martynick, who 

is representing the Lancaster Farmland Trust in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. The consolidation of farmland, grassland, and wetland 

easement into one program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, ACEP, will streamline delivery as well and has provided permanent baseline funding for future conservation programs. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be 

here today. I look forward to hearing each of your testimonies. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing to review the implementation of conservation programs in the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Since 1985, Congress created over 20 farm bill conservation programs to address 

specific natural resource concerns. 

With this piecemeal approach over the past 30 years, we were left with programs 

that started as regional initiatives and were duplicative of national approaches and 

many programs that had overlapping functions and goals. 

3 

The Agricultural Act of 2014 reversed this trend by looking at conservation programs in a more comprehensive way. The 2014 Farm Bill made significant reforms 

by streamlining and consolidating 23 conservation programs into 13 while still 

maintaining the core functions and goals of the conservation initiatives. 

These reforms are estimated to not only save the American taxpayer over $6 billion but are also are intended to improve conservation delivery. 

Through assistance and incentives provided by farm bill conservation programs, 

our farmers and ranchers have voluntarily reduced soil erosion, protected wetlands, 

improved water quality and quantity, and preserved farmland and wildlife habitat. 

These environmental gains they have achieved are a testament to our producers 

who truly are the most dedicated conservationists. 

Today, we will hear from Chief Jason Weller of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Administrator Val Dolcini of the Farm Service Agency whose agencies have spent the past year and a half implementing the many reforms and 

changes found in the conservation title of the farm bill. 

I will be interested to hear about the status of implementation for each program 

and to hear the Administration’s view on how consolidation has impacted program 

delivery. 

Since the June 1 deadline for producers to file their AD–1026 form has recently 

passed, it is very timely to receive feedback on issues related to conservation compliance with crop insurance. I appreciate both the gentlemen taking the time to be 

here today. 

We will also hear from a panel of stakeholders who are directly impacted by the 

implementation of these programs and the changes made by Congress. 

Consolidation of programs was necessary for funding and administering the programs, but we need to make sure it actually works on the ground. 

These stakeholders will be able to give us their perspectives on how they feel implementation is going and how the different programs are working. 

I look forward to hearing about our witnesses’ experiences with the newly-created 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). 

RCPP is an innovative approach to targeting conservation initiatives and 

leveraging funding. In the initial rollout, RCPP funded 115 projects across all 50 

states and matched $370 million in program dollars with $400 million from partner 

contributions. 

Important programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) had relatively small changes in 

the Agricultural Act of 2014; however they remain integral tools in conserving our 

natural resources. 

The longest-standing conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), saw a significant reduction in the maximum acres allowed to be enrolled in 

the program, but in exchange, the 2014 Farm Bill afforded landowners more flexibility, especially for haying and grazing. 

It will be interesting to see the impacts the reduced acreage cap has had on the 

CRP program, and I am intrigued to hear our witnesses’ opinions on it. 

Easement programs are an important conservation tool in my region. I would like 

to personally welcome Ms. Karen Martynick who is representing the Lancaster 

Farmland Trust in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. 

The consolidation of farmland, grassland and wetland easements into one program—the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)—will streamline 

delivery as well as provide permanent baseline funding for future conservation programs. 

Again, thank you to all of the witnesses for taking time to be here today. We look 

forward to hearing each of your testimony. 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. KUSTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Ms. KUSTER. Good morning. I am pleased to be here today for the 

Subcommittee’s first in-depth look at the implementation of the Agricultural Act of 2014’s Title II conservation programs. 

I want to thank Chairman Thompson and our Ranking Member, 

Ms. Lujan Grisham, for holding this important hearing and for 

their leadership on this Subcommittee. The 2014 Farm Bill made 

reforms to the conservation title in order to make conservation proVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
4 

grams more efficient, effective, and user-friendly for producers. 

These programs serve as important tools that our farmers and 

ranchers use to improve water quality, mitigate drought, and improve soil health. 

From New Mexico to New Hampshire, conservation programs 

like the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Programs, EQIP, are helping farmers and 

ranchers endure drought conditions and allowing rural families to 

remain on their land and ranches. In fact, New Mexico is one of 

the leading states in CSP with close to 1 million acres enrolled and 

funded through this program. In addition to these traditional conservation programs, New Mexico has also benefited from the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which is one of the new 

conservation programs the farm bill created. 

The RCPP aims to encourage innovative partnerships through a 

Federal/non-Federal cost-share in order to accomplish important 

conservation work at a watershed level. New Mexico’s four RCPP 

projects are going to help the state prevent wildfires, combat 

invasive species, and preserve traditional communal irrigation systems. I am disappointed that our conservation programs have endured some cuts that will ultimately mean fewer resources for 

farmers and ranchers. But I am looking forward to hearing how 

this Committee can continue to support these programs which are 

vital in protecting rangelands, wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us 

today and share their testimony and expertise. And on behalf of 

Representative Lujan-Grisham, I want to extend a special welcome 

to Brent Van Dyke from New Mexico on the second panel. I look 

forward to the discussion. And with that, Mr. Chairman, we yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. I am actually pleased to 

acknowledge the presence of our full Committee Chairman who I 

understand does not have an opening statement. But I want to 

wish him a very happy birthday today. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well I thank the Chairman. I appreciate that and 

yield back. I appreciate the birthday wish. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate you sharing your birthday with the 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Actually I am sharing it with a baseball team tonight. That is our secret weapon. To win the Congressional baseball game tonight is my birthday present to myself, and it will be 

a victory by the Republicans. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am pleased to recognize the full Agriculture 

Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

for holding this hearing. And I want to thank the folks from the 

Department and their hard work and the other witnesses that are 

5 

here. And Chief Weller, I thank you for the work you have done 

on the RCPP in our part of the world. We appreciate that. And we 

continue to work on implementing that. So that has been very 

much appreciated. 

I just want to bring up a couple concerns that I have heard too. 

I haven’t looked into this as much, but I have been having farmers 

talk to me here the last month or 2 that they are not able to qualify to get back into the CSP. I don’t know exactly what is going on, 

if it is a limitation on the dollars or what it is. But I have had two 

or three of them talk to me about it. Mostly, I want to discuss the 

CRP a little bit. 

A history lesson for those that haven’t followed farm policy since 

1985, which is a long time ago, the original CRP program was not 

a conservation program. The original CRP program was to reduce 

production because prices had collapsed, we had to get land out of 

production because we had too much production. And so we set up 

the CRP as a production control mechanism. Back in the 1950s, we 

had the forerunner, the Soil Bank. And back in those days, in my 

area, my home county, we had pheasants and ducks all over the 

place. And then Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson, came in, got rid of 

it. And I have been around too long. 

And we today haven’t got a pheasant or a duck in that county. 

And the reason is we lost the Soil Bank and we never got it back 

in. Because by the time we reestablished the CRP program, that 

land had become too valuable. And it is all being farmed. So what 

I am concerned about is that we have added environmental factors 

into the CRP as we have gone along. Back in 1996, the one thing 

that was positive in the 1996 Farm Bill was that I convinced 

Chairman Roberts to raise the cap on CRP to 36 million acres. 

What that did is it spread out CRP all over the country. And it put 

in a lot of big tract CRP, which is the main reason why wildlife 

really responded to the CRP program. Because we had big tracts 

of half a section or a section where you could spread the predators 

out and they weren’t able to zero in and wipe out all the wildlife 

like they do on the wildlife management areas in these 40 acre 

tracts and so forth. So that was really positive. 

But as we have gone forward, we keep putting more and more 

restrictions on the CRP. And we are narrowing where this can be, 

where people can get in. And I am concerned that where we are 

heading with CRP is going to really erode the wildlife benefits of 

the program. And we still have in the statute that 1⁄3 of this is supposed to be wildlife benefits, which are supposed to be one of the 

primary reasons for the CRP. 

So I am somewhat disappointed and I have had discussions with 

the Secretary about the fact that we are not having a general signup this year. They have extended the contracts another year. And 

there is going to be a sign-up, as I understand it, probably the 1st 

of December, which, for Minnesota, that means nothing happens 

until the year after this. So I am concerned about the fact that we 

are not doing it this year. And there was an announcement made, 

there is going to 800,000 acres targeted. And, frankly, I am a little 

bit concerned about that. Because what we are doing, once again, 

is pushing all of these targeted programs which are okay to some 

extent. But 1⁄2 of the 800,000 acres is going to go to be SAFE acres 

6 

which are basically controlled by the state DNRs. And they have 

their agenda. 

And there is another 300,000 acres for nesting habitat which, apparently, you have to be able to prove that you have nesting pairs 

of ducks in your field in order for you to qualify. I am not that familiar with it. But that is what I have been told. And then we have 

the wetland restoration which makes you plug ditches and allow 

the wetlands to be restored which, I guess, means you are going 

to have wetlands on your land from that time forward, which has 

caused some controversy. 

And so these targeted programs have contributed to people setting up folks to help get people into these programs. And so in 

North Dakota, we have a big controversy that has developed because Ducks Unlimited have put a whole bunch of biologists in the 

FSA offices in North Dakota. And part of the criticism is that we 

have not funded the technical assistance, so this is necessary. But 

what is happening is they are pushing people into these other programs and now there is a backlash going on in North Dakota 

where they want to have a, they are talking about having a bill to 

tell them they can’t have Ducks Unlimited people involved. So it 

has created some controversies out there. 

So I am a little concerned about where we are headed with all 

this. And I just think as we get to the next general sign-up, I just 

hope that we can ramp down some of these environmental things 

so that we can still have big tract CRPs spread across the country 

and get these wildlife benefits, in addition to the environmental 

benefits. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. And, again, 

I appreciate you having this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 

back. The chair would request that other Members submit their 

opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their 

testimony, to ensure there is ample time for questions. 

The chair would like to remind Members that they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were 

present at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in the order of arrival. I appreciate the Members’ understanding. 

Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral presentations to 5 

minutes. All written statements have been distributed ahead of 

time and will be included within the record. 

I would like to welcome our first panel witnesses who are at the 

table. Chief Jason Weller, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

and Administrator Val Dolcini, Farm Service Agency. Thank you, 

gentlemen for being here today and for your leadership. And Chief 

Weller, please begin whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL 

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WELLER. Well good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Lujan Grisham. Nice to see you. And I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to be here before the Committee this morning. And if nothing else, I just want to express the gratitude and 

how grateful I am for the authorities and the resources this ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
7 

mittee provides to USDA and the stewardship you provide for 

America’s private lands incentive-based conservation programs. 

Through the 2014 Farm Bill, what you provided, what you crafted in that bill provides USDA enormous flexibilities and authorities 

to go out, in partnership with farmers and ranchers, deliver real 

results for agriculture, to help them maintain, if not boost their 

production, but also then help them manage their natural resource 

challenges in a way that is really effective. And in that farm bill, 

as you know, you have streamlined a lot of programs. You have 

maintained flexibilities, even enhanced flexibilities, and then really 

emphasized the value and the importance of partnerships. 

And so with these authorities, on behalf of NRCS, we have been 

able to deliver very significant results just in the last year alone. 

But also looking back over previous farm bills too, there are some 

very significant results across America that I would like to talk 

about very briefly this morning. The bottom line is you can be extremely proud of the work that is being done in partnership with 

producers through the programs and authorities that you have authorized and funded through your hard work in the 2014 Farm 

Bill. 

Speaking of birthdays, Mr. Chairman, our agency celebrated our 

80th birthday 2 months ago. So 2 weeks after Black Sunday in 

April 1935, President Roosevelt, in partnership with Congress, enacted and put into law what created the Soil Conservation Service. 

So 80 years of history working in partnership with farmers and 

ranchers, on a collaborative voluntary basis, working with soil and 

water conservation districts, state agencies and other private partners across America. I am very honored to represent the 10,000 

professionals that work at NRCS, work in field offices across America, in state offices, in centers, and in national headquarters. These 

men and women are true professionals. They do a lot of unheralded 

work that, in my view, is very honorable and is very valuable. And 

it is truly on behalf of America’s farmers and ranchers. I am very 

honored to represent NRCS and hopefully convey a little bit about 

the results we are helping to deliver in partnership with producers. 

So, first, let me talk a little bit about some of the soil benefits. 

In the Chesapeake Bay region alone, since 2006, producers have 

put in place effective conservation practices to reduce sediment loss 

from their crop fields, upwards of 62 percent. That translates into 

over 15 million tons of sediment that no longer flows in the Chesapeake Bay estuary. That is enough sediment to fill 150,000 train 

cars which would stretch from D.C. to Albuquerque, New Mexico 

every year. 

In terms of soil health, Mr. Chairman, you hosted and invited us 

to participate in a soil health briefing last year. And we heard from 

producers like Mr. Groff from Pennsylvania on how they have experimented and put in place soil health management practices. In 

the case of Mr. Groff, he manages 225 acres in Pennsylvania. He 

has put in place soil health systems going back decades. And he reports yield boosts of upward of ten percent above local averages because of cover crops and wise tillage practices he has in place. 

Well since 2012, NRCS, through your programs, has put in place 

3.7 million acres of cover crops, to help farmers put in place 1.7 

million acres of no-till practices, to help protect the soils. And in 

8 

periods of drought, back in 2012, when producers were surveyed in 

the heartland states, this one practice alone, cover crops, produces 

a reported yield benefits of 12 to 15 percent for corn and beans 

above conventional farmers that did not incorporate cover crops as 

part of their rotation. 

In terms of water, sometimes there is too much, sometimes there 

is too little, and sometimes we need to protect the water we have. 

In terms of water protection, because of the programs that you 

have authorized, we have partnered with producers in Arkansas to 

focus results. And because of that collaborative approach to protect 

water resources, the State of Arkansas is going to be able to delist two waters from the section 303(d) impaired lists in Arkansas. 

And in Mr. Lucas’ home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, the state, 

NRCS in partnership with Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 

de-listed upwards of 40 streams and river segments in the state, 

900 miles of stream segments taken off 303(d) lists because of positive proactive conservation on behalf of farmers. 

In terms of water conservation, the Ogallala Aquifer Region, in 

over 4 years we have put in place an effective irrigation efficiency 

practice with farmers that we estimate save 1.5 million acre feet 

of water. That is enough water to supply drinking water for 3.3 

million households every year, an incredible quantity of water that 

is sustaining the healthy aquifer, maintaining productivity in the 

agricultural heartland, and also allowing for industry and municipalities to have access to that important water. 

Sometimes it rains too much like in Oklahoma and Texas. Because of wise investments that this Committee has made in previous decades, we estimate we have helped protect and prevent 

$130 million worth of flood damages that would have occurred but 

for the infrastructure. This Committee, in the 2014 Farm Bill, invested in the rehab programs to help protect that infrastructure investment. And because of the wise investments, we were able to 

protect hundreds of thousands of families, communities, homes, 

public infrastructure, railways, bridges, schools, and hospitals, because of the hard work this Committee put in place. 

One final example, in terms of animals, just incredible benefits 

on wildlife. And, oftentimes, wildlife can be the best indicator. 

When you manage your forests, your grasslands, your crop fields 

effectively, nature will respond. Just 2 weeks ago with the Louisiana black bear, Secretary Jewell, Governor Jindal proposed removing the Louisiana black bear from the endangered species list, 

because of investments through private lands conservation easements. 

In Louisiana alone, over 217,000 acres were put in place through 

the Wetlands Reserve Program. And because of wise targeting and 

partnership with the state, we helped put in place a network of 

habitat that is good for protecting farmlands, protecting the values 

of those lands, but also protecting wetland resources, migratory 

bird resources. In this case, the Louisiana black bear. 

North in Montana, the Arctic Fluvial Grayling was taken off the 

candidate list because of actions of producers, of ranchers. In Oregon, the Oregon chub, was the first fish in history to be taken off 

the list not because it was extinct or extirpated, but because it 

came back. Conservation investments through your authorities 

9 

brought the Oregon chub back from a population of less than 1,000 

fish, today over 140,000 fish and growing. 

And then, most recently, the bi-state population of sage grouse 

on the border between California and Nevada, taken off the candidate list. Again, because of proactive investments through private 

lands conservation and the partnership of private landowners, 

ranchers, making a difference on their operations, going to keep 

them intact, keep them operating, keep them on their land, but 

also, in this case, keep the bird off the endangered species list. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today. 

And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss implementation of the conservation programs authorized by the Agricultural Act of 

2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The continuing support of this Subcommittee for voluntary 

private lands conservation is making a critical difference. Farm bill conservation 

programs provide America’s farmers, ranchers and others with technical and financial assistance to enable conservation of natural resources while protecting and improving agricultural operations. Seventy percent of the American landscape is privately owned, making private lands conservation critical to the health of our nation’s environment and ability to ensure our working lands are productive. 

Farm Bill Implementation 

The 2014 Farm Bill was signed into law on February 7, 2014. The new farm bill 

delivered a strong conservation title that makes robust investments to conserve and 

support America’s working lands and consolidates and streamlines programs to improve efficiency and encourage participation. The Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) has the privilege of administering many of these programs, including the: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), and Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA– 

HIP). 

Enacted in early 2014, the 2014 Farm Bill initially allowed NRCS to continue to 

serve customers using existing program rules. As a result, FY 2014 service proceeded seamlessly and NRCS enrolled approximately 20 million acres in voluntary 

conservation programs and obligated nearly $3 billion. At the same time, NRCS 

moved swiftly to draft rules, program guidance, and policies to support full implementation of the new and modified programs. The following provides an overview 

of 2014 Farm Bill implementation activity: 

• Since the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) started in 2009, the program has become a major force for agricultural conservation, and it continues 

to inspire action to enhance America’s natural resources. In FY 2014 NRCS enrolled about 9.6 million acres and now CSP enrollment exceeds 60 million acres, 

about the size of Iowa and Indiana, combined. 

The CSP Interim Final Rule was published in November 2014, reflecting statutory changes to the acreage enrollment cap, stewardship levels, contract modifications, and CRP and certain easement land eligibility. Public comments were 

accepted through January 20, 2015. NRCS received nearly 500 individual comments; most related to access to the program, minimum payments, contract 

rates, and stewardship thresholds. We are working to address the public comments and expect to publish the final rule in Summer 2015. 

• Through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) producers addressed their conservation needs on over 11 million acres in FY 2014; over $928 

million was obligated in nearly 40,000 contracts to support this conservation 

work. 

The EQIP Interim Final Rule was published in December 2014, reflecting the 

statutory changes to incorporate the purposes of the former Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and address the payment limitation and waiver authority, adVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
10 

vance payments for historically under-served producers, and preferences to certain veteran farmers and ranchers. Public comments were accepted through 

February 10, 2015. NRCS received over 330 individual comments; most related 

to the irrigation history, confined animal feeding operations, EQIP plan of operations, program administration, payment rates and limitations, application selection, and funding levels for wildlife practices. The final rule is targeted for 

completion in early Fall 2015. 

• Conservation Innovation Grants—In September 2014, NRCS awarded $15.7 million in CIG to 47 organizations that will help develop and demonstrate cuttingedge ideas to accelerate innovation in private lands conservation. The FY 2015 

Funding Announcement was released in January 2015 offering up to $20 million. Project selection is targeted for late Summer 2015. 

• Landowners participating in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 

(ACEP) enrolled an estimated 143,833 acres of farmland, grasslands, and wetlands through 485 new ACEP easements (88,892 acres in Ag Land Easements, 

and 54,941 acres in Wetland Reserve Easements) with the $328 million in FY 

2014 funding. These easements will help preserve important agricultural lands 

and agricultural viability while they create and protect habitat for migratory 

birds and other important species. 

The ACEP Interim Final Rule was published in February 2015, reflecting 

statutory changes to consolidate the purposes of FRPP, GRP (easement component only) and WRP and address the certification process for ACEP–ALE; authority to subordinate, modify, or terminate an easement; grasslands of special 

environmental significance; and the agricultural land easement plan. Public 

comments were accepted through May 28, 2015. NRCS is evaluating public comments presently and developing recommendations for the final rule. 

• The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) created a new platform 

for engaging partners and leveraging the Federal conservation investment. The 

first RCPP announcement of over $370 million in program funding was rolled 

out on May 27, 2014. Following a rigorous two-stage competitive process, 115 

high-impact projects across all 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

were selected in January 2015. Partners brought forward an estimated $400 

million in their own contributions for a total investment of nearly $800 million 

that will go to improve the nation’s water quality and supply, support wildlife 

habitat and enhance agricultural production and the environment. The FY 2016 

funding announcement was released in May 2015, making available up to $235 

million for new agreements. This round of RCPP will have an even greater emphasis on partnerships, leveraging, and diversity to achieve innovative solutions 

to locally identified issues. 

• The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program (VPA–HIP) assists 

states and Tribes to increase public access to private lands for wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing and hiking. In FY 2014, NRCS made 

$20 million available for VPA–HIP awards and was able to fund ten of the 30 

proposals received. In February 2015, NRCS announced the availability of $20 

million for VPA–HIP projects. Project selection is targeted for Summer 2015. 

• The Mitigation Banking program provision will be implemented directly 

through an announcement of program funding. The implementation approach is 

being finalized with an expected announcement in Summer 2015. 

In addition to the major rule changes discussed above, minor statutory changes 

to Technical Service Providers; State Technical Committees; Healthy Forests Reserve Program; Small Watershed Program; Regional Equity; Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program, and Agricultural Management Assistance 

were published in a consolidated Interim Final Rule in August 2014. The few public 

comments received were addressed in the final rule published in April 2015. 

Farm Bill Conservation Programs Deliver 

With the tools and resources provided through the 2014 Farm Bill, USDA and its 

partners are positioned to help agriculture make a major difference in the lives of 

farming and ranching families and the quality of natural resources. While these programs work well independently, they are a family of tools that are providing comprehensive landscape-scale solutions and benefits. Below are a few highlights of how 

farm bill conservation programs are achieving natural resource results in balance 

with productive agriculture. 

The right conservation practices put in the right places are an effective means to 

achieve cleaner more abundant water for farmers, ranchers, communities, and wildlife. Using farm bill programs through the Mississippi River Basin Initiative 

11 

(MRBI), NRCS has invested significantly in high-priority water quality projects in 

the Basin delivering on the ground benefits. For example, as a result of MRBI conservation efforts, Arkansas was able to remove two stream segments from the 

State’s Clean Water Act 303(d) impairment designation. Working with partners and 

using farm bill tools, farmers, ranchers and other landowners have helped remove 

nine more streams from Oklahoma’s 303(d) list of impaired streams in 2014. Oklahoma ranks second in the nation for EPA-recognized water quality success stories. 

And in the region overlying the Ogallala Aquifer in the Central Plains, farm bill 

programs have allowed NRCS to partner with farmers to install water conservation 

practices that conserved an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of groundwater over 4 

years, or enough water to provide annual water needs for about 3.3 million households. 

If the widespread drought has shown us anything, it is the value of crop resilience 

through good soil health management systems. Using farm bill programs, NRCS has 

been accelerating adoption of soil health practices and helping producers build resilience in their production systems. Soil health management systems help increase 

organic matter, reduce soil compaction, improve nutrient storage and cycle and increase water infiltration and water availability to plants. These benefits lead to 

greater resiliency to adverse conditions but also boost yields. For example, a national survey of farmers documented an increase in yields of nine percent for corn 

following cover crops and ten percent for soybeans after cover crops. 

The StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity initiative targets farm bill programs in persistent poverty communities to assist farmers and ranchers achieve economic and environmental objectives. Since 2010, NRCS and other USDA agencies 

have focused assistance and outreach in over 880 counties, parishes, boroughs, and 

Census areas, and in Indian reservations in 22 states. In FY 2014 alone, NRCS invested $286 million in partnership with producers in high-poverty communities to 

help their operations be more economically successful and environmentally sustainable. For example, NRCS in partnership with Tuskegee University has invested 

about $1 million to help nearly 40 producers in Alabama StrikeForce counties to incorporate innovative practices on their farming operations, including retro-fits for 

current irrigation systems, new wells, solar powered wells, and drip irrigation systems that will make their operations more productive and sustainable. 

Farm bill programs and conservation efforts of farmers and ranchers have had 

major positive and measurable impacts on wildlife species. For example, the August 

2014 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to not list the arctic 

fluvial grayling under the Endangered Species Act was a direct result of voluntary 

conservation work done by 30 landowners on more than 150,000 acres. The February 2015 decision to de-list the Oregon chub is another success story, with farm 

bill programs helping producers improve their operations at the same time delivering benefits to fish habitat. In April 2015, USFWS announced its decision to withdraw the proposal to list the bi-state population of greater sage grouse in California 

and Nevada as threatened under the ESA, based on the success of voluntary conservation efforts to recover this species and its habitat. 

Voluntary conservation efforts are improving air quality in California’s San Joaquin Valley. In April, EPA published a revision to California’s State Implementation 

Plan that for the first time credits producer actions in clearing the air. Farmers and 

ranchers, with assistance from NRCS, have replaced aging diesel engines used for 

agricultural purposes with new, lower exhaust-emitting engines. Since 2008, NRCS 

has co-invested more than $100 million in this effort with producers and offset the 

equivalent of emissions from one million cars. The agriculture sector achieved its 

air quality improvement target 3 years ahead of the schedule mandated by state 

regulations—the only regulated sector to do so. Farm bill Programs are demonstrating how the voluntary actions by producers can translate to quantified air 

quality improvements in California’s San Joaquin Valley. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee let me conclude by saying that 

our nation’s farmers and ranchers have a tremendous track record of success in conserving our nation’s soil and water resources. Through the work of this Subcommittee in providing the programs of the 2014 Farm Bill, NRCS has the tools to 

continue assisting these stewards to achieve their production and operational goals 

in balance with natural resource objectives that benefit rural communities and the 

nation as a whole. Voluntary conservation is working, and the programs and authorities provided through The Agricultural Act of 2014 are providing the programs 

and services that help strengthen agriculture, the environment, and rural economies. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and update the Committee 

12 

on our Agency’s efforts to effectively implement the 2014 Farm Bill. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, thank you so much. Thanks for the insight 

on those southern black bears. I thought they only liked my corn 

farmers’ fields. 

Administrator Dolcini, please go ahead and proceed with your 5 

minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF VAL DOLCINI, J.D., ADMINISTRATOR, FARM 

SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DOLCINI. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss FSA’s implementation of the farm bill’s conservation title. Like Chief Weller, 

I would like to thank this Subcommittee and the full Committee in 

this Congress and in past Congresses for the support that you have 

shown our programs, our people, and our resources. And like Chief 

Weller, I want to call out the hard work of 15,000 FSA employees 

in 2,124 service centers across this country, along with the 7,000 

or so farmer-elected county committee men and women that support the work of FSA. They are our competitive edge. It is not the 

work that I do here in Washington, it is the work that is done in 

the field every day. 

And to stay on the birthday band wagon, I will start my testimony with a note that the Conservation Reserve Program turns 30 

this year. And so we are celebrating all year long the 30th anniversary of conservation achievements across the American landscape. 

CRP is a voluntary program that allows USDA to contract with 

farmers and ranchers so that environmentally sensitive lands and 

lands with wildlife benefits are not farmed or ranched, but, instead, 

are used for conservation benefits. Participants establish long-term 

covers, such as approved grasses or trees, to control erosion and 

water quality. And, in return, we provide participants with rental 

payments, cost-sharing, and other incentives for the period of the 

contract. CRP restores habitat for ducks, pheasants, deer, and 

other wildlife. And in doing so, it spurs hunting, fishing, recreation, 

tourism, and other forms of local economic development. We have 

a large number of partners who work collaboratively with FSA and 

contribute to these achievements, including our sister agency, 

NRCS, as well as numerous non-Federal partners that you will 

hear from later this morning. 

Currently, 24.3 million acres are enrolled in CRP contracts, including 18.1 under general sign-up authority and 6.2 million under 

continuous sign-up authority. CRP contracts on 1.9 million acres 

will expire at the end of this fiscal year. With the enactment of the 

farm bill, the total number of CRP acres that can be enrolled nationwide has been reduced from 32 to 24 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2017. And as a result, we anticipate that CRP will increasingly focus on the most sensitive acreage and that the signups will be increasingly competitive. To target this high-benefit 

acreage, Secretary Vilsack announced on May 29 that an additional 

800,000 acres would be available under certain continuous authorities, including, as Congressman Peterson pointed out, 300,000 

13 

acres for duck habitat, 100,000 acres for wetlands, and 400,000 

acres for the SAFE acre program. 

He also announced that the next general enrollment period will 

begin on December 1 and will conclude on February 26 of 2016. 

Participants with eligible CRP contracts that expire this fiscal year 

will be provided an option on a 1 year extension. USDA also restarted continuous enrollment activity in the Transitions Incentive 

Program, the TIP program. This encourages transfer of expiring 

CRP lands to beginning and socially-disadvantaged farmers and 

ranchers. Other farm bill provisions, such as changes to haying and 

grazing, tree thinning and grasslands, require rulemaking and National Environmental Policy Act analysis. Both of these efforts are 

underway and both are nearing completion. 

The 2014 Farm Bill also requires compliance with highly-erodible 

land and wetland conservation requirements in order to be eligible 

for crop insurance premium subsidies. While most farmers have a 

certification form on file, I would say many farmers do, USDA conducted informational meetings and training sessions all across the 

country for those who may not. And we reached tens of thousands 

of stakeholders to ensure that affected producers who filed their 

form by the June 1 deadline can remain eligible for premium supports during the 2016 reinsurance year. 

In light of recent natural disasters, such as the serious flooding 

we have seen in Oklahoma and Texas and continued drought conditions in California and elsewhere in the West, I would like to also 

reemphasize the importance of our Emergency Conservation Program. ECP provides emergency funding and technical assistance to 

help farmers and ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disaster. It also helps livestock producers enhance water supplies during severe drought. And we are standing by to assist 

states in need with that program. 

Mr. Chairman, Members, as you have noted, our nation’s farmers 

and ranchers are dedicated stewards of land conservation. For 30 

years, their participation in CRP has prevented billions of tons of 

soil from eroding, reduced nitrogen and phosphorus run-off significantly, sequestered millions of tons of greenhouse gasses, and has 

protected about 170,000 miles of streams and creeks throughout 

this nation. Last month, we also reached the 1 million acre milestone in the SAFE acre program. And throughout the course of the 

year, we will be highlighting success stories from all over the nation to mark 30 years of successful CRP conservation work. 

Farmers and ranchers are doing great things to conserve the environment in your Congressional districts and to build habitat. And 

they can count on FSA’s support in those efforts. This concludes my 

testimony. And I am happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dolcini follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VAL DOLCINI, J.D., ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE

AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to provide information on the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA’s) implementation of the 

conservation programs of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). 

14 

CRP and the Road to 24 Million Acres 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) first appeared in the 1985 Farm Bill 

and is one of USDA’s largest conservation programs. CRP allows USDA to contract 

with landowners so that environmentally sensitive land is not farmed or ranched, 

but instead used for conservation benefits. Participants establish long-term, resource-conserving cover and, in return, FSA can provide participants with annual 

rental payments, incentive payments, and cost-share assistance. Contract duration 

is between 10 and 15 years. CRP improves water quality, reduces soil erosion, and 

restores habitat for ducks, pheasants, turkey, quail, deer and other wildlife. In doing 

so, CRP spurs hunting, fishing, recreation, tourism, and other economic development across rural America. 

Currently, 24.3 million acres are enrolled in CRP contracts, including 18.1 million 

acres under general sign-up enrollment authority and 6.2 million acres under continuous sign-up enrollment authority. CRP general sign-up is a competitive process 

conducted on a periodic basis. The last general sign-up occurred in the spring of 

2013. CRP continuous sign-up occurs on a continuous basis throughout the year and 

does not involve a discrete sign-up period. CRP contracts on 1.9 million acres (combined general and continuous) are set to expire on September 30, 2015. 

The 2014 Farm Bill reduces the cap on overall CRP enrollment authority incrementally from 32 million acres to 24 million acres starting in Fiscal Year 2017. As 

a result of the enrollment cap and expected increase in demand for CRP due to 

lower commodity prices, we expect general enrollments to become more competitive 

in the future and the environmental benefits achieved per acre of CRP will potentially increase. We will also continue to pursue continuous enrollments to target the 

most environmentally-sensitive acreage to help address national, regional, state, 

and local resource concerns. 

To mark the 30th anniversary of CRP, Secretary Vilsack announced an effort on 

May 29 to target the most valuable conservation land by increasing acreage allocations under certain continuous wetland and wildlife initiatives by 800,000 acres. 

This increase was offset by a combination of cost savings and efficiencies and includes 300,000 acres for duck nesting habitat (doubling the available acres); 100,000 

for wetland restoration initiatives; and an added 400,000 acres for State Acres for 

Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE). In addition, the Secretary also announced that the 

next CRP general signup offer period will begin on December 1, 2015, and extend 

through February 26, 2016. We will enroll sufficient CRP acreage to closely meet 

as possible, but not exceed, the statutory acreage limits set in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

Program participants with contracts expiring September 30, 2015, and less than 

15 years in duration, have the option of a 1 year extension. Those with continuous 

sign-up contracts are eligible to re-enroll in CRP. 

FSA is proud of the vital impact that CRP has had on the landscape. Since its 

inception, we estimate that CRP has prevented more than 8 billion tons of soil from 

eroding and reduced nitrogen and phosphorous runoff by 95 percent and 85 percent, 

respectively, on enrolled lands. In addition, CRP has sequestered an estimated 43 

million tons of greenhouse gases annually, which is equal to taking eight million 

cars off the road. 

Future CRP Actions and Activity in 2014 

In addition to reducing the CRP acreage cap, the 2014 Farm Bill made other 

changes to the program. For example, it mandated that non-easement functions of 

the repealed Grassland Reserve Program be carried out under CRP, with enrollment 

of up to 2 million acres authorized. These enrollments count against the statutory 

CRP acreage cap. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill mandates changes to routine, prescribed, and emergency grazing, managed harvesting frequency, tree thinning payments, and other provisions. Our rulemaking to implement those changes is well 

underway, as is the process to complete the National Environmental Policy Act requirements. 

Some 2014 Farm Bill provisions could be implemented without regulatory changes 

and these provisions were implemented early in the summer of 2014. For example, 

continuous sign-up was re-started on June 9, 2014 after ceasing on September 30, 

2013, when enrollment authority ended. Since sign-up re-started, roughly 600,000 

new continuous sign-up acres have been enrolled. 

Similarly, the Transition Incentives Program (TIP) was also re-started on June 9, 

2014, which provides 2 additional years of payments for retired farmers and ranchers who transition expiring CRP acres to socially disadvantaged, veteran, or beginning farmers and ranchers who make conservation and land improvements, begin 

the certification process under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, or return 

the land to sustainable grazing or crop production. TIP was first introduced by the 

2008 Farm Bill, and the $25 million funding provided in the 2008 Farm Bill was 

15 

completely expended. The 2014 Farm Bill increased TIP funding, providing up to 

$33 million through 2018. For 2014 CRP contract expirations, nearly $9 million of 

TIP funding was obligated. 

The 2014 Farm Bill also allows termination of a CRP contract during Fiscal Year 

2015, if the contract has been in effect for a minimum of 5 years and certain other 

conditions are met. Preliminary data indicate contracts associated with only about 

90,000 CRP acres have been terminated to date in Fiscal Year 2015. 

Emergency Assistance through non-Title II Conservation Programs 

Given the increasing incidence of serious natural disasters, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) is of heightened importance. This program, which was 

first enacted in the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, provides emergency funding and 

technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by 

natural disasters and for implementing emergency water conservation measures 

during periods of severe drought. FSA has allocated $6 million over the past year 

to California farmers and ranchers to enhance livestock water supplies. With recent 

flooding in Texas and Oklahoma, we stand ready to provide ECP funding, within 

our available resources, to farmers and ranchers in those states to restore livestock 

fences and conservation structures, remove flood debris, and rehabilitate farmland. 

2014 Farm Bill Conservation Compliance Provisions 

The 2014 Farm Bill re-established the link between Highly Erodible Land and 

Wetland Conservation provisions and crop insurance subsidies. To be eligible for 

premium subsidy for the 2016 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation reinsurance year 

(which runs from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016), producers purchasing crop insurance were required to file form AD–1026, ‘‘Highly Erodible Land Conservation 

(HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification’’ with their local FSA office 

by June 1, 2015. This form is already required for participants in most FSA and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, so an AD–1026 will already be on file for these producers. 

Producers who are most likely to need to file an AD–1026 for the first time are 

specialty crop farmers who may not participate in other USDA programs. To reach 

these and other producers, FSA, NRCS, and the Risk Management Agency (RMA) 

have worked closely over the past several months on a coordinated outreach effort. 

We’ve deployed a variety of informational documents and online resources including 

news releases, fact sheets, frequently asked questions, and brochures to help farmers understand what they need to do. We have also coordinated with groups that 

helped us reach affected producers, and conducted informational meetings and 

training sessions for nearly 6,000 stakeholders across the country. 

FSA could not implement our conservation programs without the extremely valuable assistance provided by our inter-agency and non-Federal partners. NRCS and 

the Forest Service, as well as non-Federal providers, have for many years provided 

technical assistance associated with CRP implementation. Since 1985, we have 

worked closely with NRCS to implement conservation compliance provisions. The 

2014 Farm Bill has intensified our interaction with RMA, particularly in areas of 

data-sharing to run FSA’s farm programs, and we look forward to seamless interaction regarding conservation compliance implementation as well. 

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Administrator. 

And I will take the liberty of the first 5 minutes of questioning. 

And thank you for your leadership of, really of implementing the 

farm bill that we worked on so diligently in this Committee. I appreciate your leadership with implementation. I have a question regarding, I know that conservation compliance was something that 

was in the farm bill and specifically impacting—I have a question 

related, probably mostly about specialty crop growers and possibly 

some, I am hearing maybe this impacts livestock as well. 

In order to be eligible, there was a requirement to submit by 

June 1, which date has come and gone, the AD–1026. My understanding is the agencies have very aggressively tried to communicate and get the word out that in order to be eligible for the subsidy, crop insurance subsidy, you were going to be required to submit this form. And if they don’t, then basically they would lose the 

subsidy. And they may not know that until the bill comes due in 

16 

October. So a bit of a delay here. I wanted to see, and I appreciate 

what has been described as your aggressive notification process. 

Any estimate in terms of actual completion or perhaps those who 

have not submitted by that date, and what type of follow-up measures to make sure that, specifically specialty crop and, again, possibly livestock producers. 

Mr. DOLCINI. Sure, Mr. Chairman, I will take the first crack at 

that answer. I appreciate the fact that you have noted that we 

have done a pretty good job, thus far, with implementation. Implementing a farm bill is a real team effort. And at the Department 

of Agriculture, we work hand in glove on a variety of different 

issues, but mostly in the conservation compliance realm with our 

sister agencies, the Risk Management Agency, as well as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to make sure that we are 

reaching everybody who potentially would be able to participate in 

that RMA program. Our primary goal is to make sure that farmers 

and ranchers, our customers, have as much access to information 

as they possibly can in order to make well-educated decisions about 

programs that they may or may not want to participate in. 

And so in the case of conservation compliance, which was obviously re-linked in this last farm bill, the need to comply with highly-erodible land and wetland requirements and receiving Federal 

crop insurance premium subsidies. I would also add, sir, that many 

of our farmers already have AD–1026s on file. If they participated 

in our marketing assistance loan program or disaster assistance, 

perhaps other USDA programs, they already have an AD–1026 on 

file. We really went the extra mile, beginning last year, sending 

mail notifications, postcards by the Farm Service Agency. We held 

tens, if not hundreds, of public meetings around the country with 

specific commodity organizations. We participated in a conference 

call before that June 1 deadline to make sure their membership 

knew what the requirements were and that they needed to get an 

AD–1026 into the office by June 1. We did special outreach activities in every state, particularly those that grow specialty crops, like 

my home State of California. I traveled to California and conducted 

some meetings myself to make sure that commodity organizations 

and specialty crop growers and the affected industry, the insurance 

industry, knew about the June 1 deadline and that they would 

have as much access to FSA and USDA information as we possibly 

could make available. We are reconciling those numbers now, sir. 

And I don’t have definitive numbers for you this morning, but we 

will certainly share those with the Subcommittee when we have 

completed that process. But I do want you to know that from the 

perspective of this three-agency effort, we really feel like we left no 

stone unturned when it came to making certain that people knew 

about the program and the deadline. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. My second question, and probably by 

the time I get done asking it, I will have run out of time. But let 

me ask it and then look forward to getting some type of follow up 

on it. I want to follow up on the Ranking Member’s issue that he 

had raised. And it seems to me there is certainly a benefit of what 

the agency has done perhaps on its own initiative of creating or 

broadening a public-private partnership, of bringing biologists and 

individuals in from some great organizations that are involved in 

17 

habitat and wildlife. But I would really like to get a feel nationwide 

how many individuals do we have now that are working within our 

agencies, that are perhaps from organizations, great organizations 

like Ducks Unlimited or National Wild Turkey Federation. I am 

not sure what organizations may be involved. 

How many, what the role is, and also what are the safeguards, 

because we need to make sure that obviously, first and foremost, 

that this is driven by, for our farmers and ranchers. We know the 

wildlife benefit, as Members of this Committee, quite frankly, as a 

sportsman myself, but I want to see what are the safeguards, make 

sure we are avoiding any kind of conflict of interest within those 

roles. I think those are important lines to define. And the Ranking 

Member had those concerns. And I have heard from folks that are 

raising kind of the same questions. So it would be good to get the 

information out. With that, my time has expired. And I am pleased 

to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chief 

Weller and Administrator, thank you very much for being here. I 

agree, the entire Committee, appreciates your efforts and diligence. 

And the update of that, how we are proceeding and updating the 

latest investments and new authorities in the farm bill. Chief 

Weller, in your testimony and in your written testimony as well, 

you have mentioned the importance of the conservation programs 

and investments and their impact on yields and endangered species 

listings. Specifically today you talked about two, the Louisiana 

black bear and the Oregon chub. I really appreciate that because 

in that context, that is what we all want those positive end results, 

but I continue to hear, of course, concerns in my state and district 

from landowners and the industry about how listing of a species 

impacts their livelihood and their businesses. And I also hear, 

frankly and interestingly enough, those same concerns from environmental and conservation groups on how species population 

numbers and those critical habitats continue to shrink. 

It is clear to me that both these groups may have a different 

means to an end, but they are concerned, quite frankly, about the 

very same things. They want to protect species. And they want to 

prevent listings. And I have seen stakeholders from many different 

backgrounds, frankly, come together and work toward this goal 

very successfully. And I will give you an example. In 2011, the oil 

and gas industry in my state was very concerned about the dunes 

sagebrush lizard listing that would eliminate drilling in the Permian Basin which produces 20 percent of all the oil in the lower 

48 states. Now, as you might imagine, this has a significant set of 

consequences not only for my state and district, but for the entire 

country. Now, thankfully, the listing was avoided because landowners in New Mexico and Texas proactively took steps to remove 

the threats to the listing on 600,000 acres which covered 88 percent 

of the lizard’s habitat. What I would love to do is replicate those 

efforts as often as I can. And I believe, of course, that NRCS is in 

a position to encourage real innovation. 

What I worry about, however, is that stakeholders continue to 

tell me they don’t have the information or the resources that they 

need to adequately participate in the conservation programs or to 

collaborate effectively so that they can have those kind of results. 

18 

So I would love it if you would walk me through and describe what 

kind of outreach is going on, how are we educating and engaging 

landowners in the conservation programs. And as you do that, how 

you are encouraging them, as you reach out to that group of stakeholders, to have relationships with the environmental community, 

not only in their communities and their states but around the 

country so that you achieve the successes that you identified in 

your testimony and I identified in my question. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you for the recognition of the contributions 

that the USDA programs are providing for wildlife or, in this case, 

to also help producers be productive and stay on their lands. In my 

view and the view of my colleagues at NRCS, the common thread 

between the environmental interests, the wildlife interests, and agriculture, at the end of the day, it is in everyone’s interest to keep 

working lands working. You have to keep people on the land. You 

want them working the range. You want them working the crop 

field. You want them working the forests. When those lands are either abandoned, like in the West where you then lose the forests 

to wildfire threats because those are no longer managed or fire is 

not allowed to be part of the ecosystem. Or when lands are developed, they are converted to other economic uses. It has an impact 

on wildlife, it has an impact on the agricultural economy and the 

integrity of that economy, and has impacts on waters. So in terms 

of how we are doing the outreach, it first starts with our partnership with agricultural groups. At the end of the day, a farmer or 

rancher can be our best salesperson on the value of conservation. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Can you give me a little more specificity 

about that partnership, I have about 40 seconds left, really looking 

at how I help my folks know exactly what to do. 

Mr. WELLER. So often, for example, like in Wyoming, it is with 

the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, they are avid proponents 

for the value of easements, the value of range conservation. And 

with them, we have partnered with the Wyoming Stock Growers 

Association to put in place, in my view, one of the most effective 

sage step conservation efforts, frankly, in history, to help address 

concerns with sage grouse. But, in this case, it is also about keeping intact Wyoming ranching operations. It is also working through 

local soil and water conservation districts. They know, they have 

the local networks of relationships with producers. They can then 

have the networks and partnerships with agricultural groups at 

the local level, can help get the work out about opportunities, about 

how to work better with NRCS, but other opportunities that may 

be available through the state or other private groups. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Now I am pleased recognize Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And perhaps for a moment before we get into a lot of the details, considering the 80th 

anniversary of the founding of the NRCS’s predecessor not many 

days ago, the 30th anniversary of CRP, we almost need to take a 

victory lap here, consider the progress and the great accomplishments of your predecessors out there, gentleman, over the course 

of the last 80 years. And, for that matter, our predecessors here. 

In my region of the country, in the last 41⁄2, 5 weeks have had 22′′ 

19 

of rain. I average 24–28′′ a year on the farm where I live. In 2011, 

we had 14′′ for the entire year. It came at the wrong time of the 

year. And for the first time in my memory or the memory of any 

senior members of my community, we actually had substantial 

amounts of native grasses in the pastures die from dry freezes in 

the wintertime. We have bounced back and forth through these 

weather patterns. And in this last calendar year, another 14′′ of 

rain. 

The fact that we could go 5 years in the Southwest region of the 

country, where the Chairman and I are from, through those kind 

of conditions and not have the most amazing dust storms, not have 

the most amazing environmental collapse is an amazing compliment to the work of your predecessors and to the work of our 

predecessors on this Committee, absolutely amazing. And then to 

have Mother Nature change course and drop 22′′ of rain where I 

live in 4–5 weeks and not have massive flooding, massive loss of 

human life, massive degrading of the environment, the wildlife up 

and down those streams is a statement once again about the work 

of all of our predecessors. The upstream flood control programs, the 

rehab programs, all of those things. So in the very cynical world 

that we live in, it is worth acknowledging for just a moment we 

have done some good stuff together here in the course of 80 years. 

And it gives us a tremendous foundation to build forward. 

The Ranking Member alluded to the CRP situation. And he is exactly right. CRP, in its earlier reincarnation, was a creation, was 

the Soil Bank of the 1950s, a response to the price issues facing 

production agriculture. An acknowledgment that the programs 

from that period back to the AAA Act of 1933 had not always been 

cost effective or effective in providing relief. The Soil Bank, at least 

from the perspective of my predecessors in the early 1960s came 

to an end because it began the dramatic depopulation of the southern plains. You put your farm in the program, you sold your equipment, you moved to wherever the kids lived. We re-encountered 

that in the 1985 program. But that said, the effect that it has had 

on the environment, on the wildlife, on a variety of things across 

the country is without measure. At the time, the Ranking Member 

and I in this Committee worked to put the 2014 Agricultural Act 

together, we had $7 corn for much of that period. CRP, being a voluntary program, 7 million acres approximately, we predicted, 

would come out. And under the Budget Act of 1974, which I am not 

as impressed with as I have been impressed with all our conservation actions of the last 80 years, we were compelled to reduce the 

number of authorized acres to reflect what the market decisions 

were being made in order to preserve that revenue stream to be 

able to do the farm bill, as the Ranking Member well knows. We 

don’t have $7 corn anymore. We have amazing weather patterns 

around the country. 

At some point, as a Committee, we have to reassess our CRP situation. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Ranking Member? We have to reassess that. But that said, we have a vehicle that is both good for 

the farm economy generally and good for wildlife generally that we 

can work with. And that is the legacy of the 2014 Agricultural Act. 

It has built off the good work for generations. If I get a little wound 

up, understand that I come from and live in that region on the east 

20 

side of the Rockies, in the southern part of the plains, it was so 

miserably horrible in the 1930s, thanks to Mother Nature and 

thanks to, in many cases, bad policy decisions. That same area that 

went through the drought of the 1950s, that same area that went 

through the horrible economic bust of the 1980s. Once again, many 

bad policy decisions. I just encourage all of us at this hearing to 

think not only about the circumstances now, but 5, 10, 20, 25 years 

down the road, to build off of the work that has been laid for us, 

to make sure that by accident or intention, we never have another 

1930s or 1950s or 1980s. That is our responsibility. Again, gentlemen, thank you for your good work. And, Mr. Director, everything 

that you can do when it comes to the issue of the AD–1026s that 

Chairman Thompson referenced. We, as Members who spend a lot 

of time at home, may be about to discover that a lot of farmers perhaps didn’t pay quite as close attention to their mail as they should 

have. And we will have to address that when the time comes. I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Peterson, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dolcini, do you 

have any idea at this point what, the amount of acres you are 

going to be looking at with the general sign-up December 1? 

Mr. DOLCINI. Sir, I don’t have a specific number of acreage that 

might get enrolled in that general sign-up. As you pointed out earlier, the Secretary announced about 800,000 acres in the continuous part of CRP. We have authority for 1.9 million acres that we 

may be able to enroll. But it will be a very competitive process beginning in December. And we are hopeful that we get a lot of good 

applications for participation in the program—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, what I can tell, apparently you can have 25 

million acres in Fiscal Year 2016. And you have to go to 24 in Fiscal Year 2017. So you could go into 25 million acres in this signup from what I can tell. Am I right about that? 

Mr. DOLCINI. Sir, I don’t know the exact number of acreage, of 

acres that may be—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Anyway, it looks like if the whole 800,000 acres 

are signed up, given what is expiring, it would be 22 million acres 

and potentially, so you might have, if you went to the maximum, 

you might have 3 million acres you could enroll. I doubt you are 

going to do that. I understand that. So, anyway, one thing I am 

concerned about is, with the $7 corn, as Mr. Lucas pointed out, we 

had people tearing out CRPs all over the country, including my 

area, taking out shelter belts and plowing up land that should not 

be farmed because they could make a little money renting it out 

and whatever. And now with what is going on, all of a sudden, as 

I tried to tell them at the time, now some of them are not so sure 

they made the right decision. So now they are looking at how am 

I going to get back into the program and so forth. It is going to be 

competitive and it has all these requirements. And I understand 

that. 

But we have gotten carried away with some of this stuff. I don’t 

know if any other Members here have tried to establish CRP but 

I have. And it is not easy to do. One of the things that bothers me 

21 

about what we have been doing is in order to get back into the program, you have to plow up what you have basically. If you don’t 

and re-seed, you are not going to get enough points to get in. That 

is just the reality of what the situation is. In some cases, that is 

the right thing to do. In some cases, the CRP is not in good shape 

and needs to be redone. But in a lot of cases, it is fine. And when 

you plow that stuff up, you stir up a weed situation in a lot of 

cases. The weeds have been there for 20 years laying under the 

ground. And all of a sudden, you have a mess depending on what 

happens if you got a drought or wet or whatever the situation is. 

And then you make it worse with this pollinator stuff, which I also 

have experience with because I tried to put in 2.3 acres under the 

CSP. And basically what I got out of that, I spent $350 an acre and 

I got a weed patch. That is what a lot of people have experienced 

with the pollinator. I support trying to get this out there. And I 

have bees on my property. But this is not easy. And so I just think, 

I have had more complaints from farmers that are interested in 

getting back in about this idea that they got to plow out. I just 

think that somehow or another we have to have some kind of recognition of a good quality CRP that is established in this process. 

And so we don’t force people to plow up what shouldn’t be plowed 

up and cause maybe a deterioration in the habitat. Is anything 

being done to look at that situation? 

Mr. DOLCINI. It absolutely is, sir. And I appreciate your comments and your support over the years of CRP. You have really 

been a stalwart in trying to develop programs that USDA can use 

to enhance wildlife benefits around the country, as well as environmental and other program benefits. CRP has changed quite a bit 

since 1985 when it was first signed into law by President Reagan. 

And we are always trying to make what is a good program an even 

better program, particularly in this year that we are celebrating its 

30th anniversary. I was just in Howard County, Maryland last 

week talking with a farmer who has CREP land and is interested 

potentially in a pollinator strip but doesn’t want to just put in 

something that he thinks might be a weed patch. So we are trying 

to work locally with farmers around the nation on doing things 

that make sense for their communities and for their landscape. 

This fall, I am going to be in Otter Tail County and would love to 

come out and meet with you or your staff or your constituents and 

really work through some of the local issues that you have identified there. But we are doing that all over the nation, sir. And the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which is an element 

of CRP, has been a success in Minnesota and elsewhere. I think we 

now have 47 projects in 34 states. So we are trying to look at the 

continuum of what CRP offers and how it was refined in the 2014 

Farm Bill to make a good program, one that has been a very successful conservation program throughout the American countryside, 

a better one. And I would love to continue to meet with you and 

your staff to work on those issues. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you holding this hearing. I appreciate your work at USDA 

22 

and conservation. I have worked with a few of my constituents that 

are working on the CRP opt-outs. And I want to let you know that 

I appreciate you all working with me on that. And it sounds like 

we have had a lot of folks who maybe have opted out of that program. Is there, how many folks have opted out of the CRP programs? And has it been just concentrated in areas? Because I represent the 12th District of Georgia. Where has the concentration 

been and how many opt-outs have you all seen in that program? 

Mr. DOLCINI. Sir, I will provide a more detailed responses to your 

office and to the Subcommittee with that answer. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Okay. That would be great. 

Mr. DOLCINI. With regard to the issue that you and I have been 

working on and that our staffs have been working on, I really want 

to say that we are continuing to explore options. I think our Office 

of General Counsel at USDA determined there was a certain path 

that we couldn’t really go beyond. Unfortunately, that wasn’t really 

transmitted to you or to your constituents in a very clear way. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. DOLCINI. But I want you to know that I am happy to continue to work with you to explore options there. And with regard 

to the detailed response, we can get that back to you and the Subcommittee. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Well, I really appreciate and yes, you have 

been very diligent in responding and working with our office and 

our clients. I appreciate everything you are doing for us there. And 

we look forward to resolving that issue. Another comment is we 

have about 14.3 million acres of Georgia’s forestland and it is 

owned by 504,000 families and individuals. Several of the conservation programs are important to provide these family forest owners 

with tools to do conservation practices on the ground, from tree 

planting to firebreaks to improvements for wildlife habitat and 

water quality. Given that the technical assistance needed to work 

with forest owners may be different from other producers, what is 

NRCS or FSA doing to continue to encourage coordination with the 

forest agencies at the state and local levels? 

Mr. WELLER. I will take the first stab at that, sir. In part, in 

Georgia, but also along the Southeast, we are really focused with 

private landowners on the Longleaf pine ecosystem as one of the 

areas. And we have put a lot of assistance on the ground, 

partnering with other Federal agencies, like the Department of Defense, as well as Forest Service, but, crucially, with local landowners and locally led associations to really try and protect, but 

also recover and restore the Longleaf pine ecosystem. Just in the 

last 4 years, for example, we have helped put in place forestry 

management practices on about 260,000 acres of the Longleaf pine 

ecosystem, in a targeted fashion though, for example, around military installations, to provide an operating buffer around military 

bases, to reduce the pressure, development pressures, so the military can keep doing what they need to do to train, make sure they 

are prepared and ready, but also to offset some of the environmental pressures the bases themselves feel with ESA constraints 

and really provide a safety valve, a cushion around military installations. 

23 

So it is everything from, as you said, forest stand improvements, 

replanting, firebreaks, prescribed fire burns, a lot of different types 

of practices that, at the end of the day, empowering private landowners to better manage their stands for timber protection, but 

also to keep those stands intact from an ecosystem protection 

standpoint. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. And we are coordinating those with the 

local forestry groups and the local county agencies and whatnot? 

Mr. WELLER. Absolutely. So we work with the State Foresters 

and local forestry groups as well. At the county level, we work with 

local communities and counties to really focus, because we don’t 

have enough resources to do it by ourselves. It is truly a network 

of folks bringing the expertise, the forestry expertise, a little bit of 

financial assistance to help producers and landowners put in place 

the practices they need. But we are just, at the end of the day, a 

small component of a much bigger network of groups helping with 

forestry management in Southeast. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. They know the land. They know the habitat. And they know the conservation needs. And so thank you for 

coordinating with them locally. Did you have any comments? 

Mr. DOLCINI. I do, sir. And I have an answer to the question that 

you first posed about how many acres have opted out. It is 266,000. 

But we will get a more fulsome letter back to the Committee with 

some details around that. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Okay. 

Mr. DOLCINI. With regard to Longleaf pine, we have established 

about 250,000 acres of Longleaf pine and have a CRP practice devoted to the Longleaf pine that has created a lot of habitat for a 

variety of different species there. And we are doing it in consultation with local and regional partners. After we publish the CRP 

rule, which will happen in the near term, we will be able to implement some tree thinning provisions and other management activities to enhance these stands as well. I think that a good practice 

will be made a better one. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Good. Great. Thank you very much. I 

yield back the time I don’t have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for having this hearing. And I first want to take a moment just 

to thank my colleagues, Representative Lucas from Oklahoma and 

Representative Peterson from Minnesota, for their leadership on 

this Committee. And it just really shows that when we come together in a thoughtful, commonsense way, we can enact policy that 

makes our country better. And I just want to publicly thank them 

for their leadership and their example that they set for us as Members of this Committee. My mother’s family were ranchers in Arizona. I have always said that ranchers are our original conservationists. Because healthy land means healthy cattle means healthy 

people. And the same thing can be said for our farmers. Healthy 

land means healthy crops means healthy people. And so I thank 

you for the work that you have done, especially in Arizona. We 

have two projects, two Regional Conservation Partnership ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
24 

grams that have brought about $6 million to rural Arizona in purchase of materials, hiring local contractors, recreational activities. 

And that is great. Arizona Game and Fish tells me they have been 

excellent programs and they have worked really well. You have 

probably heard me say on this Committee before that I represent 

12 land-based Tribes. And so my question to you, both of you, today 

is what incentives do we have for Tribes in terms of management 

of their land, their conservation efforts, their natural resources? 

And what can we do to make sure that they see the same economic 

benefits that we are seeing on non-Tribal land? 

Mr. WELLER. It begins, again, at the local level as we talked 

about with Mr. Allen. In this case, working with the Tribal community and the Tribal government, and, first, truly understanding 

what is it they need and what is it they want to have happen on 

their lands, on their reservation? And that can be both a formal 

consultation. But, more importantly, it is really the day-to-day informal interaction we have. And more often than not, we actually 

co-locate, like in Arizona, we have field offices on the Navajo Nation, where we have employees who work full-time doing nothing 

but partnering with the Navajo Nation and members of the nation 

to, first, identify what their agricultural production goals are and 

then what assistance can we bring to help the nation be more efficient with water, to recover the range, to improve pasture, put in 

place low-cost infrastructure to help them irrigate. So there are examples of that across Arizona, but really across the United States. 

We really start from the local level of the Tribe, listening, and 

then helping them identify what are some practices, whether they 

are culturally specific, to help them grow food that is appropriate 

for their nation or what are some of the expertise, whether it is engineering expertise, range, agronomy expertise, forestry expertise, 

at the end of the day, managing their Tribal land for productive 

purposes. One example, and it is actually from New Mexico, working with the Pueblo. It is a much smaller community. But it is an 

example, and this is the Santo Domingo Pueblo near Albuquerque. 

I had an opportunity to visit with the Pueblo and understand the 

value of what our assistance really means. In this case, they were 

using what they called Indian ditches which had been in place for 

centuries. And these ditches were worn out, really inefficient. And 

they were losing land, arable land. And you want to talk about producing food in a food desert, they literally are growing food in a 

desert. So they were very much concerned about maintaining the 

culture and the integrity of the Pueblo. And they wanted to be able 

to attract members back to the Pueblo, young families who were 

leaving because they didn’t have economic opportunity. 

Well, then NRCS came in, and we retrofitted their ditches, put 

in gravity pressurized subsurface pipes, and what used to take 

days, literally, for the water to flood irrigate a field, we can now 

irrigate in a matter of hours. They are able bring to bring back 200 

acres into production, growing native culturally specific foods as 

part of their healthy diet, and I talked to veteran farmers who just 

had serviced the nation by defending us, had returned to the Pueblo solely because they had an economic opportunity. 

25 

It is examples like that where we are working with Tribal governments, Tribal communities to help them benefit from their 

lands and also do a better job of resource stewardship. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Chief. I have about 30 seconds 

left to hear from the Administrator, just your thoughts about that. 

Mr. DOLCINI. Our approach is much the same as NRCS when it 

comes to reaching out to folks all over the country, including in Indian Country. We worked through the Council of Native American 

Farming and Ranching that I sit on and others around the nation 

do to make sure that our programs are open, accessible, understood, and available. And I spent a lot of time working one-on-one 

with individuals that have had challenges, but I also talked with 

larger groups and organizations about things that are going right 

with our relationship with Native American farming organizations 

around the nation. So we have a lot of work yet to do, Congresswoman, but we are on the right path. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Great. I think it is a real opportunity for our 

Tribes in terms of economic development but also in terms of 

health opportunities, so I thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize my colleague from New York, Mr. Gibson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panelists as well and agree with some of the sentiment expressed by my 

colleagues earlier. This is an issue area where we have worked together. I think it is really a great news story. I appreciate the leadership of the Administration on that score. 

I do want to echo some of the concerns about the information 

flow and the June 1 deadline, and I would like to perhaps address 

another facet of that, which is the challenge, of course, that you are 

having in completing all these and getting it back out. And I just 

want assurances that for those that did get their paperwork in 

prior to June 1, that if they have some inaccuracy on their application, they still get credit for having been sent in by June 1? 

Mr. DOLCINI. I can give you those assurances, sir. For forms that 

need to be perfected, and it might be a transposed number or a 

name that is misspelled, we will use that period after the 1st of 

June to make sure that those corrections are made appropriately. 

Mr. GIBSON. Very well. That is reassuring. And then how is it 

going as far as just addressing the backlog? 

Mr. DOLCINI. With regard to the receipt of the forms in FSA offices around the nation, it is going reasonably well. It is a big 

chunk of paperwork, to be sure, coming at a time when we are 

doing a lot of other important office work throughout our nation’s 

field office infrastructure. 

But I am hearing good things thus far about the way things are 

going. I think the fact that we really beat the drum so loudly over 

the course of the 2 or 3 months leading up to June 1 got people 

into the offices a little bit earlier than they might have otherwise. 

Certainly there is going to be a flood of activity towards the end 

of a deadline period. That is true for all of our programs, but we 

felt good about getting people in the door prior to June 1, and just 

really made the point to them that you have to get us your form, 

it has to be at least postmarked by the 1st of June in order for you 

to continue to receive these RMA crop insurance premium subVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
26 

sidies, and that was a message that most everyone heard loud and 

clear. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thank you. I want to move now to the administration of the Forest Legacy Program, and I am curious on your 

feedback on this proposal. I guess it has been a little over a dozen 

years now, and I am just interested in the feedback in general 

about an important facet of a conservation program. 

About a little over a dozen years ago there were a series of reports that really led to a policy change in pulling up to the state 

level, the management of easements as it relates to Forest Legacy. 

From my listening to folks, and I am from upstate New York, and 

then also listening to folks in LTA, it appears that the conditions 

may be set now where we could allow for states to make a decision 

as to whether or not we want land trusts to manage the easement. 

The arguments that are propounded is that they have the resources to better manage these easements, and they make the case 

that they actually can get more benefit, more usage and benefit of 

the potential program. I am just curious what the thinking is at 

USDA of that potential policy proposal? 

Mr. WELLER. Well, sir, the NRCS does not administer the Forest 

Legacy Program, and so you can talk a little bit about our experiences of working through our portfolio, and I would be more than 

happy to take back any concerns or ideas to my counterpart Chief 

Tidwell at the U.S. Forest Service, as the Forest Service administers the Forest Legacy Program. 

But through the Committee’s programs, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, which is the main farm bill working 

lands focused program, there are two components, one of which is 

a little bit analogous to the Forest Legacy Program, and that is the 

Agricultural Land Easement Program, and truly is a partnership 

with land trusts. 

The second panel is going to be one of our partners in Pennsylvania is going to be testifying, and through this program, we provide financial assistance actually directly to a partner, whether a 

state agency or through a land trust organization or conservancy, 

and they are the ones, at the end of the day, that close the deal, 

that work with the landowner, negotiate, enter into the easement, 

and they are really responsible for the long-term stewardship and 

management of that conservation easement. 

So there are examples of this that the Committee supported 

where that locally-led approach through a partner like a land trust 

has been very effective, and together, in a partnership, we have 

been able to protect over a million acres of these easements, working land easements across the United States. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, I thank you, and I think that, in general, that 

empowerment at the local level is one that we are going to find 

that benefits all. There has to be quality control, obviously, but I 

am looking at that proposal, and I do appreciate if you could take 

that back. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, and I thank both the 

Chief and the Administrator for taking time out of a busy schedule 

and coming and being here. We look forward to continue—the Subcommittee and the full Committee—we look forward to continuing 

27 

to work with you as we provide our function of oversight, and your 

leadership and work in terms of the implementation of the 2014 

Farm Bill, so I appreciate your testimony, and we will dismiss you 

gentlemen, and I will call up our second panel. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. DOLCINI. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. As we make the transition here, I would like to 

welcome our second panel of witnesses to the table. Mr. Brent Van 

Dyke, First Vice President of the National Association of Conservation Districts from Hobbs, New Mexico. Mr. Buddy Allen, rice producer, USA Freedom—or USA Rice Federation. That was a legislation a couple of weeks ago, I guess. USA Rice Federation. 

Ms. Karen Martynick, Executive Director of Lancaster Farmland 

Trust from Strasburg, Pennsylvania. I thought it was probably 

Starsburg when I read it the first time. When it says Strasburg, 

I am thinking that has to be Starsburg but maybe there is a little 

township I don’t know about in Lancaster County. And Mr. Jim 

Inglis, Governmental Affairs Representative, Pheasants Forever 

and the Quail Forever from Upper Sandusky, Ohio. 

And our panelists are all in place. Thank you so much for being 

here to each of you. And Mr. Van Dyke, please begin when you are 

ready. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT VAN DYKE, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, 

HOBBS, NM 

Mr. VAN DYKE. Well, thank you very much, and good morning, 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to come 

before you to testify this morning on conservation programs in the 

2014 Farm Bill. 

I am Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President of the National Association of Conservation Districts, and as a retired agriculture 

teacher and FFA advisor for 31 years, my wife and I farmed, irrigated alfalfa and Coastal Bermuda hay in Hobbs, and also run a 

commercial and registered cattle operation in southeastern New 

Mexico. 

NACD in America represents 3,000 soil and water conservation 

districts and 17,000 elected government officials that take conservation to the local level. The conservation districts are local 

units of government established under state law to carry out natural resource management programs at the local level. 

Conservation districts work with cooperating landowners and operators in all 50 states as well as U.S. territories to help manage 

and protect land and water resources on private lands as well as 

lands of the United States. Our nation’s farmers and landowners 

deserve to have long-term certainty to effectively and efficiently 

manage their land. Locally led conservation is critical for America’s 

long-term environmental and economic stability. 

Not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role in 

supporting clean air, clean water, and productive soils, they also 

help producers avoid unnecessary regulation and promote our nation’s food security and sustainability. 

28 

NACD appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee in 

crafting a successful conservation title in the 2014 Farm Bill. We 

worked closely with the Committee throughout the process in developing the bill and strongly supported its final passage. Since 

that time, we have remained focused on successful program implementation to ensure programs work efficiently and effectively for 

landowners. We thank USDA for moving programs forward with an 

efficient and aggressive implementation process. 

In the inaugural year of Regional Conservation Pilot Program, 

conservation districts are one of the most highly represented entities among the selected proposals. In New Mexico, RCPP is allowing for us to forge new partnerships with other Federal agencies 

and allowing ranches with Forest Service and BLM permits to do 

landscape scale projects and management and improvements of 

their entire operation. 

The checkerboard ownership that has made this kind of watershed projects impossible in the past, but this year, last month, as 

a matter of fact, I met with NRCS Chief Jason Weller in Espan ̃ ola, 

New Mexico, where we toured the oldest acequia in the nation. And 

acequia is a traditional water management system dating back to 

the Spanish colonial times. 

The program has helped fund acequias and other critical irrigation systems through RCPP. This is just one example of the successful projects being implemented at local levels thanks to this 

new program. 

Local soil and water districts also remain key partners within 

NRCS to efficiently and effectively enroll landowners into two key 

programs that enable them to best manage their resources on their 

land, the Conversation Stewardship Program, CSP, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program, better known as EQIP. The 

2014 Farm Bill made a historic commitment to maintaining and repairing infrastructure associated with the nation’s thousands of 

small watershed structures. Some of these structures are decades 

past their original design lifespan. The small watershed program 

benefits to rural and urban communities across the country add up 

to stronger infrastructure, better water management, and national 

disaster mitigation. 

Increasing funds for conservation technical assistance remains a 

top priority for conservation districts in Fiscal Year 2016 agriculture appropriation funding. Districts are uniquely positioned to 

work with NRCS technical service providers and other partners to 

expand CTA capacity to get more conservation to the ground. In 

New Mexico, CTA has been expanded thanks to partnerships that 

matches Federal funding with state funding. 

Before I close, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for sponsoring the Concurrent Resolution 30, which recognizes 

the value of locally led soil and water conservation and the role of 

conservation districts within those efforts across the nation. 

The Senate unanimously agreed to the resolution last month, 

and we look forward to working with you to move it forward in the 

House. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

nation’s conservation districts and their state and territory associations. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

29 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Dyke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT VAN DYKE, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, HOBBS, NM 

Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on 

Conservation Programs in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

I am Brent Van Dyke, First Vice President of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), and a retired Agriculture Education teacher and FFA 

advisor. I am a life-long resident of New Mexico, where my wife and I farm irrigated 

alfalfa and coastal Bermuda hay in Lea County and run a commercial and registered cattle operation in Southeastern New Mexico. I have worked with USAID 

for more than 15 years on projects in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. 

NACD represents America’s 3,000 conservation districts and the 17,000 men and 

women who serve on their governing boards, as well as their respective state and 

territory associations. Conservation districts are local units of government established under state law to carry out natural resource management programs at the 

local level. They serve as the local component of the Federal, state, and local government and private sector conservation delivery system in this country. Conservation 

districts work with cooperating landowners and operators in all fifty states as well 

as the U.S. territories to help manage and protect land and water resources on private working lands and many public lands in the United States. 

The association was founded on the philosophy that conservation decisions should 

be made at the local level with technical and funding assistance from partners in 

Federal, state, and local governments and the private-sector. As the national voice 

for all conservation districts, NACD supports voluntary, incentive-based natural resource conservation programs that benefit all citizens. 

Our nation’s farmers and landowners deserve to have long-term certainty to effectively and efficiently manage their land, resources and businesses for the years 

ahead. Locally-led conservation is critical for America’s long-term environmental 

and economic stability. Not only do farm bill conservation programs play a key role 

in supporting clean air, clean water and productive soils, they also help producers 

avoid unnecessary regulation and promote our nation’s food security and sustainability. 

NACD appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee in crafting a successful 

conservation title in the 2014 Farm Bill. We worked closely with the Committee 

throughout the process of developing the bill and strongly supported its final passage. Since that time we have remained focused on successful program implementation to ensure programs work effectively for landowners, and we thank USDA for 

moving programs forward with an efficient and aggressive implementation process. 

I would like to briefly touch on some of our specific priority areas for farm bill 

implementation, starting with the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

(RCPP). In the inaugural year of RCPP, conservation districts were one of the most 

highly represented entities among the selected proposals. More than 200 conservation districts are directly involved in over 100 projects selected for state, national 

or Critical Conservation Area RCPP funding. We also recognize that many additional districts will be involved as partners as projects are implemented within their 

jurisdiction. 

It is no surprise that districts are so heavily represented in these projects. After 

all, locally-led partnerships are what we are all about. Districts have a strong history of engaging with a variety of stakeholders at the local level to enact meaningful 

conservation on the landscape. 

RCPP is about empowering local project sponsors in designing and delivering solutions that benefit natural resources where they live and work. As trusted and respected sources for conservation planning and assistance at the local level, conservation districts are well positioned to be leaders in these projects. We appreciate 

USDA’s commitment to this locally-led approach to natural resource conservation. 

Through its flexible, public-private partnership approach, RCPP is empowering 

partners to come together to deliver practical and effective solutions to address local 

communities’ specific resource concerns. By leveraging Federal and private dollars, 

all stakeholders are closely invested in the project resulting in a stronger return on 

our combined conservation investment. In addition, RCPP’s ability to utilize other 

program funds such as EQIP, CSP and ACEP not only increases the overall effectiveness of the program, it will help states to fully utilize all of their allocated funding. 

30 

It has always been our philosophy that ‘‘every acre counts.’’ RCPP allows us to 

reach beyond the traditional scope of partners and projects. The program expands 

our opportunities to reach a higher level of commitment to conservation delivery on 

the working landscape in America. 

In New Mexico, RCPP is allowing us to forge new partnerships with other Federal 

agencies and allowing ranches with Forest Service and/or BLM permits to do landscape scale management and improvements on the entire operation. The checkerboard ownership has made this kind of watershed project impossible in the past. 

Last month I had the pleasure of joining NRCS Chief Jason Weller at an RCPP 

event near Espan ̃ ola, New Mexico where we toured the oldest acequias in the nation—a traditional water management system dating back to Spanish colonial times. 

The program has helped fund acequias and other critical irrigation systems through 

the RCPP. This is just one example of a successful project being implemented at 

the local level, thanks to this new program. 

I want to thank NRCS for their tireless work to implement this new and innovative program, and for considering our comments and feedback on ways to continue 

to grow and improve RCPP. We are pleased with the positive direction and look forward to even greater conservation district involvement. 

Local soil and water conservation districts also remain key partners with NRCS 

to efficiently and effectively enroll landowners in two key programs that enable 

landowners to best manage natural resources on their land: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). 

CSP has been invaluable in New Mexico, helping to keep ranchers on the land 

despite the extreme drought conditions. Allowing the enrollment of CRP land into 

CSP, in the last year of its contract, and allowing the transfer of land from CSP 

to CRP, ACEP or other Federal or state program that offers greater natural resource protection is also extremely important. These adjustments will help ensure 

that producers keep their working lands enrolled in programs that benefit the natural resource base, while emphasizing the most effective programs offered. Rolling 

open enrollment is also important for CSP to remain an option for producers at all 

times throughout the year. This convenience helps prevent backlog and increases 

the efficiency of the program. 

EQIP remains the foundation of voluntary conservation programs for agriculture 

and forest producers on private lands. Local soil and water conservation districts are 

poised to help landowners enroll in and implement EQIP practices on the landscape. 

NACD advocated for streamlining of conservation programs as one of our top priorities for the 2014 Farm Bill and we are happy to see it materializing as EQIP is 

being implemented as a versatile working lands program that improves natural resources for farmers, ranchers and wildlife. 

NACD also supports the policy of re-linking conservation compliance to crop insurance premium subsidies as included in the 2014 Farm Bill. Conservation districts 

will play an important role in compliance, especially with helping provide technical 

assistance to producers. As the statute correctly provided, flexibility is critical for 

producers who are subject to compliance for the first time, including beginning and 

socially disadvantaged producers, as well as for specialty crop growers. NACD and 

our partners continue to work to ensure this provision is implemented in a manner 

that safeguards natural resources while maintaining critical safety net supports for 

eligible producers. 

The 2014 Farm Bill made a historic commitment to maintaining and repairing the 

infrastructure associated with the nation’s thousands of small watershed structures. 

Some of these structures are decades past their original designed lifespan. The 

small watershed program benefits to rural and urban communities across the country add up to stronger infrastructure, better water management and natural disaster mitigation. In addition, the program represents opportunity for both natural 

resource protection and the creation of economic opportunity and jobs in rural America. 

In addition to securing healthy natural resources, investing in watershed structures provides invaluable benefits to community operations and infrastructure. Recent weather events in Texas and Oklahoma highlight the need for reinvigorated 

funding for the small watershed program, which continues to be a priority for 

NACD in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) appropriations. 

Increasing funds for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) remains a top priority for conservation districts in FY16 Agriculture Appropriation funding. Districts 

are uniquely positioned to work with NRCS, Technical Service Providers and other 

partners to expand CTA capacity to get more conservation on the ground. In New 

Mexico, CTA has been expanded thanks to a partnership that matches Federal 

funding with state funding. 

31 

CTA is designed to help landowners take the critical first step of understanding 

the need for and benefits of conservation practices and to create solid conservation 

plans which outline necessary steps or actions to address solutions, including farm 

bill conservation program participation. CTA is utilized by landowners for all elements of conservation planning—from design and layout to implementation. 

With ever increasing demand for farm bill conservation programs, it is essential 

that CTA funding sees a correlating increase in capacity in order to maximize landowner participation and realize a full return on conservation investments. Technical 

assistance is the backbone of Federal conservation programs, enabling local NRCS 

field staff and districts to assist landowners as well as state and local agencies to 

address local resource concerns. 

In addition, NACD supports maintaining all mandatory conservation program 

funding for FY16 as allocated in the 2014 Farm Bill. We remain steadfastly opposed 

to changes in mandatory program spending, also known as CHIMPS, to farm bill 

conservation programs during the appropriations process. NACD signed a letter 

along with 130 other organizations opposed to such cuts. 

At a time when farmers and ranchers are facing increased pressure to produce 

food and fiber for a growing population, it is extremely important they have full access to the tools and resources needed to implement conservation practices on their 

land. Further cuts to vital conservation program funding will hinder the implementation of voluntary, locally-led conservation on the ground, putting our land and natural resources at risk for the future. This is especially true as economic and regulatory pressures continue to increase on the landscape. Conservation funding helps 

incentivize landowners and producers to voluntarily implement best management 

practices at the local level, while mitigating the threat of burdensome top-down regulation. 

Before I close, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for sponsoring 

the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 30, which recognizes the value of locally-led 

soil and water conservation and the role of conservation districts within those efforts across the nation. The resolution expresses support for: the designation of the 

year 2015 as the ‘‘International Year of Soils;’’ the 80th Anniversary of the Soil Conservation Act; and soil conservation through partnerships with the nation’s 3,000 locally-led soil and water conservation districts. It also encourages voluntary landowner participation in Federal conservation programs. The resolution has wide 

ranging support from 27 farm, commodity, crop insurance and conservation groups. 

The Senate unanimously agreed to the resolution last month, and we look forward 

to working with you to move it forward here in the House. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the nation’s 3,000 conservation districts and their state and territory associations. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Van Dyke. 

Mr. Allen, go ahead and proceed with 5 minutes of testimony, 

please, whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BUDDY’’ H. ALLEN, MEMBER, 

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, USA RICE FEDERATION; RICE 

PRODUCER, TUNICA, MS 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking 

Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am 

honored to have opportunity to be before you this morning and give 

my view on the implementation of the conservation title of the 

farm bill, Agricultural Act of 2014. 

My name is Buddy Allen. I am a producer in Tunica, Mississippi. 

I grow cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat. I am passionate 

about conservation. I am also a partner in a California-based almond farm. I serve as Chairman of the Tunica County Soil and 

Water Conservation District. I am a member of the Mississippi 

Rice Council, Mississippi Association of Conservation Districts, 

Conservation Committee of the USA Rice Federation, and several 

other state and local conservation groups. 

Conservation is a significant part of my agribusiness. As I implement stewardship on my farm, my productivity increases, and it 

32 

makes me more sustainable. So I am very grateful for the programs that are authorized by this Subcommittee in the Farm Bill 

of 2014. 

I can’t thank the Committee enough for the hours and the work 

you and your staff put into the passage of this farm bill. This piece 

of legislation provides a safety net that gives farmers certainty and 

tools to stay in business during tough times, which are now, as has 

been mentioned already this morning. And it also incentivizes us 

to invest in valuable conservation practices on our land. Voluntary 

incentive-based conservation programs are the first line of defense 

against the need for regulation. 

In 2012, the USA Rice Federation and Ducks Unlimited forged 

a model of collaboration between a farm group and a conservation 

organization, the Rice Stewardship Partnership. This partnership 

has been working tirelessly to improve three of the nation’s critical, 

national, and economic resources, working ricelands, water, and 

waterfowl. 

This is an unlikely partnership between our organizations, and 

it is historic. One of the programs new to the recent farm bill is 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Key to this program is leveraging Federal funds with private, state, and local assets. It empowers partnerships to design solutions and deliver 

measurable results. The partnerships draw on local knowledge and 

resources. 

This locally-led approach is critical to the effectiveness of the program. RCPP offers the use of existing conservation programs such 

as CSP and EQIP to help reach a specified goal and helps to target 

critical conservation areas where the work is most needed. The 

partnership submitted in RCPP proposal, which was accepted in 

January entitled, Sustaining the Future of Rice, this project is a 

natural fit for our organizations to pursue and offers rice producers 

from every major rice growing county in each of the six rice growing states the assistance needed to address water quantity, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat on our farms. 

NRCS is providing $10 million in funding to the project leveraged by $6.8 million of cash and in-kind contributions from private 

sector partners to utilize EQIP and CSP on rice farms. Each of the 

six states involved are set to receive a minimum of $1 million of 

the combined funding towards implementation. 

One thing that is helpful about the flexibility built into RCPP is 

the ability to tailor programs such as EQIP and CSP, which as 

stand alone programs, are not necessarily geared towards rice production. We have been able to do just that and make a particular 

use of these very successful programs and make them available on 

rice working lands. 

NRCS staff, under the leadership of Chief Weller has worked 

tirelessly to ensure that this program has been implemented as 

smoothly as possible. The announcement for program funding 

stayed very true to the intent of what Congress authorized in the 

statute and was able to maintain the flexibility of language 

throughout the application process. 

USA Rice and Ducks Unlimited have had a very positive experience during the negotiation process, but because our final contract 

within NRCS is very complex, we have just recently finalized our 

33 

agreement last week, as a matter of fact. As an industry, rice producers have put years of work into finding new ways to reduce erosion, reduce water use, save energy, and address a number of other 

critical conservation priorities. For those unfamiliar with rice production, rice fields are flooded during the growing season to provide 

water the plants need and control weeds and pests. Because of this 

unique method of raising a crop in a flooded environment, rice 

farming, compared to other commodity production, is more sensitive to water quantity, water quality, and soil stability, and they 

are essential to maintain our operations. 

That being said, RCPP is a natural fit for our industry to further 

our conservation goals. I appreciate the work that all of you have 

done to ensure that farmers have the tools they need to implement 

conservation practices on the landscape. It is a vital part of our industry and a necessary investment if we want to leave our farms 

as a legacy. 

Again, thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to offer 

my testimony, and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BUDDY’’ H. ALLEN, MEMBER, CONSERVATION

COMMITTEE, USA RICE FEDERATION; RICE PRODUCER, TUNICA, MS 

Introduction 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on the implementation of the conservation title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. I appreciate the opportunity to offer 

testimony on behalf of the USA Rice Federation. 

My name is Buddy Allen. I grow rice, cotton, soybeans and corn in Tunica, Mississippi. In addition to my row crops, I provide local ground and aerial custom application services and I am a partner in Miss Cal Orchards, a California-based almond 

farm. Because of the diversity of my business portfolio I believe I’m able to offer 

a unique perspective on the agriculture industry. 

I am also a member of the Governor’s Sustainable Water Task Force; Director for 

the Mississippi Association of Conservation Districts; Chairman of the Tunica Soil 

and Water Conservation District; Member of the Mississippi Rice Council; and Member of the Conservation Committee of the USA Rice Federation. If you cannot tell 

already, agricultural conservation is more than business; it is my passion. 

Conservation in the Agricultural Act of 2014 

From a farmer’s standpoint, I cannot thank the Agriculture Committee and the 

rest of Congress enough for the countless hours of work you and your staff put into 

the Agricultural Act of 2014 (farm bill). This critical, bipartisan legislation provides 

the backbone giving farmers the certainty and tools to stay in business during tough 

times and incentivizes them to invest in valuable conservation practices on their 

land. The farm bill has the ability to directly affect my bottom line so the policies 

and programs being debated every 5 years are of great interest to me and the livelihood of my operation. 

It was also good to see that Congress, particularly this Committee understands 

the value of investing in the future of our business through promotion of voluntary, 

incentive-based agricultural working land conservation. Working land programs not 

only address resource concerns, they increase productivity yielding sustainability by 

making cropland more diverse and efficient. The consolidation and streamlining of 

the conservation title will make these programs more efficient and easier to use for 

farmers and ranchers. 

Rice Stewardship Partnership 

In February 2012, the USA Rice Federation (USA Rice) and Ducks Unlimited 

(DU) forged a model of collaboration between a farm group and a conservation organization—the Rice Stewardship Partnership. This Partnership has been working 

tirelessly to bring about meaningful and long-term improvements to three of the nation’s critical natural and economic resources: working ricelands, water, and waterfowl. To achieve these objectives, we have and will continue to engage in public polVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
34 

icy making, conservation programs, communications strategies, and strategic research and land management efforts that advance these resources. 

This unlikely partnership between our organizations should be labeled as ‘‘historic’’ to say the least. The relationship between rice farmers and duck hunters and 

conservationists is symbiotic and has been in the works long before the Partnership 

was established. I’d even go as far as to say that it could be used as the model going 

forward. While both organizations have separate missions and methods we have 

managed to collaborate and find a large amount of common ground and develop 

goals for our partnership. 

Sustaining the Future of Rice Project 

One of the programs new to the last farm bill was the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP). This program consolidated and streamlined a number 

of regional programs into one comprehensive program. RCPP uses a unique and innovative approach to investing in natural resource conservation. Key to the program 

is leveraging Federal funds with private, state and local assets. It empowers partnerships to design solutions and deliver specific measurable results. These unique 

partnerships draw on local knowledge and resources; and this locally-led approach 

is critical to the effectiveness of the program. RCPP offers the use of existing conservation programs such as the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help reach a specified goal 

and helps to target critical conservation areas where work is most needed. 

Map 2 

Figure 1: Illustrates the key location of rice production in correlation to 

the Mississippi River Basin (where 44% of the U.S. freshwater sources 

drain) and the regions serve as major waterfowl flyways. This relationship 

further demonstrates the need for a strong relationship between rice farmers 

and waterfowl conservationists. 

The Partnership submitted an RCPP proposal which was accepted during the Fiscal Year 2014/2015 funding cycle entitled ‘‘Sustaining the Future of Rice.’’ This 

project is a natural fit for our organizations to pursue and offers rice producers from 

every major rice-growing county in each of the six rice-growing states the assistance 

needed to address water quantity, water quality and wildlife habitat on their farms. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is providing $10 million in 

funding to the project leveraged by $6.8 million of cash and in-kind contributions 

from private sector partners to utilize EQIP and CSP on rice farms. Several conservation practices from each of the two programs that are geared toward rice production will be offered (i.e., drainage water management, irrigation land leveling, 


11417001.eps
35 

irrigation reservoir construction, wetland wildlife management, etc.). One thing that 

is nice about the flexibility built into RCPP is the ability to tailor programs such 

as EQIP and CSP which as ‘‘stand alone’’ programs are not necessarily geared towards rice production. Thanks to this new program, we have been able to tailor 

these effective programs to fit the unique needs of the rice farmer and go the extra 

mile. As of now, each state is set to receive a minimum of $1 million in funding 

from the NRCS contribution along with private contributions from partners and 

each will operate similarly to the others with tweaks depending on local conditions. 

The project attracted over 40 collaborating partners from every sector, from the 

field to the market and we have estimated that up to 63,000 acres throughout the 

six states will benefit from our project. This effort represents the first ever of its 

kind—totally focused on rice farmers and what works best on rice-producing lands 

and we are lucky to have such a willing group of farmers to help make this a success. 

RCPP Implementation Status 

The NRCS staff has worked tirelessly to ensure that this program has been implemented as smoothly as possible. The folks writing the Announcement for Program 

Funding for RCPP stayed very true to the intent of what Congress authorized in 

the statute and were able to maintain the flexibility of the language throughout the 

application process. USA Rice and DU have had a very positive experience during 

the negotiating process but because our final contract with NRCS has been fairly 

complex we have just recently finalized our agreement. 

While specific dates may vary from state to state, sign-ups for EQIP are expected 

to begin this summer and run through early fall. After the sign-up ends, applications will be ranked and contracts awarded. After the contracts are set, on-farm 

work will start shortly thereafter. In order to ensure project funds go to rice growers, NRCS, USA Rice Federation and Ducks Unlimited are developing screening and 

ranking criteria targeted to rice lands. 

While EQIP will be the first out of the gate, the CSP won’t be far behind. Work 

is underway to develop a specific package of enhancements for rice lands and it is 

expected that the sign-up will occur early in 2016. USA Rice Federation, DU, NRCS, 

and partners will notify rice producers of the specific dates when the sign-ups start 

in their state. Interested rice growers will sign-up in local NRCS offices like normal 

and just inform NRCS that the application falls under the Sustaining the Future 

of Rice RCPP project. The RCPP funds are in addition to regular EQIP and CSP 

and other funding may be available to growers as well. 

Now that the Announcement for Program Funding has been published for the Fiscal Year 2016 funding cycle, the Partnership is looking again to see how else we 

are able to work together to increase our effectiveness. It is exciting to see the 

projects we are working on materialize and we are looking forward to using this 

project as a stepping stone for continuing our work together in the future. 

Conclusion 

As an industry we’ve put years of work into finding new ways to reduce erosion, 

reduce water usage and address a number of other critical conservation priorities. 

For those unfamiliar with rice production, rice fields are flooded during the growing 

season to provide water that the plants need and to help control weeds. Because 

of the unique methods for farming rice compared to other commodity crops, sensitivity of water quantity/quality and soil stability are particularly essential to maintain operations. That being said, the RCPP is a natural fit for our industry to further augment our already impressive conservation platform. 

We are looking forward to bringing the USA Rice/DU project to fruition over the 

next couple of years and showing the success that can be achieved through unlikely 

partnerships. We anticipate that NRCS will continue to be supportive along the way 

from the Chief to the field staff on the ground helping to implement the EQIP and 

CSP practices. 

I thank this Subcommittee for holding this important hearing to assess the implementation process of the farm bill. And I appreciate as a farmer, a conservationist 

and on behalf of the USA Rice Federation the work you have done to ensure that 

farmers have the tools they need to implement conservation practices on the landscape and feed our growing population. While conservation may not necessarily be 

a controversial issue, it is a vital part of our industry and a necessary investment 

if we want to leave our land and operations as a legacy for our children. 

Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to offer my testimony this morning. I look forward to working with you and your staff and will be 

happy to respond to any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for your testimony. 

36 

And now, Ms. Martynick, please go ahead and proceed with your 

5 minutes of testimony when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN L. MARTYNICK, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, LANCASTER FARMLAND TRUST, STRASBURG, PA 

Ms. MARTYNICK. Thank you. Chairman Thompson and Members 

of the Subcommittee, my name is Karen Martynick, and I am the 

Executive Director of Lancaster Farmland Trust, a not-for-profit 

land trust located in Lancaster County in Pennsylvania, the home 

state of the Chairman. 

It is an honor to testify before you today on the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, and share with you the 

perspective of a land trust that has utilized both the farm and 

ranchland protection program and ACEP. 

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is known as the garden spot of 

the United States. Just a few miles west of Philadelphia, Lancaster 

County ranks 15th in the nation in agricultural production. It has 

the most productive non-irrigated soils in the country. The county’s 

5,700 farms, 99 percent of which are family owned, contribute $6 

billion to the economy each year. 

Lancaster County is also a leader in farmland preservation. In 

2013, the county became the first county in the country to preserve 

100,000 acres of farmland, a remarkable accomplishment when you 

consider the fact that the average size farm is just 78 acres. Today, 

there are more that 1,300 preserved farms in Lancaster County, 

farms that have been preserved utilizing public and private funds. 

My comments today are intended to make ACEP as good as it 

can be. We are deeply appreciative of the work of NRCS staff and 

this Committee and the partnership we have with them to carry 

out the goals of ACEP. It is a great step forward, and we think that 

working together, we can make it even better. 

First and foremost, the program must follow the statute. Much 

work went into making ACEP a new and improved FRPP. However, the rule does not always reflect the language or intent of the 

statute. 

The program should not be overly complicated. Rules and procedures that micro-manage the work of land trusts will make them 

reluctant to participate. Land trusts have vast experience in protecting natural resources, and the rules should recognize and reflect that experience. 

The program must be clear and concise. Decisions must be received in a timely fashion. Our experience with FRPP is that a 

project could take as long as 2 years to complete, while a project 

using other government funds can be completed in 6 months or 

less. Let me give you some specifics. 

On the minimum deed terms: There is a contradiction between 

the statute and the final interim rule on the issue of minimum 

deed terms. The statute states that a, ‘‘eligible entity shall be authorized to use its own terms and conditions for agricultural land 

easement so long as the Secretary determines such terms and conditions meet their conditions.’’ 

While this clearly gives eligible entities the ability to use their 

own language, the interim final rule on ACEP states that eligible 

entities, ‘‘must use the NRCS required minimum deed terms speciVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
37 

fied therein.’’ This will force Lancaster Farmland Trust, for instance, to use language that does not necessarily fit its program 

and does not recognize the special characteristics of Lancaster 

County. 

Appraisal reviews: If you ask any land trust what causes the 

most delays, they would most likely say it is the appraisal review 

process. Lancaster Farmland Trust works only with certified appraisers. With 1,300 preserved farms in Lancaster County, the appraisers have a wealth of experience determining the value of conservation easements. When we submit an appraisal for review by 

NRCS, it can take months to get comments back. The reviewers are 

from other parts of the country and have little knowledge of Lancaster County. 

One way to save time would be to stop requiring the reviewers 

to establish value on a property he has never visited and in an 

area with which he is not familiar. The reviewer should be charged 

with determining if the appraisal was done by a certified appraiser 

and if that appraisal meets all the required criteria. This would 

save a great deal of time. 

Eligible entity certification: The certification is critical to streamlining the ACEP process; however, the terms necessary to achieve 

certification may be too onerous for land trusts to participate. The 

manual states that NRCS may require the entity to return any financial assistance provided by NRCS for easements that fail a 

quality assurance review. However, the manual does not provide 

criteria for quality assurance review. This provision prevents sufficient financial risk for a land trust like Lancaster Farmland Trust, 

and we would be unlikely to apply for certification because of that. 

Clearly defining the standard about when such a nuclear option 

would occur would be absolutely necessary for land trusts to participate. These are just three examples of ways in which the interim final rule for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program could be improved or could be clarified. I have included additional information in the written testimony I submitted. 

On behalf of Lancaster Farmland Trust, I thank you for your 

time this morning and your consideration of my comments. The 

land trust community is committed to protecting the country’s 

working lands and stands ready to assist NRCS in determining and 

implementing improvements for the Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program. I appreciate your interest and am happy to 

take any questions you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martynick follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN L. MARTYNICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LANCASTER FARMLAND TRUST, STRASBURG, PA 

Introduction 

Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the opportunity to present testimony to the 

House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry regarding the interim final rule for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 

(ACEP) of the Agricultural Act of 2014. As a private, not-for-profit land trust, Lancaster Farmland Trust has utilized funding from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and currently has two projects pending under the ACEP program. 

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the ‘‘Garden Spot’’ of the United States, has the 

most productive, non-irrigated soils in the country. The county’s 5,500 farms—99 

percent of which are family owned—contribute $6 billion to the economy each year 

and provide one out of every five jobs in the county. 

38 

In addition to being a leader in agricultural production, Lancaster County is a national leader in farmland preservation. In 2013, the county became the first county 

in the nation to preserve 100,000 acres of farmland—a remarkable accomplishment 

considering that the average sized farm is just 78 acres! Today, there are more than 

1,300 farms that have been preserved by Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Lancaster County Agriculture Preserve Board utilizing Federal, state, county and private funds. 

Lancaster Farmland Trust was established in 1988 to work with Amish farmers 

to preserve their land. In the 27 years since its founding, the Trust has preserved 

28,000 acres on 453 farms. Although reluctant when the program started, the Amish 

have embraced preservation. Now, approximately 80 percent of the farms preserved 

by Lancaster Farmland Trust are owned by Amish families. 

Lancaster Farmland Trust is accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission having received accreditation in 2008 and renewal of accreditation in 2014. In 

order to achieve accreditation, a land trust must demonstrate that it upholds the 

highest operating standards. 

General Comments 

Lancaster Farmland Trust is a member of the Land Trust Alliance which represents 1,700 land trusts throughout the country. Collectively, these organizations 

have protected 47 million acres of land in the United States. More than 140 of the 

member organizations—including Lancaster Farmland Trust—are eligible entities 

under the Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program or the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. These organizations share the commitment of Congress 

and the Natural Resource Conservation Service to protect the country’s most productive soils and are proud to have been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the program’s success. 

Lancaster Farmland Trust recognizes and appreciates the time that has been 

spent by NRCS staff in developing the interim final rule and responding to concerns 

and questions prior to and since its publication. The suggestions and comments contained in this testimony—and those offered by the Land Trust Alliance and other 

land trusts—are intended to improve the program and increase the ability of Lancaster Farmland Trust and other land trusts to carry out the goals of the program. 

The comments refer specifically to the rule as well as other NRCS materials including the new policy manual related to the program. 

First and foremost, it is important that the program not be overly complicated. 

While recognizing the need for oversight, rules and procedures that micro-manage 

the work of land trusts will serve only to make those organizations reluctant to participate. Land trusts have vast experience in protecting the nation’s natural resources and the rule should recognize and reflect that experience. 

It is also critical that the rule be flexible to accommodate geographic and land use 

differences but it cannot be uncertain. Obtaining decisions and answers in a timely 

fashion helps to move projects along. Our experience with FRPP is that a project 

could take as long as 2 years to complete while a project using other government 

funding (state, county or municipal) can be completed in 6 months or less. The additional staff time required to complete a federally funded project utilizes resources 

that would otherwise be used to further our organization’s mission. 

It is with this as background that Lancaster Farmland Trust respectfully submits 

the following suggestions to enhance the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. The comments reflect the experience of Lancaster Farmland Trust as well as 

other land trusts. 

Suggestions for Improvement 

Minimum Deed Terms 

Section 1265B(b)(4)(C) of the statute clearly states under ‘‘Minimum Terms and 

Conditions’’ that ‘‘an eligible entity shall be authorized to use its own terms and 

conditions for agricultural land easements so long as the Secretary determines 

such terms and conditions (meet certain conditions).’’ However, Section 1468.20(a)(2) 

of the interim final rule states that eligible entities ‘‘must enter into a cooperative 

agreement with NRCS and use the NRCS required minimum deed terms specified therein.’’ 

Further, 1468.25(c) states ‘‘The eligible entity may use its own terms and conditions in the agricultural land easement deed, but the agricultural land easement 

deed must contain the minimum deed requirements as specified NRCS in the 

cooperative agreement, either in the deed or in an addendum that is incorporated 

therein.’’ 

In the case of minimum deed terms, there is a contradiction between the statute 

and the final interim rule. Clearly the intent of Congress was to recognize a land 

39 

trust’s ability to structure an easement to meet the terms and conditions intended 

by NRCS without using specific language prescribed by the agency. This has the effect of forcing an eligible entity to use language that may not fit its program, may 

not recognize characteristics specific to its geographic location and land use, and 

may not provide the eligible entity with the ability to make an easement more restrictive than the minimum deed terms specified by NRCS. 

Allowing eligible entities the flexibility to use their own easement language will 

not only fulfill the intent of the statute, it will strengthen the program by reflecting 

regional and organizational differences and ensure adoption by eligible entities responsible for accomplishing the goals of the program. 

Minimum Deed Terms—Enforcement 

Section 1265B(b)(4) of the statute states that the terms and conditions of an easement must ‘‘include a right of enforcement for the Secretary that may be used only 

if the terms of the easement are not enforced by the holder of the easement.’’ While 

providing a right of enforcement is understandable, the interim rule goes further by 

defining the right of enforcement as ‘‘the right of the United States to inspect the 

easement area and to enforce the easement entered into under this part in those 

instances in which the grantee of the easement does not fully protect the interests 

provided to the grantee under this easement.’’ 

The statute is clear that it is the responsibility of the eligible entity to monitor 

and enforce the easement and that NRCS may only step in ‘‘if the terms of the easement are not enforced by the holder of the easement.’’ The construction of the rule 

could easily be interpreted to mean there is a right to inspect independent of the 

easement not being enforced. 

Additionally, in Section 1468.28(c), the interim rule states: 

‘‘NRCS . . . reserves the right to enter upon the easement area if the annual 

monitoring report provided by the eligible entity documenting compliance with 

the agricultural land easement and agricultural land easement plan is insufficient or is not provided annually, the United States has evidence of an 

unaddressed violation or to remedy deficiencies or easement violations.’’ 

Lancaster Farmland Trust believes that the eligible entities’ failure to file a report or the filing of an incomplete report should not be sufficient to trigger NRCS’s 

right to enter the easement area and that a failure to file a report or filing an incomplete report could be a procedural failure and should be handled between the 

eligible entity and NRCS and should not involve the landowner. Further evidence 

of a violation—other than the lack of a monitoring report—should be required before 

the ‘‘right to enter the easement area’’ is exercised. 

Cash Match Availability 

The interim rule (Section 1468.20(b)(1)(iv)) requires ‘‘sufficient evidence of . . . 

the availability of funds at the time of application sufficient to meet the eligible entity’s contribution requirements for each parcel proposed for funding;’’ while the program manual states that entities must ‘‘document or certify that, at the time of application, . . . the required funds (are) available for each parcel’’. While NRCS staff 

has acknowledged it is not their intent to require that the eligible entity have the 

funds in its possession at the time of application, the language in the program manual seems to suggest that requirement. 

Requiring the availability of funds at the time of application places an unnecessary burden on eligible entities and fails to recognize that other sources of funding 

utilized for project may have different requirements and timelines but would be 

available in sufficient time to complete the project. 

To resolve the inconsistency in language between the rule and the manual, it is 

recommended that the rule language be used in the program manual. Further, it 

is recommended that ‘‘sufficient evidence’’ include a successful history of obtaining 

matching funds from public and private sources. 

Agricultural Land Easement Plans 

What is an Agricultural Land Easement Plan? Lancaster Farmland Trust has 

asked this question of NRCS staff who have acknowledged they do not yet know. 

This raises questions about what will be required of the eligible entity and the landowner. NRCS has a long and successful tradition of voluntary conservation planning in 

which NRCS provides technical assistance and, in partnership with the landowner, 

decides what is reasonable to improve their operation. Given the success of conservation planning and the familiarity landowners have with that process, we believe inventing a new plan is unnecessary and will place an unreasonable burden 

on the eligible entity to monitor and enforce. 

40 

In addition, we have concerns that, eligible entities may not have the authority 

to ‘‘enforce’’ the elements of the plan nor the expertise to assist the landowner with 

compliance. 

Eligible Entity Certification 

The Eligible Entity Certification is critical to streamlining the ACEP process. We 

believe that NRCS is committed to making this element of the program successful 

so that both NRCS and the eligible entity can save time and conserve their resources. We agree that this is critical to the success of the program and hope that 

agreement can be reached on what is required to become ‘‘certified’’. 

The provisions of one section of the manual (528.75(I)) may deter eligible entities 

from seeking certification. This section states that ‘‘NRCS may require the entity 

to return any financial assistance provided by NRCS for easements that fail a quality assurance review and are not remedied to NRCS’s satisfaction.’’ 

The manual does not provide criteria for or a definition of a ‘‘quality assurance 

review.’’ There are sufficient checks and balances throughout the process to provide 

NRCS opportunities to remedy any concerns it may have with an easement prior 

to closing or withdraw the offer of funding. Additionally, NRCS retains the right of 

enforcement if the entity fails to enforce the easement, thereby ensuring that the 

easement would not ‘‘fail’’ once executed. 

Requiring the return of funds would present a tremendous hardship for any organization and would seem to be an unreasonably harsh penalty. This provision presents sufficient financial risk to make it unlikely that an eligible entity would apply 

for certification. Therefore, defining clear standards about when such a ‘‘nuclear option’’ would be used (i.e., fraud, enrollment of an ineligible property) is absolutely 

necessary. 

Ineligible Lands—Rights of Way 

Section 1468.20(e)(5) of the rule designates land ineligible for the ACEP program 

‘‘where the purposes of the program would be undermined due to onsite or offsite 

conditions, such as risk of hazardous substances, proposed or existing rights of way, 

infrastructure development, or adjacent land uses . . . .’’ 

The manual goes into more detail (528.34) which may, in some cases, be interpreted too broadly resulting in lands being determined as ineligible when they 

should be eligible. The prohibition in subsection (3)(ii) cites as disqualifying circumstances ‘‘proposed or existing rights of way, either onsite or offsite, such as 

transmission lines, highways, pipelines or other existing or proposed infrastructure 

that introduce disturbances of risks that undermine the purpose of the easement.’’ 

Depending on how this is executed, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania—with some 

of the best farmland in the country—could be largely ineligible to access ACEP 

funds. Lancaster County lies between Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region and 

markets and export facilities to the south. Currently three pipeline projects that traverse more than 60 preserved farms are either approved or proposed for Lancaster 

County. Others are anticipated. Lancaster County’s success in preserving farmland 

makes it impossible to cite a large-scale utility project without impacting a preserved farm. 

We believe that NRCS should more clearly define ‘‘proposed’’ and would suggest 

that a parcel not be deemed ‘‘ineligible’’ unless it lies along a route included in a 

preliminary or final application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or 

appropriate state agency and, then, only if the right of way would materially affect 

the conservation purpose of the proposed easement. 

Appraisal Review 

If you ask any land trust that participated in the FRPP program what step in 

the process caused the most delays, they would most likely say the appraisal review 

process. Therefore, we were surprised that the appraisal review of ACEP easements 

was barely mentioned in either the rule or the manual. 

We believe that more attention should be paid to improving the review process 

and recommend that the Chief work with eligible entities to review the current contract for review appraisers and the agency’s instructions to those reviewers with the 

goal of improving and streamlining the process. Specifically, we would suggest that 

the appraisal be reviewed only to determine if all criteria has been met and not to 

determine value since the reviewing appraisers are unfamiliar with the particular 

situations relevant to that appraisal. If the reviewer does not need to establish 

value—but certifies that the value presented appears to be valid—the time taken 

by the review could be shortened. 

41 

Conclusion 

Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on the interim 

final rule on the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and is grateful to 

have the opportunity to participate in the program. The funds provided to us by the 

program help farm families realize their dream of protecting their land so that their 

children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to farm as they do. They are— 

above all else—committed to protecting the land and we are proud to be able to help 

them do so. 

We hope that the comments we have offered in this testimony improve the program and help ensure that it achieves the goals intended by Congress and NRCS. 

Finally, Lancaster Farmland Trust appreciates the efforts of the Land Trust Alliance to represent our interests and those of other land trusts who protect working 

lands. Specifically, we are grateful for the efforts of Russ Shay and his staff who 

have spent countless hours working to improve the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and who provided assistance in the preparation of this testimony. 

Their work contributes to our success and ensures the success of the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Martynick, thank you so much for your testimony. 

Now, I am pleased to introduce Mr. Inglis for your 5 minutes of 

testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. INGLIS, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

REPRESENTATIVE, PHEASANTS FOREVER, INC. AND QUAIL 

FOREVER, UPPER SANDUSKY, OH 

Mr. INGLIS. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking 

Member Lujan Grisham, and the Members of the Committee. I am 

the Governmental Affairs Representative with Pheasants Forever 

and Quail Forever based out of St. Paul, Minnesota. I am a wildlife 

biologist by education and experience. I grew up on a dairy farm 

in Western New York, and I currently live in Upper Sandusky, 

Ohio. 

I am here today representing our 750 community-based Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever chapters, and 142,000 members 

and volunteers that work every day to promote and implement conservation programs. To compliment the work of our dedicated volunteers, we have a team of Farm Bill Biologists that work as natural resource professionals that have expertise in wildlife biology, 

forestry and range management. They work with landowners to 

find the best voluntary conservation solutions that fit the needs as 

part of their agriculture operations and their personal goals. 

Over the last 12 years, these Farm Bill Biologists have worked 

with landowners in over 148,000 projects covering 5.1 million acres. 

These projects involve the establishment of quality conservation 

practices that improve soil health, water quality, and provide habitat benefits to a wide variety of wildlife, not only pheasants and 

quail but other species such as the Golden-winged warbler in Pennsylvania, Lesser Prairie chicken in the Southern Great Plains, Elk 

and Sage Grouse in the West, and honey bees and Monarch butterflies throughout our great country. 

In addition, all Americans benefit from these conservation practices that improve the soil health, water quality and quantity. We 

are here today to discuss conservation program implementation, 

and I would like to spend a few minutes to highlight a couple of 

them. First of all, I would like to highlight the Conservation Reserve Program that we have heard quite a bit about here this 

morning. CRP celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. Farmers, 

42 

ranchers, landowners, and sportsmen will tell you that the program 

has been and continues to be very popular and productive. 

We support CRP’s ability to deliver a variety of conservation 

practices to landowners that address landscape-scale wildlife and 

natural resource concerns. This would include options to sign up 

conservation practices during a general CRP sign-up period but 

also having more targeted practices that are available through the 

year. 

We supported Secretary Vilsack’s recent announcement that 

USDA will host a general signup at the end of this calendar year, 

as well as adding 800,000 additional continuous acres. We are 

thankful to have the opportunity to work with USDA to make improvements to CRP to better carry out the intent of Congress by 

providing conservation benefits for taxpayers as well as the technical and financial resources for landowners and farmers. 

Included in my written testimony are details on the CRP implementation recommendations that several sportsmen and wildlife 

groups recently drafted for USDA and FSA leadership at their request. 

I would also like to highlight the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. We are one of 22 partners in the regional grassland, 

bird and grazing land enhancement project being coordinated by 

the Missouri Department of Conservation and implemented in four 

states: Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas. The partnership utilizes NRCS’ Environmental Quality Incentives Program and agricultural land easement funds to improve forage quality on grazing 

lands while benefiting Bobwhite quail, and the Greater Prairie 

chicken, and numerous other grassland wildlife. 

Ultimately, we are enhancing these working land grazing systems making them more productive and more resilient to periods 

of drought. Preliminary signup results, just in the last couple of 

weeks, suggest that there is going to be more interest from landowners than funds available. One of our organization’s top priorities, along with many of our partners, are to maximize the wildlife 

benefit, soil health, and water quality on as many acres of farms, 

fields, ranches, forestlands as possible. 

For example, this would include considering individual species’ 

lifecycle needs in the design of conservation plans, such as addressing limiting factors of pollinators in that area. This could also be 

accomplished by something as simple as using updated seeding 

specifications and management techniques that would establish 

and maintain a diversity of vegetative cover but also addresses soil, 

water, and wildlife concerns. 

CRP Mid Contract Management is another great example of having tools available to maximize the benefit to the program throughout the length of the contract. 

I need to emphasize that these successes would not be possible 

without the numerous partnerships that we have across the country, especially with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Farm Service Agency, and the state fish and wildlife agencies. 

There are hundreds of partnerships at the state and local levels 

around the country that leverage the Federal funds for the implementation of the individual conservation programs and practices 

and for the boots on the ground to deliver them. 

43 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we often hear the term ‘‘precision agriculture’’ is going to be the way of future, and with the technology 

and partnerships we have available across this great country, we 

can also have precision conservation. The voluntary incentive-based 

conservation programs in the farm bill clearly give us the tools to 

accomplish that. I thank you for the opportunity to be here, and 

I look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. INGLIS, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

REPRESENTATIVE, PHEASANTS FOREVER, INC. AND QUAIL FOREVER, UPPER

SANDUSKY, OH 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Lujan Grisham, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim Inglis and I am the Governmental Affairs Representative with Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever based out of St. Paul, Minnesota. 

I am a wildlife biologist by education and experience; grew up on a dairy farm in 

western New York, and currently live in Upper Sandusky, Ohio. 

I am here today representing our 750 community based Pheasants Forever and 

Quail Forever chapters; and 142,000 members and volunteers that work every day 

to promote and implement conservation programs. Each year our chapters complete 

more than 30,000 individual projects with farmers, ranchers and forest owners. To 

complement the work of our dedicated volunteers, we have a team of Farm Bill Biologists that work as natural resource professionals with expertise in fields such as 

wildlife biology, forestry, and range management. They work with landowners every 

day to find the best voluntary based, conservation solutions that fit producers’ needs 

as part of their agriculture operations and personal goals. 

Over the last 12 years, these Farm Bill Biologists have worked on over 148,000 

projects with landowners covering over 5.1 million acres. These projects involve the 

establishment of quality habitat that meet the life cycle needs of a wide variety of 

wildlife, not only pheasants and quail, but other species such as Golden-winged warbler in Pennsylvania, Lesser Prairie Chickens in the Southern Great Plains and the 

iconic Elk and Sage Grouse in the West, and Monarch butterflies throughout the 

country. In addition to wildlife benefits, all Americans benefit from improved soil 

health and water quality and quantity by implementing these practices.We are here 

today to discuss farm bill implementation and I would like to spend a few minutes 

discussing a couple of the individual programs. 

Conservation Reserve Program 

First, I would like to highlight the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As many 

of you know, the CRP celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, and farmers, ranchers, landowners and sportsmen will tell you that the program has been, and continues to be popular and productive. We support CRP’s ability to deliver a variety 

of conservation practices to landowners, both options of larger general CRP signup 

periods, and more targeted continuous practices are important for addressing landscape scale wildlife and natural resource concerns. We supported Secretary Vilsack’s 

recent announcement that USDA will host a general signup the end of this calendar 

year, as well as open 800,000 additional continuous acres. We are also thankful to 

have the opportunity to work with USDA to make improvements to CRP, to better 

carry out the intent of Congress to conserve soil, water, and wildlife, providing conservation benefits to taxpayers as well as financial incentives to producers. Included 

with my written testimony are details on CRP implementation recommendations 

that several sportsmen and wildlife groups, including PF/QF, recently drafted for 

USDA and FSA leadership at their request. 

Unlike some programs discussed today, the CRP rule has not been released so our 

recommendations are on how the CRP can best be implemented. On May 27th, a 

group of wildlife organizations including Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever provided our combined recommendations for the Conservation Reserve Program to 

USDA and FSA leadership. The below recommendations aim to help maximize enrollment on both the general and continuous sides of the program, in order to give 

landowners and producers a robust set of tools with which to implement conservation on their land. 

Signups and Expiring Acres 

One of the first priorities from several groups was that USDA hold a general 

signup as soon as possible, which will occur in December of this year. In addition, 

44 

we recommended that USDA provide re-enrollment options to producers for the 

∼2.17M acres that are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year (267,000 acres extended from FY14 and 1.91M acres set to expire FY15). USDA announced that producers will have an option to re-enroll for 1 year, allowing enough time to enroll 

lands under the general signup, or potentially a more targeted CCRP practice. 

We also believe USDA should expand CCRP initiatives to cover areas with high 

contract expiration rates. As these acres come out of a general contract and are not 

extended/re-enrolled, we would ask USDA to promote keeping environmentally sensitive/important lands in CCRP practices. The trend has been that when a general 

CRP contract expires, the entire field is brought back into production. 

Conservation Practices, Initiatives, and Management 

We thank and support that USDA addressed the acres of CP38 State Acres For 

Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) and CP37 duck nesting habitat as part of the recent 

announcement. We also would ask USDA to clarify with states their requested for 

acres and modifications to existing initiatives (e.g., CP33, CP38, CREP). We encourage USDA to reevaluate initiatives and practices that are stagnant, with specific attention to improving incentives and/or lowering enrollment caps on those under-performing practices, and consider raising caps on the most successful initiatives. 

We would like to see USDA continue to enroll lands in the highly erodible lands 

initiative, but better balance water quality and soil erosion with habitat and upgraded grassland cover. We think it is important for USDA to reevaluate the mid 

contract management cost share annual caps to encourage quality habitat management. The current caps, which have not been updated since 2002, do not adequately 

address management cost to achieve maximum benefits. 

Working Grasslands 

One of the most exciting additions to the CRP was adding 2 million acres of grassland eligibility. We would recommend fully enrolling the authorized 2 million acres 

by 2018. We also would like to see USDA prioritize limited acreage around specific 

resource concerns: target areas of high rates of native grassland conversion, maintaining perennial cover, especially on native grasslands and existing CRP enrollments; enrolling acres in areas with high risk of conversion; provide priority wildlife 

habitat through diverse, vegetation and large tract enrollment as appropriate to the 

species, protecting grasslands with proximity to wetlands or in regions with high 

wetland densities. In addition, we urge USDA to collect and publish data on native 

grassland loss annually. 

We would to like to see USDA implement the program similar to the CRP SAFE 

by accepting Federal, state, local agencies and partner proposals for collaborative, 

stakeholder-sponsored enrollments but partners should not be required to contribute 

financial assistance as in CREP. We would greatly support an exemption of working 

grasslands acres from CRP county caps since these lands will be in agriculture production. We would also like to see USDA require a comprehensive conservation plan 

for all enrollments. Finally we recommend giving this new program a distinctive 

and recognizable name to avoid confusion by participants, partners, and USDA staff. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

Another program that I would like to highlight is the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) by providing a specific example. We are one of 22 partners 

in the Regional Grassland Bird and Grazing Land Enhancement project being coordinated by the Missouri Department of Conservation, which is being implemented 

in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas. The partnership utilizes NRCS’ Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Agriculture Land Easement (ALE) 

programs to improve forage quality on grazing lands while benefiting the greater 

prairie chicken, bobwhite quail and numerous other grassland wildlife. Ultimately 

we are enhancing grazing systems and wildlife habitat that will be more resilient 

to periods of drought, like we experience in this region in 2012. These working lands 

will be more productive, have the ability to absorb more water and reduce erosion 

in high rainfall events. Preliminary sign up results just in the last couple weeks 

suggest that there is more interest from landowners than funds available. 

Voluntary Public Access—Habitat Improvement Program 

The last farm bill conservation program we would like to highlight is the Voluntary Public Access—Habitat Improvement Program (VPA–HIP) that we work on 

with our state wildlife agency partners. As you are aware, hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation can be an economic driver in many parts of the country. Hunters 

and anglers spend approximately $75 Billion pursuing their passions every year. In 

addition wildlife watchers spend about $55 billion each year. These expenditures include everything from rods and reels, guns, ammunition, boats, decoys, bows and 

45 

arrows and tree stands, to hotel stays and dinners in small rural towns across the 

country. As you may also recognize public access for hunting, fishing and recreation 

can be a factor in the lost participation because some areas of the country are limited on amount of accessible lands, especially in those landscapes that are comprised 

by mostly private ownership. VPA–HIP helps address that by working with state 

and local partners to provide incentives for landowners to voluntarily open up their 

lands for recreation, while conducting wildlife habitat improvements. We support 

the announcement of the first $20 million earlier this year, and look forward to the 

remainder of the funding allocation in the near future. 

Improving Habitat Quality 

One of our organizations top priorities, along with many of our partners, are to 

maximize the wildlife benefits, soil health, and water quality through voluntary 

Federal, state and local conservation programs on as many acres of fields, farms, 

ranches and forestlands as possible. This includes, for example, considering individual wildlife species life cycle needs, such as with pollinators, in the design of conservation plans that compliments an ecosystem approach. This can be accomplished 

by something as simple as updated seeding specifications and management techniques that establish and maintain a diversity of vegetative cover in conservation 

planning process. This will result in longer term natural resource benefits with a 

reduced need for management in the future. 

We feel there are several opportunities to increase the value of conservation program plantings for pollinators like honey bees and Monarch butterflies as well as 

a wide range of upland wildlife. Some of the updates to USDA conservation programs that would have an immediate and positive impact on pollinators and wildlife 

include implementing up to date USDA seeding specifications currently being used 

to design conservation program seeding mixtures in some states. Examples of seeding specification improvements include: 

(1) Allow and encourage the use of a broader range of species adapted to a geographic area. Both Honey Bees and Monarch Butterflies are known to receive 

increased benefits from highly diverse seeding mixtures. The more species 

that are included in a seeding mixture, the more pollinator species the seeding mixture will benefit. As an example, several state seeding specifications 

currently do not allow for the inclusion of critically important species for Monarch butterflies like Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and other species 

critical for fall migration. 

(2) Update seeding specifications to build seeding mixtures based on Pure Live 

Seed (PLS) seeds per square foot instead of the outdated PLS pounds per acre 

method. A continued reliance on PLS pounds per acre seeding specifications 

in some states produces an inconsistency within USDA about how conservation program seeding specifications are written and applied. Pollinator mixtures increasingly require the use of wildflower species with a very wide 

range of seed sizes and weights. In order to create a balanced, properly designed and cost effective seeding mixture, the mixture needs to be based on 

the number of seeds that are being planted per given area and not the bulk 

pounds of species that have a wide range in the size of the seeds. This is an 

important update as some of the most important states to honey bee and 

Monarch butterfly health have not yet made these updates to their USDA 

seeding specifications. 

(3) Move forward with the adoption and use of a USDA ‘Seed Calculator’ in creating conservation program seeding mixtures that are based on PLS per 

square foot seeding specifications. The use of a ‘‘seed calculator’’ to help create 

mixtures based on ratios assigned to species is important, yet many states 

that use a seed calculator still rely on PLS pounds per acre. Examples of seed 

calculators already exist within both USDA and the private sector that are 

function using PLS per square foot. There has been discussion within USDA 

regarding the creation of a USDA seed calculator for use by USDA staff for 

several years. Such a tool would enable staff to better design seeding mixture 

recommendations that are balanced, cost effective, had a higher diversity and 

provided increased quality pollinator habitat. 

(4) Implement seed establishment practices that allow a broader range of establishment options that includes dormant seedings in the fall and no-till drill 

seeding without disking ahead of seeding. In several of the states that are the 

most important for Honey Bee and Monarch Butterfly foraging habitat, USDA 

seeding specifications provide direction that limits several of the best establishment practices. Seeding specifications to establish high diversity, polliVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
46 

nator habitat should allow the use of dormant seedings, broad cast seeding 

and eliminate field disking recommendations prior to establishment. 

Each of these recommendations are already successfully in place in some of the 

state USDA seeding specifications in the country. Unfortunately, some of the most 

critical states for Honey Bee and Monarch Butterfly health have not yet incorporated these updated seeding specifications. When these seeding specification recommendations are all applied, the benefits include establishing habitat with significantly increased wildlife habitat quality, mixtures that are more cost effective and 

providing tools that allow resource professionals to design improved seeding mixtures. 

Closing Statement 

I need to emphasize that these successes wouldn’t be possible without numerous 

partnerships that we have with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm 

Service Agency, state fish and wildlife agencies, and other national, state and local 

agencies and organizations. There are hundreds of other partnership positions at 

the county and state levels that leverage funding for conservation practices, and for 

‘‘boots on the ground’’ delivery. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we often hear the term precision agriculture as the way 

of the future, and with the technology and partnerships we have available across 

this great country, we can also have precision conservation. The voluntary, incentive 

based, conservation programs in the farm bill, clearly deliver that. 

Thank you and I look forward to any questions. 

ATTACHMENT

Farm Bill and Partnership Biologist Program Summary 

• Pheasants Forever (PF) and Quail Forever (QF) Farm Bill Biologist (FBB) Program started in South Dakota in 2003 with four positions; there are currently 

117 partnership positions in 19 states. Since inception, these individuals have 

worked on over 148,000 projects with landowners impacting 5.14 million acres. 

In addition, they have hosted over 920 landowner workshops to promote farm 

bill and other conservation programs that farmers, ranchers, and landowners 

use as part of their operations. 

• Funding sources are diverse, and the effort would not be possible without the 

financial support of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, USDA–NRCS, USFWS, 

Joint Ventures, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Local PF&QF chapters, 

watershed groups, foundations, and other state and local partners. FSA is also 

a key partner. 

• With the increasing wildlife focus of the farm bill and various other state and 

Federal initiatives, FBB’s add wildlife, range, forestry and other specialized 

technical assistance capacity in USDA offices. They assist NRCS/FSA and conservation partners maximize the benefits conservation practices provide on a 

landscape scale. 

• Through the NRCS Working Lands For Wildlife and other wildlife focused initiatives, PF has entered into several agreements with partners (i.e., State Wildlife Agencies, Intermountain West Joint Venture, Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies) to assist in the delivering the Sage Grouse, Lesser Prairie Chicken, and Golden-winged Warbler Initiatives. PF&QF host positions and 

provide implementation, administrative and financial assistance services in 

these targeted regions. 

• These partnership positions are involved in several other initiatives and 

projects such as expanding private land acres open to the public through 

NRCS’s Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA–HIP) 

along with state funded public access programs. 

47 

Location and Number of Partnership Positions by State 

State Year Partnership 

Implemented 

Current Number of 

Partnership Positions 

South Dakota 2003 10 

Nebraska 2004 19 

Minnesota 2004 16 

Ohio 2005 9 

Wisconsin 2007 6 

North Dakota 2008 5 

Iowa 2009 6 

Illinois 2010 5 

Kansas 2010 6 

Colorado 2010 3 

Idaho 2010 6 

Pennsylvania 2011 9 

Missouri 2011 6 

Washington 2011 1 

Nevada 2011 2 

Texas 2011 3 

New Mexico 2011 1 

Wyoming 2012 1 

Tennessee 2013 3 

Total 117 

For more information contact: Jim Inglis, Governmental Affairs Representative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

Thanks to all members of all the panel for your testimony. And 

now I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Allen, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many 

Members of this Committee see farmers as the best stewards of our 

land, but the EPA seems to think differently at times. And Congress has given producers tools through cost-share programs and 

voluntary incentive-based programs to improve water, soil, and air 

quality. 


11417002.eps
48 

Can each of you speak to the importance of conservation programs in conjunction with these possible regulations, and also, Mr. 

Van Dyke and Mr. Allen, you talked about, on your own property, 

the importance of conservation and obviously their incentives to 

conserve with these various programs. 

How responsible would farmers and ranchers be without such incentives? And I will address that to first, Mr. Van Dyke, and anybody else that would like to comment on those two questions, as 

far as the regulatory environment and then the incentive issue? 

Mr. VAN DYKE. Well, thank you very much, and I strongly believe the majority of producers out there want to do the right thing, 

and they obviously are the stewards of the land. Their livelihood 

depends on healthy lands, healthy soil, healthy air, clean water. 

And as we deal with Federal regulations like the Clean Water Act 

and the Endangered Species Act, voluntary farm-based conservation programs can help positively address those issues. 

And like myself, I farm and ranch because it is something that 

my family has always done, and I want to pass on that operation 

to my children, and I cannot do that if I destroy the environment 

in any way. I think the majority of producers are proactive. I think 

soil and water districts need to address local issues and find local 

solutions. That is what we have been doing for 80 years and have 

the relationships to do that. We are all about clean water and clean 

air. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Okay. Mr. Rice. Mr. Allen, I am sorry. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I agree with Mr. Van Dyke’s comments, but I 

would like to add that in the declining nature of our commodity 

values today, any practice that does not create revenue is hard to 

justify, and as a producer, I said earlier that my productivity increases when I apply stewardship, and it makes me more sustainable, and I believe that. 

But I believe that the title II programs and the cost-share incentives are critical and mandatory for the type of stewardship that 

we have described. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Okay. So you would suggest that from an 

investment standpoint, these incentives are necessary for you and 

other farmers and ranchers to sustain your operations? 

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ALLEN of Georgia. Okay. Any other comments on those questions? 

Okay. Well, great. I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I am 

pleased to recognize the Ranking Member for questioning. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I want to thank the entire panel. It is gratifying to hear about the 

successes, and we really are working diligently to make sure that 

we are organized in such a fashion to make sure that with the limited resources that we have available to USDA for the farm bill, 

that we are doing the very best that we can, but it is also important for us to hear about where those gaps are. 

Mr. Van Dyke, it is wonderful to have you here, and it is impressive that NACD is involved in over 100 RCPP projects across the 

country, and having you as a partner in those projects, I know, unVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
49 

equivocally, really helped in moving them and getting them off the 

ground. 

In your testimony, you discuss how the RCPP program has allowed you to form new partnerships that were previously impossible in the other programs like the traditional EQIP and CSP programs. 

And I am most encouraged to hear about your work with the 

acequias. And I have talked a little bit about acequias, and now the 

Chairman is familiar, and we are working hard to get the entire 

Committee, but acequia refers, when they talk about the New Mexico ditches, to a traditional communal irrigation system, and it 

dates back literally to the Spanish colonial area from the 1500s, 

and they play a very significant and very critical role not only in 

our history and our culture, but that is how we continue today to 

deliver water for agricultural areas, particularly in rural areas. 

And their involvement in conservation programs then, is critical 

to long-term success and broad and significant participation by 

New Mexico, and it highlights that there are going to be unique circumstances around the country that we are going to have to identify and encourage in order to take the full use of these programs. 

I would love it, Mr. Van Dyke, if you could give me some specific 

examples about how the flexibility has changed the dynamic in 

other areas, what that means to the program overall, and how 

these efforts really assisted you to expand these partnerships and 

roles. 

Mr. VAN DYKE. Well, thank you. We in New Mexico are so excited to have the RCPPs. Acequias, as we all know in New Mexico, 

are traditional. They represent rural New Mexico. They represent 

those communities that have been there forever, long family heritage and traditions, and we don’t want those children leaving those 

communities because they do not have the opportunity to make a 

living, provide for their families, and it is amazing how RCPP, 

which prior to 2014, never had the opportunity to qualify for some 

of these programs. 

And with the alternative funding and flexibility that is now in 

with the RCPP, it gives us the opportunity to address those natural 

resource concerns with input from those local communities and the 

local people who do have the answers to some of those resource 

concerns and bringing in non-traditional partners. Partnerships is 

what it is all about, whether you are in Chama, New Mexico or 

Carlsbad, Clovis, New Mexico, it is all about partnerships, and 

RCPP brings those people to the table to identify those needs and 

come up with solutions. 

Everybody, that way, has skin in the game, so they really are 

more concerned with its success. And you are absolutely correct, 

the ability to address those acequia issues is so important to New 

Mexico, so we appreciate that, another tool in that NRCS toolbox. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. With the limited time I have left, and I 

really appreciate your leadership here and your stewardship, and 

really, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to highlight that if we don’t have 

the flexibility, these programs can often work against us as we try 

to leverage those resources to create partnerships. And we talk 

about drought driven and economic situations that are not stable 

and have been really damaging, frankly devastating to states like 

50 

New Mexico and other states in the Southwest, this is the only way 

to leverage those limited resources, create relationships and partnerships that make the best out of conserving and providing opportunities for farmers and ranchers. 

So I want to thank you again for your leadership and I want to 

thank the entire panel for highlighting those efforts and successes 

around the country. 

The Chairman is doing something that is very unique in these 

committees, which I hope reflects that this is a very bipartisan 

Committee. He said that basically I could ask anything I want and 

talk as long as I want, and that has—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, wait a minute. The gentlelady can yield— 

or consume as much time as she desires. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really, I don’t 

have any other specific questions. I will end with if you, anybody 

on this panel can identify other ways in which we might encourage 

USDA in the context of limitations about how flexible some of those 

programs can be, but they also ought to be in a position as they 

really look at leveraging that flexibility that meets the needs of all 

partners around the country and takes into account the different 

nuances in each of the regions. 

I would be interested, and Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could get 

ideas funneled back to the Committee about ways in which we 

should be preparing to even highlight and identify additional places 

where we could be more flexible and make more programs available. 

I am working on making sure that EQIP works for a group that 

is not a local body of government but operates in that way in their 

land-grants, and so there are still areas where we are not getting 

to the right groups the resources that they need, and those ideas 

would be very meaningful to me, and they would be meaningful to 

the Committee as we continue to do our work. 

Thank you all very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. I will have a line of questioning here. 

Ms. Martynick, in your testimony you referenced that in your experience a federally funded project could take as long as 2 years 

to complete, but a state or county funded project could be completed in 6 months or less. In your opinion, why the difference? 

Why does it take so much longer to complete a federally funded 

project? 

Ms. MARTYNICK. Well, there are a number of reasons. The first 

and foremost, I would say it is the—how long it takes to get answers to any questions. Our experience with FRPP, and obviously 

ACEP has improved a lot of this, but ACEP still has some of the 

same issues that there is enough that is unclear that you have to 

constantly go back and forth with NRCS to make sure that you are 

doing the right thing. 

And there are a lot of things that need to be reviewed, there are 

a lot of documents that need to be reviewed and sometimes reviewed more than once, and it just takes a long time to do that. 

I highlighted the issue of the appraisal reviews. That takes months 

and months to get an appraisal review. 

51 

In a county and state program, that is not necessary as long as 

the appraiser is certified, because after all, they have to meet certain standards in order to be certified, so as long as the appraiser 

is certified, they are looking at the appraisal more quickly and getting and turning that back to the land trust or the county agency 

more quickly. 

It is every step of the way there, it is a belt-and-suspenders thing 

in every step, so it just takes longer to get the answers. Sometimes 

it takes too long to get the answers, or takes longer to get the answers, how do we do something, and then it takes a long time when 

things have to be reviewed. I think that is probably what takes the 

most time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to follow up, and you had made reference to a comparison between the previous authority that we had 

for easements and what we did within the farm bill, and there 

were a number of changes made in them in the 2008, 2014 Farm 

Bill to the easement programs. The creation of the consolidated Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, was done 

with the intention of providing flexibility and streamlining delivery 

of the program. Is the Lancaster Farmland Trust more or less inclined to participate in ACEP compared to the FRPP program? 

Ms. MARTYNICK. I think that the ACEP program has cleared up 

a lot of the issues that we had with FRPP, and hopefully, as we 

move forward, we have two projects pending currently, so we are 

kind of feeling our way at this point, but we definitely can see the 

difference between this and FRPP, although there were some 

things in the ACEP program, things that we thought were going 

to be there that have turned out not to be there, at least in terms 

of the interim rule that has been issued by NRCS. I pointed out 

one major one, which is the minimum deed terms. 

If you look at a place like Lancaster County, we work mostly 

with Amish farmers. It is a very specific constituency. Lancaster 

County is a unique place in many ways. It is really necessary, in 

order for us to effectively use the program, to be able to use our 

language, and as long as our language meets the minimum standard of NRCS, it just works out so much better for us if we don’t 

have to use the language provided to us by NRCS. 

When we have to use the language provided by NRCS, we do a 

lot of workarounds, and that doesn’t make the easement any 

stronger. It certainly doesn’t make the process any shorter, and 

proving that our language is just as effective and being able to utilize that language would help a great deal. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Inglis, there is a lot of interest, obviously, of this Committee, 

the full Agriculture Committee on pollinators, given the current 

state of pollinators, and anyone who likes growing food, pollinators 

play a pretty important role. And you had mentioned that in both 

your written and verbal testimony, so I wanted to follow up. Can 

you talk a little more about how the Pheasants Forever is working 

in this area and some of your suggestions in how we can improve 

pollinator habitat? 

Mr. INGLIS. Sure. We have been involved in trying to make as 

many acres of grassland as productive as possible, so we like to say 

what makes good pollinator habitat is going to make good nesting 

52 

habitat, is going to help benefit soil health and water quality, so 

we have been involved in that for several years. 

Some of the most recent projects we have been involved with is 

the Honey Bee and Monarch Partnerships in some areas of the 

country, and we are really putting some resources towards that to 

try to educate, whether it is landowners, farmers, and ranchers 

that this is an opportunity, and it might not be the best fit for their 

operation, but we want to make sure that they have the tools available to be able to address those. 

As far as making them a little bit better, it is the education 

piece. We heard some concerns this morning that maybe the pollinator practices aren’t going as well, and some of that can come 

back to updated seeding specifications and updating the technical 

methods to establish those. It is maybe a little bit different to establish, so we are all engaged in trying to make that process as 

easy as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Van Dyke, in your testimony you 

mention that conservation districts will play an important role in 

the implementation of linking conservation compliance with crop 

insurance. Today, what types of activities has the NACD engaged 

in to do this, and especially important for specialty crop producers 

who for the first time are subject to conservation compliance, was 

your organization or the members of the organization or conservation districts, both, certainly the volunteers, many volunteers who 

are involved and are professionals who are there, were they able 

to—did they participate in any outreach to educate these producers 

about filling out the AD–1026. Are we doing any current outreach 

to see if we missed some folks, some people that are going to get 

a really bad surprise when the bill comes in October? 

Mr. VAN DYKE. Well, thank you. And I concur with you, the effects of not being in compliance could be very negative, but through 

our national organization communication outreach, we have done a 

good job of reaching out to those producers, starting at the national 

level with our E-notes and our mailings, working through our state 

associations. Every state association also had outreach not only nationally, and then that outreach also goes down to the local level 

because there is a local soil and water conservation district in just 

about every community in the United States, so starting with the 

national down through the state associations, and then the base, 

the locals’ own water districts getting out to their cooperators. 

And the unique thing about soil and water districts is those supervisors that are elected locally are usually leaders in their community in agriculture and conservation, so they will help disseminate that type of information. So those are the areas that we have 

worked to get the word out about AD–1026. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay very good. Well, I appreciate the work that 

you have done and others and certainly the USDA, and hopefully 

we won’t have a lot of folks who are caught by surprise of not 

knowing that to qualify for that, it is a self-certification, but you 

did need to fill that form out by a certain date. 

Mr. Allen, in your testimony you mentioned that as a stand-alone 

program, EQIP and CSP are not necessarily geared towards rice 

production, but with the flexibility in the RCPP, USA Rice has 

been able to tailor those programs to achieve the conservation goals 

53 

of rice farmers. Can you expand on that and give me some examples of how this is being done? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Many of the best management practices that are conducive to be associated with rice production don’t rank as well in the ranking models from NRCS’ larger 

structural installations, like the construction of an irrigation storage reservoir or tail water recovery system. The irrigation management practices generally find themselves unfunded because they 

have been outranked by the other practices I just described, so this 

is an opportunity to feature those and give them priority, and that 

now we actually have new forms of conservation being installed on 

the working lands because of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you very much. I want to 

thank all the panelists for taking the time to come to Washington 

to be able to testify today and provide your written testimony and 

your oral testimony and your leadership, respective leadership. 

The process that we have of—and this really was an oversight 

hearing, a chance to exercise oversight on the implementation of 

the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, to be able to get kind of an 

overview from USDA and their leadership in terms of how that is 

being done, but also to get a, as importantly, for those end-users, 

those folks who are using those programs, to get feedback. 

I think this represents a good partnership. I think that partnership and that sincerity of this partnership of make making sure 

that we got it right when we did the farm bill and that we are getting it right as we implement it, I think that is reflective of the fact 

that Chief Weller, who was here through the second panel, I sit on 

a lot of committees, I don’t always get that. Sometimes we get a 

hard time getting individuals from the Administration to come, but 

that is not the case with the USDA. 

They are great partners, and sometimes, as hard as we try, we 

don’t always get it exactly the way we want it. Perhaps we will find 

that we fail—we did pretty good on the farm bill, but you know 

what, that is why we do these oversight hearings, to make sure 

and work on that partnership, and so I want to thank everyone for 

being here. 

And under the rules of Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to 

any questions posed by a Member. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

55 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

Pennsylvania 

Question 1. The conservation compliance provisions of the farm bill also required 

that any ‘‘affiliated person’’ of a producer requesting benefits subject to Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) also file an AD– 

1026. Has your agency, along with RMA and FSA, identified persons that this might 

affect, and if so, how were those individuals identified and notified of the new conservation compliance requirements? In your estimation, how many of these producers are now out of compliance? 

Answer. Matters pertaining to the filing of AD–1026 forms fall under the administrative responsibility of the Farm Service Agency. According to FSA, all producers 

that identified ‘‘affiliates’’ in block 4 of AD–1026 are entered into the system by FSA 

as ‘‘Awaiting Affiliate Certification’’. Producers are reminded that they are not ‘‘Certified’’ for AD–1026 until those producers they identified as affiliates are also ‘‘Certified’’. It is the producer’s responsibility to communicate to their affiliates that they 

need to complete their certification in order for the original certification to be complete and for the person to receive USDA benefits in the form of premium subsidies. 

In addition to the responsibility of the producer to inform affiliates, RMA and FSA 

are working together to flag any remaining certifications that are awaiting affiliates 

and reminding producers of the requirement. Specifically, RMA has passed to FSA 

the first applicable sales closing date these producers had in 2014 that are entered 

into the system as ‘‘awaiting affiliate certification’’. FSA reaches out to the identified 

producers in advance of the sales closing date. FSA stresses the importance to these 

identified producers that they must communicate to their affiliates to come in and 

certify to conservation compliance by their first applicable sales closing date in order 

to remain eligible for the 2016 crop insurance premium subsidy. 

Question 2. NRCS is in the process of finalizing a method for making off-site wetland determinations, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what you 

are doing. The wetland determination process has been, and probably still is, one 

for the most controversial processes for producers to go through with NRCS, and 

now producers are even more concerned with the conservation compliance linkage 

to crop insurance premium subsidies. 

What are you doing to help guide producers through this process? 

Question 2a. What information are you making available to them to help them 

understand the changes that you have made to the determination process? 

Question 2b. How are you explaining the terms and data you are using and information that you need from producers to make determinations? 

Answer 2–2b. The revised state off-site methods for wetlands determinations updates procedures that have been used since 1988, uses new mapping technologies 

to streamline initial determinations, and reduces the need for field visits, which will 

help expedite determinations and decrease the backlog. The revision process has included public listening sessions, review of the procedures at state technical committee meetings, posting of the revised procedures in the Federal Register, and a 

national webinar. Additionally, NRCS has conducted training for staff on the revised 

methods so that they can effectively explain and help producers through the process. 

The revised process doesn’t involve any change of regulatory language but incorporates the use of new technology, and improves the consistency and efficiency in 

how determinations are completed. The main change in terminology is that the 

agency now calls its technical procedures ‘‘State Offsite Methods’’ instead of ‘‘State 

Mapping Conventions.’’ NRCS only completes wetland determinations when a USDA 

participant indicates they are planning to undertake a drainage improvement action 

in an area where no previously completed determination has been made. NRCS asks 

producers that indicate they are planning to make drainage improvements to provide their drainage records for the affected area. The process allows participants 

multiple avenues to request an onsite review and reconsideration with agency staff 

to fully explain the process. 

Question 3. In 2015 NRCS released a number of new enhancements for CSP. 

While it is important for producers to have a number of conservation practice options to choose from, the availability of those options seems inconsistent in the field. 

This is resulting in producers not being able to sign up for all the enhancements 

available. 

56 

What are you doing ensure that field staff is trained on these options and that 

all producers have access to the enhancements offered? 

Question 3a. Are state NRCS offices permitted to alter the CSP enhancements if 

they are not appropriate for crops grown in their state? 

Answer 3–3a. CSP enhancements are defined conservation activities linked to one 

or more conservation practice standards. NRCS agency staff obtain technical training on enhancements through their state program and technical specialists and are 

also guided by the technical information contained in the Field Office Technical 

Guide. 

The specifics of all enhancements offered to producers under each sign-up, including a full listing and description of the activities, is made available on the NRCS 

website. NRCS State Conservationists also may recommend new enhancements to 

encourage the adoption of new and emerging conservation technologies on farms, 

ranches and forest lands with an increased focus on resource concerns at the local 

level. 

NRCS State Conservationists have the authority to modify the CSP activity list 

to target specific enhancements to a geographic area or to remove enhancements 

that are not applicable to crops grown in a state. While State Conservationists do 

not have the authority to change the purpose of an enhancement, they may refine 

enhancements to address local needs; for example, Grazing Management to Improve 

Wildlife Habitat may be adjusted to incorporate provisions that protect wildlife nesting periods in the state. State Conservationists make these decisions in consultation 

with NRCS technical staff and State Technical Committees. 

Question 4. NRCS awarded $370 million for projects in the initial rollout of the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). In May, NRCS announced another $235 million in RCPP funding to be available in FY 2016. I assume implementing this new and innovative program has had its share of challenges, but 

NRCS has been operating the program without a rule. Do you intend to create a 

rule for RCPP? Why or why not? 

Answer. NRCS did not develop a rule for the Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program (RCPP) but has implemented the program through an Announcement of 

Program Funding (APF) process similar to its predecessor programs. The APF approach followed the program’s statutory language, which provided solid structure 

and allowed for timely implementation of this new program. In addition, RCPP is 

delivered to producers through covered programs, each of which have program regulations. Correspondingly, RCPP technically is delivered via the EQIP, CSP, ACEP, 

HFRP, and P.L. 83–566 regulations. To strengthen that regulatory relationship, 

NRCS incorporated special RCPP provisions into each of the covered program rules, 

such as the ability of the Chief to waive the Adjusted Gross Income limitation or 

regulatory provisions in certain RCPP project areas. The APF process to solicit creative proposals from potential partners, combined with the consistent regulatory 

framework already in place through the covered programs, allowed a fair and flexible approach to delivering comprehensive conservation assistance to producers. At 

this time, NRCS does not intend to initiate rulemaking for RCPP; however, the approach may be revisited in the next regulatory cycle following a farm bill. 

57 

Question 5. Through its initiative to improve habitat, NRCS has placed quite a bit of emphasis on the sage grouse. Can you tell me how 

much has been spent on the Sage Grouse Initiative by program, by year, and by state? 

Answer. See the following tables. 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated 

Contract Fiscal Year 2010 

State FIPS 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program Grassland Reserve Program Grand Total 

No. of 

Contracts 

FA 

Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts/ Agreements FA Obligated Acres 

California 6 11 $1,787,245 77,328 10 $1,497,739 41,069 21 $3,284,984 118,397 Colorado 8 6 $687,279 13,059 3 $81,617 1,818 1 (*) 640 10 $768,896 15,517 Idaho 16 20 $1,089,991 159,349 1 $64,629 891 21 $1,154,620 160,240 Montana 30 7 $2,275,679 73,810 3 $622,399 13,803 10 $2,898,078 87,613 Nevada 32 5 $575,577 3,645 5 $575,577 3,645 North Dakota 38 18 $499,858 23,919 1 $32,984 795 19 $532,842 24,713 Oregon 41 13 $1,472,466 14,360 7 $611,417 3,271 20 $2,083,883 17,630 South Dakota 46 4 $557,042 35,795 4 $557,042 35,795 Utah 49 13 $1,061,093 26,055 1 $20,179 1,196 14 $1,081,272 27,251 Washington 53 74 $2,507,912 19,450 3 $44,674 11,701 77 $2,552,586 31,151 Wyoming 56 20 $2,725,336 117,151 3 $264,990 11,429 23 $2,990,326 128,580 

Total 186 $14,663,901 560,276 37 $3,816,205 89,618 1 640 224 $18,480,106 650,532 

* Not Available. 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated 

Contract Fiscal Year 2011 

State FIPS 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

Farm & Ranchland 

Protection Program 

Grassland Reserve 

Program 

Wetlands Reserve 

Program Grand Total 

No. of 

Contracts 

FA 

Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts/ Agree- ments FA Obligated Acres 

California 6 19 $4,946,064 159,628 6 $990,815 6,233 25 $5,936,879 165,861 Colorado 8 1 $91,821 3,377 2 $104,812 8,242 2 $2,886,250 5,017 2 $700,000 2,760 7 $3,782,883 19,396 Idaho 16 26 $1,698,196 105,018 5 $109,313 17,277 13 $9,503,450 22,369 44 $11,310,959 144,664 Montana 30 9 $1,197,875 115,557 1 $5,100 665 2 $3,500,000 42,191 12 $4,702,975 158,413 Nevada 32 7 $986,989 4,834 4 $473,516 1,612 1 $618,170 1,269 3 $3,196,215 3,695 15 $5,274,890 11,410 North Dakota 38 11 $507,833 24,540 11 $507,833 24,540 Oregon 41 21 $2,748,134 28,122 11 $699,725 9,196 32 $3,447,859 37,318 South Dakota 46 5 $646,713 63,424 2 $110,751 11,893 7 $757,464 75,317 Utah 49 7 $1,030,477 9,307 3 $288,609 8,969 5 $1,426,595 17,476 15 $2,745,681 35,752 Washington 53 5 $224,940 8,833 5 $224,940 8,833 Wyoming 56 16 $3,917,340 295,502 4 $375,453 27,848 36 $38,000,000 88,335 10 $10,430,313 31,820 66 $52,723,106 443,505 

Total 127 $17,996,382 818,142 38 $3,158,094 91,935 40 $44,386,250 135,543 31 $22,678,528 75,694 3 $3,196,215 3,695 239 $91,415,469 1,125,009 

58 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated 

Contract Fiscal Year 2012 

State FIPS 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

Farm & Ranchland 

Protection Program 

Grassland Reserve 

Program 

Wetlands Reserve 

Program Grand Total 

No. of 

Contracts 

FA 

Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts/ Agree- ments FA Obligated Acres 

California 6 14 $1,497,700 93,473 3 $90,360 1,026 17 $1,588,060 94,499 Colorado 8 5 $368,152 8,452 6 $2,886,250 12,563 1 $557,325 1,200 12 $3,811,727 22,215 Idaho 16 24 $2,787,103 89,031 13 $5,393,800 14,038 37 $8,180,903 103,069 Montana 30 11 $2,474,809 169,261 10 $256,256 6,080 1 $1,309,845 3,809 22 $4,040,911 179,150 Nevada 32 15 $2,067,160 328,964 6 $97,789 4,347 1 $5,001,790 4,064 1 $2,218,565 741 2 $3,980,442 6,136 25 $13,365,747 344,252 North Dakota 38 11 $364,424 24,740 4 $171,050 12,300 15 $535,474 37,040 Oregon 41 28 $3,307,965 44,854 10 $1,041,530 8,315 38 $4,349,495 53,169 South Dakota 46 6 $835,231 31,840 11 $1,090,400 45,198 17 $1,925,631 77,038 Utah 49 10 $1,139,010 31,002 10 $1,139,010 31,002 Washington 53 5 $537,479 8,299 7 $748,622 12,482 12 $1,286,101 20,781 Wyoming 56 29 $4,553,673 355,002 11 $845,207 37,314 7 $5,731,350 14,065 1 $3,100,338 8,402 48 $14,230,568 414,783 

Total 158 $19,932,706 1,184,918 62 $4,341,214 127,062 14 $13,619,390 30,692 17 $12,579,873 28,190 2 $3,980,442 6,136 253 $54,453,627 1,376,998 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated 

Contract Fiscal Year 2013 

State FIPS 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

Farm & Ranchland 

Protection Program 

Grassland Reserve 

Program 

Wetlands Reserve 

Program Grand Total 

No. of 

Contracts 

FA 

Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts/ Agree- ments FA Obligated Acres 

California 6 11 $1,321,531 27,879 2 $36,818 782 0 $0 — 1 $1,464,710 2,037 0 $0 — 14 $2,823,059 30,697 Colorado 8 8 $789,589 38,551 0 $0 — 4 $10,600,000 30,196 9 $4,301,680 1,964 0 $0 0 21 $15,691,269 70,711 Idaho 16 26 $2,546,201 80,716 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 7 $6,607,444 16,210 0 $0 — 33 $9,153,645 96,926 Montana 30 11 $2,385,236 76,957 11 $435,758 5,633 1 $500,000 4,087 3 $2,776,137 6,933 0 $0 — 26 $6,097,131 93,610 Nevada 32 14 $808,707 45,168 7 $156,145 5,957 0 $0 — 2 $8,105,847 4,456 3 $7,300,000 926 26 $16,370,699 56,508 North Dakota 38 7 $344,426 15,598 1 $39,470 1,840 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 8 $383,896 17,438 Oregon 41 31 $3,048,196 42,237 16 $1,014,109 17,408 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 47 $4,062,305 59,645 South Dakota 46 9 $900,437 44,034 3 $455,658 21,885 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 12 $1,356,095 65,919 Utah 49 16 $2,544,891 18,906 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 3 $5,996,800 16,289 0 $0 — 19 $8,541,691 35,195 Washington 53 10 $869,588 12,745 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 10 $869,588 12,745 Wyoming 56 15 $1,410,280 116,371 0 $0 — 6 $5,269,766 17,972 0 $0 — 0 $0 — 21 $6,680,046 134,343 

Total 158 $16,969,0815 19,162 40 $2,137,958 53,504 11 $16,369,766 52,255 25 $29,252,618 47,888 3 $7,300,000 926 237 $72,029,423 673,735 

59 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Number of Agreements, Contracts, Projects & Financial Dollars Obligated 

Contract Fiscal Year 2014 

State FIPS 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program—ALE 

Program 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program—WRE Grand Total 

No. of 

Contracts 

FA 

Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres No. of Contracts FA Obligated Acres Contracts/ Agreements FA Obligated Acres 

California 6 11 $1,917,054 13,583 1 $3,000,000 2,400 0 $0 — 12 $4,917,054 15,983 Colorado 8 9 $611,877 50,831 $0 — 0 $0 — 9 $611,877 50,831 Idaho 16 22 $1,967,689 21,060 2 $2,560,763 3,839 0 $0 — 24 $4,528,452 24,899 Montana 30 5 $1,473,078 53,686 $0 — 0 $0 — 5 $1,473,078 53,686 Nevada 32 9 $656,886 48,499 2 $1,467,750 4,556 1 $589,000 108 12 $2,713,636 53,163 North Dakota 38 7 $182,773 9,277 $0 — 0 $0 — 7 $182,773 9,277 Oregon 41 41 $4,649,511 56,496 $0 — 0 $0 — 41 $4,649,511 56,496 South Dakota 46 3 $871,593 41,669 $0 — 0 $0 — 3 $871,593 41,669 Utah 49 34 $4,308,895 92,922 5 $3,729,750 9,312 0 $0 — 39 $8,038,645 102,234 Washington 53 11 $722,869 11,626 $0 — 0 $0 — 11 $722,869 11,626 Wyoming 56 13 $2,034,497 171,278 $0 — 0 $0 — 13 $2,034,497 171,278 

Total 165 $19,396,722 570,926 10 $10,758,263 20,107 1 $589,000 108 176 $30,743,985 591,141 

60 

Question 6. Under this Administration, NRCS has launched a number of special 

initiatives to target natural resource concerns. Do you believe EQIP and CSP dollars 

are better invested in the initiative areas? 

Answer. Targeting natural resource concerns through special initiatives and the 

new Regional Conservation Partnership Program allows NRCS and partners to align 

and leverage resources to address shared objectives. While targeting efforts through 

initiatives address prioritized resource concerns, there are also significant and diverse resource concerns identified at the local level that NRCS conservation programs effectively address. For that reason, NRCS has maintained initiative spending below 20 percent of the overall budget of our programs. This allows us to adequately fund a number of high priority regional efforts, while also making available 

significant funding for producers to address resource concerns in areas where initiatives are not targeted. 

Question 7. What percentage of EQIP and CSP funding is being used for Technical 

Assistance (TA)? How does this compare to recent years? 

Answer. The following table provides the technical assistance (TA) and financial 

assistance (FA) funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): 

EQIP and CSP Funding, 2012–2015 

(Dollars in thousands) 

FY EQIP Total EQIP FA EQIP TA EQIP TA % CSP Total CSP FA CSP TA CSP TA % 

2012 1,400,000 1,018,075 381,925 27.3% 768,500 695,534 72,966 9.5% 

2013 1,400,000 1,018,075 381,925 27.3% 945,905 847,396 98,510 10.4% 

2014 1,350,000 981,715 368,285 27.3% 1,078,942 962,871 116,071 10.8% 

2015 * 1,398,685 1,000,176 398,510 28.5% 1,210,167 974,682 235,485 19.5% 

* Note: FY 2015 figures include unobligated balances generally related to Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program (RCPP) agreements needing to be carried over from FY 2014. 

FY 2015 was the first re-enrollment year for the new CSP, roughly 35 million 

acres in total, correspondingly the apportionment was adjusted to provide for the 

increased the technical assistance workload. 

Question 8. Are EQIP dollars being invested on public lands? 

Answer. NRCS does allow eligible agricultural producers to receive EQIP payments for completed conservation practices on public lands, provided that the: 

• public land is a working component of the participant’s agricultural and forest 

operation, 

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

• conservation practice on public land will contribute to an improvement in the 

identified natural resource concern. 

Question 9. With the extreme droughts we have seen in recent years, what is 

being done to target conservation of water quantity? 

Answer. Since 2012, historically dry conditions in large parts of the United States 

have compelled NRCS to make substantial investments to help producers manage 

acute drought conditions and increase the resilience of their operations against extreme weather events. From 2012 to 2014, NRCS has invested more than $1.5 billion to help producers implement conservation practices that have a benefit to water 

conservation or improve operation resilience. This substantial investment includes 

$27 million in special funding directed toward states impacted most severely by the 

historic drought of 2012. During this drought, NRCS partnered with nearly 2,000 

producers to implement practices to protect soil, reduce water use and increase the 

resiliency of their operations. In May of 2015, an additional EQIP allocation of $21.3 

million was provided to Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Idaho and California, to 

assist producers with addressing resource concerns caused or exacerbated by the 

drought. 

In 2011, NRCS launched the Ogallala Aquifer Initiative to target financial and 

technical assistance to this unique resource underlying parts of Colorado, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, South Dakota and Wyoming. Since the 

Initiative’s inception, NRCS has invested more than $66 million in financial assistance to more than 1,540 producers to help them implement groundwater conservation on approximately 325,000 acres of agricultural lands. 

Question 10. Could you go over the accommodations available for producers who 

are subject to the conservation compliance for the first time as far as the length of 

time available for developing and implementing a conservation plan? How many 

producers are in the situation of utilizing those provisions now that we have passed 

the deadline for filing AD–1026 forms for this year? 

61 

Answer. Producers who are subject to conservation compliance for the first time 

have 5 years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS 

from the date they are determined, through exhaustion of administrative appeal, to 

have highly erodible land. If the producer has participated in USDA programs before, but dropped out of the programs due to a violation, they have 2 years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS. Based on a recent 

review of AD–1026 filings, there are 23,617 producers who are new to conservation 

compliance who have 5 years to develop and comply with a conservation plan if they 

are farming highly erodible land. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from 

Minnesota 

Question 1. The Committee included provisions in the farm bill to allow CRP acreage in its final contract year to be prepared for enrollment in other programs. Is 

this something you are able to be doing already? Or is this held up waiting for the 

final rule? 

Answer. Allowing Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage in its final contract year to be enrolled in conservation programs helps to sustain the investment 

to protect designated highly erodible and other sensitive lands and their accompanying resource benefits. NRCS and FSA have been coordinating their respective 

program efforts to ensure that producers transitioning lands back into production 

are able to access other conservation program opportunities to further the environmental benefits obtained through their participation in CRP. The new provision will 

be implemented once the CRP regulation is published. 

NRCS has policy under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to 

allow producers who currently own or operate CRP land to request NRCS assistance 

in the development of grazing or upland wildlife habitat management systems to retain these lands in permanent cover. Additionally, the Conservation Stewardship 

Program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program prioritize enrollment of land that is coming out of CRP. For example, NRCS amended the CSP regulation to allow transitioning land to participate in CSP as authorized in the 2014 

Act, and has established a seamless process to transition from CRP back to agricultural production. Presently, NRCS offers four enhancements designed to preserve 

the benefits gained while in CRP or mitigate negative effects from transitioning expired CRP lands to production agriculture. 

Question 2. The Committee heard from existing CSP contract holders who were 

surprised to find out that they would be receiving a lower payment rate for their 

acres upon re-enrollment, even though they are doing additional and potentially just 

as costly practices as in their original contracts. Can you help shed some light on 

why producers are being offered a lower rental rate on re-enrollments? 

Answer. Renewal contracts are not simple extensions of an initial contract and require a higher level of conservation above and beyond what was implemented in the 

initial contract. Under a renewal contract, activities that were newly adopted during 

the initial CSP contract period are now considered existing activities, and compensated at a lower rate than in the initial contract. Total payments under the renewed contract may be higher or lower depending on the number of additional activities selected for implementation as well as their magnitude and duration, respectively. Field office personnel have the capacity to explain publicly available programmatic information sheets which detail scoring and payment processes. With 

CSP, our goal is to provide incentives to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners 

to adopt and continue to improve upon conservation work that leads to cleaner 

water and air, healthier soil and better wildlife habitat. 

Question 3. The Committee has also heard frustrations from some landowners 

who did not re-enroll their acres because they found it hard to find additional practices that they thought made sense, particularly on forestland. What are the states 

doing to address these situations? 

Answer. In FY 2015, NRCS released a revamped conservation activity list which 

included thirteen innovative enhancements and four bundles, beyond those previously available, benefiting forest production or wildlife habitat improvement. With 

these expansions for forest land conservation, producers have many more options for 

enhancements that fit their operations and conservation objectives. 

Question 4. The Committee has heard from landowners that it takes months to 

get easements completed under Wetland Reserve Easements, as was the case with 

its predecessor, WRP. What is the agency doing to ensure that signing up for wetland easements is not a long, drawn out process that tends to dampen landowner 

interest? 

62 

Answer. NRCS has updated its policy to require much of the due diligence to be 

completed prior to entering into easement purchase agreements. This will help ensure that issues that would preclude or delay the acquisition of the easement, such 

as legal issues, title issues, hazardous substance contamination issues, etc., are detected prior to entering into a purchase agreement. 

Typically acquisition delays result from issues detected after the purchase agreement had been executed and often take significant amounts of time to resolve, for 

example, the landowner obtaining subordination or release from a holder of a superior interest in the property. By identifying and addressing these issues prior to entering into the purchase agreement, NRCS can ensure that properties move to closing in a timely manner. 

Question 5. How many eligible entities has NRCS certified under Ag Land Easements? Has this number increased or dropped off since we gave you the authority 

in the 2008 Farm Bill? 

Answer. NRCS has not yet certified any eligible entities under the Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program—Agricultural Land Easement authority. Under 

the 2008 Farm Bill only four entities submitted requests to be certified; one was 

approved. With the publication of the ACEP Interim Rule and ACEP Policy Manual 

in February and March, 2015, NRCS introduced a few key changes to streamline 

and improve the certification process and expand the availability of certification to 

eligible entities. NRCS has conducted outreach to eligible entities to make sure they 

are aware of the new certification process and benefits of certification. NRCS received a number of inquiries regarding certification, however, to date NRCS has not 

received any requests for certification under the new process. 

We anticipate that NRCS will receive certification requests in the early part of 

next fiscal year. Because entities have not had the opportunity to submit requests 

for certification in Fiscal Year 2015, any entities certified in Fiscal Year 2016, will 

be able to retroactively apply the benefits of certification to include parcels selected 

for funding in Fiscal Year 2015. 

Question 6. We’ve also heard some frustration about the amount of funding that 

is getting out the doors for ag land easements. Have we streamlined things or do 

we have too many points where the Federal interest is bogging things down? Is the 

program operating as a pass-through of funds or is NRCS duplicating many of the 

same steps that the enrolling entities also do? We will hear from a witness on the 

second panel which makes me believe we still have issues. 

Answer. NRCS simplified the easement enrollment process under the new ACEP– 

ALE, including the use of significantly pared down and standardized deed terms. 

This new approach streamlines program delivery, increases the transparency of program requirements, ensures the equitable treatment of all participants, and reduces 

inconsistency in the long-term management and enforcement of the easements. Eligible entities are permitted to use their own deed terms, including those that are 

more restrictive than those terms required by NRCS. 

ACEP–ALE is not structured as a pass-through program. Statutory requirements 

make clear the intent for the Secretary to administer and manage achieving the program purposes, for example, the requirements to include a right of enforcement for 

the United States, subject the land to an agricultural land easement plan, limit on 

impervious surfaces consistent with the agricultural activities to be conducted, and 

determine that program funds are not used to acquire easements on ineligible land. 

These and other statutory requirements are to protect the Federal investment and 

require NRCS due diligence, such as determining that the amount of Federal funds 

provided is supported by an appraisal or other valuation method, that the easement 

deed meets the statutory requirements and program purposes, and that the land 

meets the statutory eligibility requirements. These NRCS reviews are not a duplication of the eligible entity’s acquisition procedures but rather derive from an oversight role to ensure that the specific statutory requirements of the ACEP–ALE are 

met. 

Question 7. How does the agency deal with right of way issues such as we’ll hear 

about on the second panel? Is the hassle of potentially dealing with a utility or highway work worth it to protect farmland in some of the country’s most vulnerable 

areas? 

Answer. NRCS deals with right-of-way and utility issues in the initial evaluation 

of the eligibility of the parcel or, for easements that have already been acquired, 

through an evaluation of requests for an easement administration action. Prior to 

selecting a parcel for funding, NRCS is required by statute to determine whether 

the purposes of the program would be undermined due to on-site or off-site conditions, such as proposed or existing rights-of-way, infrastructure development, minVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
63 

eral development potential or adjacent land uses. Therefore, NRCS will conduct an 

evaluation prior to determining the land eligible for enrollment under ACEP–ALE. 

For parcels on which the easement has been acquired, in the ACEP Interim Rule 

and ACEP Policy Manual, NRCS has published the criteria and procedures for evaluating and authorizing easement administration actions which include the modification, exchange, subordination, or termination of all or a portion of the Federal interest on a conservation easement acquired using Federal funds. 

NRCS understands that addressing potential highways or utilities is part of the 

responsibility any easement management agency assumes when administering programs in the rural landscape. The conservation values that are achieved through 

easement protection, especially in the country’s most vulnerable areas, greatly outweigh any administrative inconvenience of addressing potentially conflicting land 

use objectives. 

Question 8. Can you tell us whether you waived any program rules in the recently 

signed round of RCPP awards? 

Answer. In the recent round of RCPP awards, NRCS received and is processing 

26 requests for adjustment of terms related to the following topics: 

• Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Waivers. 

• Payment schedule updates. 

• Interim practices. 

• Alternative ranking processes. 

• Changing payment method. 

Question 9. How many RCPP projects did you have drop out between the initial 

awards and the final signed 5 year contracts? Why did some project sponsors end 

up not being able to make it to that step? 

Answer. None of the 115 projects that were approved for funding dropped out, 

thus all 115 have moved forward with signed 5 year partnership agreements. 

Question 10. What can we expect to see further efforts to utilize the $10 million 

for wetland mitigation that was provided in the farm bill? Could those funds be 

used to help farmers or ranchers facing potential mitigation as a result of the expanded definition of Waters of the U.S. under final rule announced by EPA and the 

Army Corps? 

Answer. The 2014 Farm Bill provided NRCS with up to $10 million to develop a 

wetlands mitigation banking program to help agricultural producers remain in good 

standing with the wetlands conservation compliance provisions in Subtitle C of Title 

XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. Consequently, NRCS’s focus will 

be on wetlands that fall under these statutory provisions. NRCS’ approach is intended to make this type of mitigation cost-effective for producers who decide that 

off-site mitigation is their best wetlands compliance alternative. 

Question 11. Where do things stand with helping smaller and limited resource 

producers improve their irrigation systems? I know you were trying to provide flexibility in this area on what counted as having a ‘‘history of irrigating’’ to include systems that smaller operations might be using. 

Answer. Historically, NRCS has had EQIP rule and policy requirements to provide 

evidence that land has been irrigated 2 of the past 5 years, to ensure that EQIP 

assistance addresses a natural resource concern and that it does not result in adverse impacts to aquifer depletion or surface streams experiencing decreased flow. 

However, the strict irrigation history requirement may have inadvertently disadvantaged some individuals or groups and there may be specific situations where adjustment of the requirement may be appropriate. Therefore, pursuant to the Secretary’s 

authority under 16 U.S.C. 3844 to address barriers to participation by historically 

under-served producers, NRCS incorporated a limited waiver to the irrigation history requirement under the revised EQIP regulation that was published in December 2014. 

NRCS believes that this narrowly tailored waiver provision will address these 

participation barriers in a manner that ensures EQIP continues to meet its statutory purposes. The waiver authority is only available to limited resource and socially-disadvantaged producers, including individual Indian tribal producers, and Indian Tribes who wish to install an efficient irrigation system as a means to assist 

with the adoption of sustainable agricultural production methods, as determined by 

the Chief, and such adoption will not adversely impact limited surface water or 

groundwater supplies. 

NRCS has incorporated this waiver into its policy manual and provided training 

to the states so that they are able to identify whether affected producers may qualify for a waiver. In addition to the waiver provision above, the NRCS has clarified 

64 

policy to allow producers to use various forms of justification to document irrigation 

history such as: aerial photography, written records, water rights certificates, water 

bills, etc. 

Question 12. What kinds of projects are states using the Voluntary Public Access 

funding for? 

Answer. The state wildlife agencies of Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, 

Montana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Texas, and the Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Nation, all received FY 2014 funding from the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA–HIP). They are using VPA–HIP 

funds for the following kinds of projects: 

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

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

• Enhancing existing private property public access lands to facilitate non-consumptive (e.g., hiking, nature watching, photography, camping) recreational 

uses in addition to the existing hunting and fishing activities. 

• Enhancing fish and wildlife habitat on existing and new private property public 

access lands. 

• Taking advantage of the opportunity to provide public access to lands already 

enrolled in other natural resources conservation programs where wildlife habitat is being enhanced. 

• Monitoring outdoor recreational use data to assess the impact of new lands 

being accessible. 

• Soliciting the level of satisfaction and suggestions for improvement from both 

participating private landowners and public recreationists. 

• Increasing outreach to the public about the Public Access programs through 

hard copy materials, web pages, public meetings, signage, presentations, and 

other marketing methods. 

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

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

• Improving outreach to youth and young adults to encourage their participation 

in outdoor recreational activities. 

• Working in partnership with USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

staff to ensure compliance with requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Question 13. The Committee tried to help give you support in your apportionment 

requests to the Office of Management and Budget. Have you generally asked to 

spend all the funding that is available under the farm bill? Has OMB been granting 

your full apportionment requests? 

Answer. The apportionment requests provided to the Department and OMB request the authority to obligate all funding provided under the authorities provided 

in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), including unobligated balances carried forward from FY 2014 to FY 2015, and OMB has been approving those apportionments as submitted. 

Question 14. Why did you open up the producer side of your IT modernization 

first? 

Answer. The NRCS Conservation Client Gateway (CCG), one of the three components of the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative (CDSI), provides information and tools to enable many client-centric activities, like asking a technical or 

programmatic assistance question, requesting technical assistance for a conservation 

plan, applying for financial assistance, documenting the completion of conservation 

practices, and requesting and tracking payments for completed conservation practices. Traditionally, these activities required the client to make several trips into the 

NRCS field office. 

By deploying CCG now, clients and NRCS are able to immediately reap the benefits of reduced trips to and from the office to perform these activities. By empowering the clients to perform these tasks virtually if they choose, it reinforces that 

clients own their conservation plans and have access to them 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week in their document library in CCG. 

Question 15. Are your computer systems and more importantly, the producer information databases, accessible by each agency in the field? 

65 

Answer. The USDA Service Center agencies: Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Rural Development (RD), share 

a single database that contains basic producer information needed to administer authorized programs. The Service Center Information Management System (SCIMS) 

contains producer information that includes name, address, telephone numbers, email addresses, demographics (race, gender, ethnicity), and entity type (e.g., individual, business entity). SCIMS is a secure information system and has controlled 

access for authorized employees. 

SCIMS is in the process of being replaced by a new system, Business Partners 

(BP). Business Partners is being maintained by FSA, who makes these data available to NRCS. Currently, entry and editing of client information is restricted to authorized FSA employees. 

Question 16. Have we finally fixed the communication and overlapping issues on 

cover crops? 

Answer. NRCS has worked with Risk Management Agency (RMA), Farm Service 

Agency (FSA), and a wide number of stakeholder groups to address cover cropping 

issues. There is good progress being made in communicating and addressing issues 

as appropriate for different regions of the country. 

Question Submitted by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in Congress 

from New Mexico 

Question. Mr. Weller, in your testimony you mentioned the importance of conservation programs and their impact on endangered species listings. I often hear 

concerns from landowners and industry about how the listing of a species could impact their livelihood and their businesses. I also hear concerns from environmental 

and conservation groups on how species population numbers and critical habitat 

continue to shrink. It’s clear to me that both of these groups have the same goal 

in mind, which is to protect species and prevent listings. I have seen stakeholders 

from many different backgrounds come together and work toward this goal. In 2011, 

the oil and gas industry was very concerned that the listing of the dunes sagebrush 

lizard would eliminate drilling across the Permian Basin, which produces 20 percent 

of all oil in the lower 48 U.S. states. As you can imagine, this would have had significant consequences all over the country. Thankfully, the listing was avoided because landowners in New Mexico and Texas proactively took steps to remove threats 

to the lizard on 600,000 acres, which covered 88% of the lizards’ habitat. I am very 

interested in seeing these efforts and outcomes replicated all over the country and 

I believe NRCS in a position to encourage real innovation in this area. However, 

I finding it concerning when stakeholders tell me that they do not have the resources or information they need to participate in conservation programs. 

Can you please describe what kind of outreach NRCS is doing to educate and engage landowners on these conservation programs? Can you describe what efforts 

NRCS is making to create a collaborate environment that will encourage stakeholders, from backgrounds, to work together on conservation projects? 

Answer. In recent years, NRCS has dedicated significant funding and innovative 

policy development to help landowners impacted, or potentially impacted, by an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. Single-species focused efforts such as the SageGrouse Initiative and the Lesser Prairie-chicken Initiative include a variety of landowner outreach activities and coordination with Federal agencies as well as state 

wildlife agencies to achieve their intended goals. The results of the Sage-Grouse Initiative helped inform the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) recent decision 

to not list the bi-state Greater Sage-grouse population as threatened or endangered, 

a significant victory for the birds and private landowners in Nevada and California. 

In addition, NRCS has worked closely with the USFWS to provide landowners 

who are doing the right thing for candidate and potentially listed species with regulatory predictability. Landowners who engage with NRCS and undertake actions favorable to a select group of species can receive from the USFWS a letter that allows 

the landowner to keep farming or ranching consistent with current practices, for up 

to 30 years, even if the species is eventually listed. This innovative approach has 

been extended to all seven of the species included in NRCS’s Working Lands for 

Wildlife initiative. 

NRCS has engaged in significant efforts to provide outreach to landowners, 

through national, state, and local media outlets. NRCS also coordinates closely with 

state wildlife agencies and local partners on many of these efforts, including both 

the Sage-Grouse and the Lesser Prairie-chicken Initiatives. When providing technical assistance, NRCS creates landowner awareness about threatened and endangered species issues as well as makes suggestions on improving threatened and endangered species habitat. Conservation plans oftentimes include an alternative that 

addresses a limiting habitat factor. Both financial assistance and easement proVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:11 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-17\95134.TXT BRIAN
66 

grams provide financial support to landowners interested in addressing threatened 

and endangered species issues. 

NRCS has taken additional steps through the Working Lands for Wildlife initiative to promote landowner awareness about threatened and endangered species 

issues and how landowners can become involved in preventing the need to list or 

supporting a de-listing or down-listing of species under the Endangered Species Act 

through implementation of specific conservation practices and associated conservation measures. NRCS has generated, in coordination with the USFWS, many public 

outreach materials and fact sheets in association with Working Lands for Wildlife. 

Additionally, the NRCS public affairs division maintains Working Lands for Wildlife 

as a priority for news releases and public events. 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in Congress from 

Washington 

Question 1. Recently, NRCS announced that Washington State has been allocated 

$750,000 for the ACEP–ALE (Agricultural Conservation Easement Program—Agricultural Land Easements) 2015 grant cycle. As you know, the national budget for 

the NRCS ACEP program is $322 million. 

While I understand that programs were consolidated and funding has been cut 

in recent years, Washington is receiving a very small amount of funding given the 

total program budget. At the same time, land trusts alone have measured demand 

for the program at $10,083,925 for 27 projects and 22,837 acres. 

A number of conservation folks in my district have been unable to determine how 

ACEP funds are distributed across the United States and why certain geographical 

areas receive huge investments and others receive relatively little. In 2014, only 

three farmland preservation projects moved forward in Washington state with 

NRCS matching dollars, a critical component for preserving farmland. 

Can you clear up how the funding allocation for ALE is determined for states— 

what is it based on and when? Is it a continuous nationwide competition or are 

there distinct state allocations based on a formula? 

Answer. There are distinct state allocations. ACEP allocations are based on an 

analysis of data from the Agency’s State Resource Assessment process, as well as 

program application data, NRCS landscape initiatives and priority resource concerns, demand, distribution, historic allocation and obligation data, and workload. 

For FY 2015, the State NRCS offices submitted their State Resources Assessments 

in December 2014 and allocations were provided to states in February 2015. 

Question 2. ALE funding in Washington in 2014 was roughly $1.6 million. Why 

did ALE suffer a 53% reduction in WA from 2014 to 2015, far greater than the 7% 

across the board reductions? 

Answer. In FY 2014, Washington obligated a total of $1,071,000 for ACEP–ALE. 

In FY 2015, Washington has been allocated $840,000 for ACEP–ALE, which is 78% 

of FY 2014 (a 22% reduction from FY 2014). When determining a state’s ACEP allocation, both components of ACEP (WRE and ALE) are taken into account as it is 

now a consolidated program. Washington’s total ACEP allocation for FY 2015 is 92% 

of what was obligated in FY 2014, which is above the national average. 

Question 3. Other farm bill programs like EQIP have been underutilized by WA 

in the past. How much has/does this impact the funding allocation for ALE? How, 

in your opinion, can we raise the funding level to match the demand? 

Answer. State use of EQIP funds is not a factor in the ACEP allocations. The FY 

2015 allocation to Washington will address 76 percent of the demand for ACEP 

based on the information regarding demand and capacity that was provided by the 

Washington NRCS State Office in their State Resource Assessment. Total funding 

under ACEP is approximately 47 percent of what was previously available under 

the former easement programs that are now combined under ACEP. As a result, 

NRCS is not in a position to have the funding levels match the demand for the program, but at this time, Washington is receiving allocations above the national averages. 

Question 4. Is the new RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership Program) impacting allocations to ALE–ACEP? If so, should land trusts be pursuing RCPP as 

an avenue to rebuild some of the Federal support for easements in Washington? 

Answer. Interested, eligible entities should certainly consider RCPP as an avenue 

they should be pursuing for funding ACEP easements. As required by statute, 

ACEP contributes 7 percent of its available funding to RCPP. However, RCPP also 

receives $100 million each fiscal year beyond funds contributed by the covered programs, and any of these RCPP funds can be requested by a potential partner to fund 

ACEP projects. 

67 

Response from Val Dolcini, J.D., Administrator, Farm Service Agency, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

Pennsylvania 

Question 1. Now that the deadline to file an AD–1026 has passed, do you know 

how many producers have been affected by conservation compliance? 

Question 1a. Could you provide any additional details on (1) how many producers 

could have been potentially impacted by the new requirements, and (2) how many 

of those producers failed to file their AD–1026 forms by the June 1 deadline? 

Answer 1–1a. Since the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), 

approximately 245,000 AD–1026s have been filed at FSA by producers to certify conservation compliance. Late in calendar year 2014, the Risk Management Agency 

(RMA) reported approximately 44,000 persons and entities earned a crop insurance 

premium in 2014 and did not have an AD–1026 on file. As of June 22, 2015, RMA 

reported that 9,352 producers that earned a crop insurance premium subsidy in 

2014 still did not have an AD–1026 on file. This number includes producers that 

timely filed the AD–1026, but there was inadequate information to make a determination. These producers have until their first applicable sales closing date for reinsurance year 2016 to provide this information and still be eligible for the premium 

subsidy. In July 2015, USDA announced that over 98.2 percent of producers have 

met the 2014 Farm Bill requirement to certify conservation compliance to qualify 

for crop insurance premium support. Of the small number of producers who have 

not certified their conservation compliance, USDA records suggest the majority are 

no longer farming or may have filed forms with discrepancies that can still be reconciled. FSA and RMA are proactively reaching out to all of these producers before 

their sales closing date and working with individuals facing extenuating circumstances who have not filed the form in order to assist them with certifying compliance. 

Question 2. FSA has had to implement several farm bill programs over the past 

year and a half, and because of this, offices have experienced a backlog. 

How bad is the backlog for processing AD–1026s? 

Answer. There is no backlog of completed applications waiting to be entered. 

There are only a few hundred forms that were timely filed but have inadequate information (e.g., missing Tax Identification Number) to make a determination. FSA 

and RMA are working with producers to fill in the missing information. 

Question 2a. Obviously this has been concentrated in specialty crop growing areas. 

What is the backlog in some of these areas, such as California, Texas, Florida, compared with the rest of the country? 

Answer. California, Texas and Florida report all AD–1026s have been filed timely 

and entered. FSA County Offices will continue to working on the AD–1026s with 

inadequate information (as all states will) up until the first applicable sales closing 

dates for reinsurance year 2016. 

Question 2b. How will producers caught in this backlog be treated, especially if 

they produce crops will an early crop insurance sales-closing date? 

Answer. There is no backlog of completed AD–1026s waiting to be entered. For 

the AD–1026s that are missing information or that require a correction, the date 

the form was originally delivered to the FSA office will be entered into the system 

as the certification date and is the date transferred to RMA for their use. As long 

as the certification date is on or before June 1, these producers are treated the same 

as any other producer. 

Question 3. With the June 1 deadline for producers to file their AD–1026 form 

passed, how will those producers who did not file an AD–1026 be notified that they 

no longer have premium support for Federal crop insurance? Will one of your agencies be sending them a letter, postcard, e-mail, phone call? Surely you’re not going 

to wait until they receive a bill from their crop insurance agent. 

Answer. In May 2015, USDA made over 25,000 phone calls to remind remaining 

producers of the new requirements. In July 2015, RMA sent letters to producers 

that did not have the AD–1026 on file to make them aware of the possibility that 

they may lose premium subsidy. In addition, for most crop insurance policies, producers will have forty five days after the sales closing date to cancel their policies 

if they do not have an AD–1026 on file. Prior to upcoming sales closing dates, RMA 

is calling every producer that our records show do not have an AD–1026 on file to 

ensure they take appropriate action to make corrections to the AD–1026 to come 

into compliance or take action to cancel their policy to avoid paying full premium. 

Question 4. What is FSA doing to address new producers that do not have an AD– 

1026 on file when they start farming? 

68 

Answer. RMA grants an exemption for filing the AD–1026 by June 1 if a producer 

is new to farming after the June 1 filing date. If producers certify they meet the 

parameters that qualify them for this exemption it is granted by RMA. 

Question 4a. What about for producers who bring new land into production that 

is not covered by their AD–1026? 

Answer. As with past provisions of conservation compliance, all new land brought 

into production by a producer that does not have a highly erodible land determination must file a new AD–1026. Also if any activities are planned that may impact 

wetlands (land leveling, filling, dredging, land clearing, or excavation) to enable 

bringing this new land into production, that have not been evaluated by NRCS, the 

producer would also be required to file a new AD–1026. 

Question 4b. Will outreach efforts be made in subsequent years to have new farmers or farmers without an AD–1026 to file an AD–1026 in time for the next reinsurance year? 

Answer. Yes. Outreach efforts will continue each year with information about the 

June 1 filing deadline for the applicable reinsurance year. 

Question 5. We’ve talked a lot about crops being impacted by conservation compliance, but I want to shift the focus to livestock and pasture. How many livestock and 

pasture insurance policies were impacted by conservation compliance and AD–1026 

form requirements? 

Answer. RMA reports approximately 64,000 producers had policies in which they 

earned a premium subsidy in 2014 for livestock and pasture. Of these, less than one 

percent are reported as not having an AD–1026 on file for reinsurance year 2016. 

This number includes those timely filed with inadequate information and those that 

will not obtain insurance in 2016 for a variety of reasons (e.g., obsolete entity, retirements, decided not to participate, converted to row crops, etc.) 

Question 5a. What efforts were made to reach out to individual producers and to 

industry groups to be sure that these producers were aware of the new requirements prior to the June 1 deadline? 

Answer. The average producer without an AD–1026 on file received 2015 policies 

with the requirement in their contract, received three coordinated mailings from 

USDA (two RMA letters, one FSA postcard), was on at least four lists given to 

agents/AIPs who conducted outreach, received at least one call from FSA/RMA, received county specific mailings/newsletters from FSA and NRCS, and likely saw 

news articles and agent/AIP newsletters with information about the need to file an 

AD–1026. The end result of these outreach efforts was that over 98 percent of crop 

insurance participants had an AD–1026 on file. 

FSA and RMA participated in a U.S. Cattlemen Association’s conference call to 

inform them about the conservation compliance requirements for the crop insurance 

premium subsidy benefit. With widespread drought over significant areas in the 

past few years, over 600,000 cattlemen signed up for the Livestock Forage Program 

from FSA since February 2014 and would have already completed an AD–1026. 

USDA held several meetings with stakeholder groups, including hosting recurring 

meetings with the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance representatives. We developed 

Factsheets, Question and Answer documents, process flow sheets for producers to 

understand how the process works, and brochures for RMA customers that were 

available through RMA, FSA and NRCS websites. NRCS created a website for producers that were new to conservation compliance to walk them through the process. 

Additionally, USDA hosted a webinar for specialty crop producers nationally that 

could be downloaded and redistributed. In Florida and California, USDA staffs participated with stakeholders in webinars stakeholders hosted for producers who were 

new to conservation compliance. Our state and field offices attended many meetings 

and events across the country where they distributed information about conservation compliance. Our RMA, FSA and NRCS staffs were on hand locally and nationally to address questions as they were raised. 

Question 6. ‘‘Affiliated producers’’ are also required to file AD–1026’s to certify 

conservation compliance. How is FSA defining affiliated producers? 

Answer. The definition of affiliated persons is unchanged by the 2014 Farm Bill. 

Affiliated persons for conservation compliance purposes for individuals are: 

a. spouses and minor children. 

b. estates, trusts, partnerships, and joint ventures in which the individual or the 

individual’s spouse or minor children have an interest. 

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

69 

Affiliated persons of general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability 

companies, joint ventures, estates, irrevocable or revocable trusts, and Indian Tribal 

ventures or groups are: 

d. first level members of the entity. 

Affiliated persons of corporations with stockholders are: 

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

Any person or entity requesting benefits that are subject to conservation compliance must file AD–1026. Any affiliated person or entity, not requesting benefits, but 

has a separate farming interest (owner, operator, tenant or share cropper on any 

farm or undeveloped land), based on the above affiliation, must also file AD–1026 

and be in compliance with conservation compliance provisions in order for the one 

receiving the benefit to also be considered in compliance. 

Question 6a. What sort of outreach was made to these groups? 

Answer. Outreach efforts to all specialty crop groups included the information 

about who affiliated persons are and the parameters that requires them to adhere 

to conservation compliance provisions due to an affiliation to a person or entity receiving benefits that are subject to conservation compliance. The person submitting 

the name of an affiliated person has an interest in informing the affiliate of the 

need to file the AD–1026. 

We understand that the affiliated person provisions are complicated. Therefore we 

included information about affiliated persons in our factsheets, question and answer 

documents and during our webinars. We had many teleconferences and meetings 

with stakeholder groups where affiliated person provisions were discussed to ensure 

the provisions were understood. 

Question 6b. Can FSA guarantee that its definition of affiliated producers is being 

applied consistently from one county office to the next? 

Answer. This is not a new definition or process. This definition and procedures 

have not changed with the 2014 Farm Bill and have remained the same since 1985. 

Virtually all FSA programs have required, and continue to require, the same conservation compliance certification including the affiliated persons’ provisions. FSA 

conducted a refresher National Training on affiliated persons in September 2014. 

Affiliated persons filing requirements are published in FSA Handbook 6–CP and in 

number 7 of the appendix of form AD–1026. All FSA employees are given the same 

consistent information on affiliated persons and that any incorrect interpretations 

of affiliate persons that are discovered are remedied. 

Question 7. The conservation compliance provisions of the farm bill also required 

that any ‘‘affiliated person’’ of a producer requesting benefits subject to Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) also file an AD– 

1026. Has your agency, along with NRCS and RMA, identified persons that this 

might affect, and if so, how were those individuals identified and notified of the new 

conservation compliance requirements? 

Answer. All producers that identified ‘‘affiliates’’ in block 4 of AD–1026 are entered into the system by FSA as ‘‘Awaiting Affiliate Certification’’. Producers are reminded that they are not ‘‘Certified’’ for AD–1026 until those producers they identified as affiliates are also ‘‘Certified’’. It is the producer’s responsibility to communicate to their affiliates that they need to complete their certification in order for 

their certification to be complete and eligible to receive USDA benefits in the form 

of premium subsidies. 

In addition to the responsibility of the producer to inform affiliates, RMA and FSA 

are working together to flag any remaining certifications that are awaiting affiliates 

and reminding producers of the requirement. Specifically, RMA has provided FSA 

the first applicable sales closing date these producers had in 2014 that are entered 

into the system as ‘‘awaiting affiliate certification’’. FSA reaches out to the identified 

producers in advance of the sales closing date. FSA stresses the importance to these 

identified producers that they must communicate to their affiliates to come into the 

local FSA County Office and certify to conservation compliance by their first applicable sales closing date in order to remain eligible for the 2016 reinsurance year crop 

insurance premium subsidy. 

Question 7a. In your estimation, how many of these producers are now out of compliance? 

Answer. As of June 22, 2015, approximately 250 producers nationwide are not 

considered as ‘‘Certified’’ to conservation compliance because they are ‘‘Awaiting Affiliate Certification’’. However, they have until the first applicable sales closing date 

for their affiliates to certify or to correct the original form if an affiliate was erroneously included. 

70 

Question 8. Crop insurance companies have told us that when they ask the local 

FSA office about whether or not their customers were on the non-compliant list, 

FSA has said that they cannot provide the information on whether farmers are eligible for subsidies due to privacy concerns. Unless the producer knows, which is unlikely, how are agents supposed to know if this customer will be eligible for premium support? 

Answer. Producers can ask their crop insurance agent to verify their compliance 

status. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) has worked with all of the Approved 

Insurance Providers (AIPs) to ensure that agents can promptly find out whether 

their producer has filed an AD–1026 before a policy is purchased. Producers can also 

visit or call their local Farm Service Agency (FSA) to find out their conservation 

compliance status. 

Question 9. How many producers have taken advantage of the one-time early-out 

option of the CRP program? Was it concentrated in any specific regions of the U.S.? 

Answer. As of September 9, 2015, about 1,439 contracts utilized the early out option. Based on our most recent data, the state breakdown is as follows: 

State Acres Contracts 

Alabama 20 1 

Colorado 1,790 8 

Florida 432 8 

Georgia 58 1 

Idaho 1,656 11 

Illinois 2,500 73 

Indiana 700 39 

Iowa 3,194 86 

Kansas 7,060 98 

Kentucky 424 10 

Michigan 3,108 87 

Minnesota 9,112 196 

Mississippi 265 5 

Missouri 2,209 43 

Montana 31,508 157 

Nebraska 6,990 132 

New Jersey 36 1 

New York 871 32 

North Carolina 166 5 

North Dakota 7,146 82 

Ohio 5,017 140 

Oklahoma 2,864 34 

Oregon 182 4 

Pennsylvania 332 17 

South Carolina 419 6 

South Dakota 1,671 30 

Tennessee 78 3 

Texas 6,999 43 

Virginia 199 6 

Washington 7,064 32 

Wisconsin 805 49 

Total 104,876.3 1,439 

Question 10. You have announced a General Sign-up to begin in December of this 

year as well as the availability of 800,000 acres for Continuous Sign-up. How do you 

make these announcements without a rule? 

Answer. Certain elements of CRP were not modified significantly in the 2014 

Farm Bill and did not require a regulation to implement. For example, Continuous 

sign-up resumed soon after passage of the farm bill when authority to operate CRP 

was restored after it had lapsed. Similarly, the decisions related to Continuous allocations and whether and when to have a General sign-up are administrative decisions and do not require regulations. However, the interim rule was published in 

the Federal Register for comment from July 16, 2015 through September 14, 2015 

and all provisions pertaining to the 2014 Farm Bill, such as the new grasslands 

component of CRP and tree thinning incentives are now being implemented. 

Question 11. FSA recently announced a new general signup to begin in December 

and 800,000 acres available for continuous sign-ups. When will you begin sign-up 

for grazing land acres? 

Answer. Sign-up for CRP grasslands is currently under way. The sign-up began 

September 1, 2015 and continues through November 20, 2015. 

71 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from 

Minnesota 

Question 1. The Committee has been asking for several months now to get statistics on how many landowners have taken the early out option and where they are 

located. In your testimony you indicated that only about 90,000 acres have been terminated. Can you tell us how many contracts that includes and in what states? 

Answer. About 1,100 CRPAs of September 9, 2015, about 1,439 contracts utilized 

the early out option. Based on our most recent data, the state breakdown is as follows: 

State Acres Contracts 

Alabama 20 1 

Colorado 1,790 8 

Florida 432 8 

Georgia 58 1 

Idaho 1,656 11 

Illinois 2,500 73 

Indiana 700 39 

Iowa 3,194 86 

Kansas 7,060 98 

Kentucky 424 10 

Michigan 3,108 87 

Minnesota 9,112 196 

Mississippi 265 5 

Missouri 2,209 43 

Montana 31,508 157 

Nebraska 6,990 132 

New Jersey 36 1 

New York 871 32 

North Carolina 166 5 

North Dakota 7,146 82 

Ohio 5,017 140 

Oklahoma 2,864 34 

Oregon 182 4 

Pennsylvania 332 17 

South Carolina 419 6 

South Dakota 1,671 30 

Tennessee 78 3 

Texas 6,999 43 

Virginia 199 6 

Washington 7,064 32 

Wisconsin 805 49 

Total 104,876.3 1,439 

Question 2. How much longer will folks in the field have to wait before they can 

utilize the grassland contract portion of CRP? Will the rule be issued in proposed 

form and mean further delays? 

Answer. Sign-up for CRP grasslands is currently under way. The sign-up began 

September 1, 2015 and continues through November 20, 2015. 

Question 3. The Committee included provisions in the farm bill to allow CRP acreage in its final contract year to be prepared for enrollment in other programs. Is 

this something you are able to be doing already? Or is this held up waiting for the 

final rule? 

Answer. This provision has been included in the interim rule and is currently ongoing using the new names of the associated eligible NRCS programs. 

Question 4. Are your computer systems and more importantly, the producer information databases, accessible by each agency in the field? 

Answer. NRCS does have access to FSA’s Customer Information, Farm Record Information including Geospatial Information, Producer Eligibility Information and 

Acreage Reporting Information. RMA Employees have access to FSA’s Geospatial 

Information and Acreage Reporting Information. Agency initiatives are currently ongoing to share more customer information between these Agencies. Rural Development (RD) has access to FSA’s Customer Information. 

Question 5. Have we finally fixed the communication and overlapping issues on 

cover crops? 

Answer. The Interagency Work Group on Cover Crops, consisting of representatives from NRCS, RMA, and FSA, have continued to work towards refining the 

Cover Crop Termination Guidelines and finalized revision three last fall. These 

guidelines were developed to provide consistent eligibility requirements for a crop 

72 

planted following a cover crop. The planted crop, providing the cover crop is managed following the guidelines, will now be considered eligible for all program benefits across agencies, providing other eligibility criteria is met. These programs include crop insurance, ARC/PLC, and NAP. 

The guidelines have been presented by all three agencies using one or more of 

the following; webinar, teleconference, notices, national training, and web publications. A consistent set of questions and answers have been made available including 

input from all three agencies. 

The National Working Group on Cover Crops and Soil Health have continued to 

meet with representatives from all three agencies, as recently as this June, to communicate the current cover crop needs and to present action items for each agency 

to address. FSA has addressed their items and maintains a high level of cooperation 

with this group. 

Æ