U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29-638 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–592 

CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY: 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE PAST AND 

FUTURE DIRECTION FOR THE 2018 

FARM BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JAMES A. GLUECK, JR., MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction 

for the 2018 Farm Bill ......................................................................................... 1 

Thursday, June 29, 2017 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 2 

Panel I 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 4 

Bramblett, Jimmy, Deputy Chief, Programs, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC .............................. 5 

Jones, Misty, Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, 

Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ...... 7 

Panel II 

Horning, Steven, Horning Farms, Watertown, SD ............................................... 35 

Dees, Paul D., Chairman, Delta Wildlife, Stoneville, MS .................................... 37 

Downey, Barb, Downey Ranch, Wamego, KS ........................................................ 38 

Sharp, Adam, Executive Vice President, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Columbus, OH ........................................................................................................... 39 

Saloom, Salem, M.D., Tree Farmer and Owner, Saloom Properties, Brewton, 

AL .......................................................................................................................... 41

Roady, Chuck, Vice President and General Manager, F.H. Stoltze Land & 

Lumber Company, Columbia Falls, MT ............................................................. 42 

Topik, Christopher, Ph.D., Director of North America Forest Restoration, 

North America Region, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA .................... 43 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 60 

Bramblett, Jimmy ............................................................................................. 61 

Dees, Paul D. .................................................................................................... 75 

Downey, Barb .................................................................................................... 81 

Horning, Steven ................................................................................................ 86 

Jones, Misty ...................................................................................................... 91 

Roady, Chuck .................................................................................................... 95 

Saloom, Salem ................................................................................................... 103 

Sharp, Adam ..................................................................................................... 111 

Tidwell, Tom ..................................................................................................... 116 

Topik, Christopher ............................................................................................ 118 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 
Page

IV 

Roberts, Hon. Pat—Continued 

National Association of Wheat Growers, prepared statement for the 

Record ............................................................................................................ 134 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Midwest Crop Collaboratve, prepared statement for the Record ................. 139 

The Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition, prepared statement 

for the Record ................................................................................................ 141 

Ernst, Hon. Joni: 

Kelley Family Farms, prepared statement for the Record ........................... 144 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Bramblett, Jimmy: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 148 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 150 

Written response to questions from Hon. Steve Daines ................................ 160 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 161 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 166 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 169 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 173 

Written response to questions from Hon. Chris Van Hollen ........................ 177 

Dees, Paul D.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 183 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 186 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 187 

Downey, Barb: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 189 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 190 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 190 

Horning, Steven: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 193,195 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 193,196 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 193,196 

Jones, Misty: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 197 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 199 

Written response to questions from Hon. Joni Ernst .................................... 204 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 204 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 208 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 208 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 209 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 210 

Written response to questions from Hon. Chris Van Hollen ........................ 211 

Roady, Chuck: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 213 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 215 

Saloom, Salem: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 218 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 219 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 220 

Sharp, Adam: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 225 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 226 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 226 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 229 

Tidwell, Tom: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 231 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 233 

Written response to questions from Hon. Steve Daines ................................ 234 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 235 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 237 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 238 

Topik, Christopher: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 241 
(1) 

CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY: 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE PAST AND 

FUTURE DIRECTION FOR THE 2018 

FARM BILL 

Thursday, June 29, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in room 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of 

the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Roberts, Cochran, Boozman, Hoeven, Ernst, Grassley, 

Thune, Daines, Perdue, Strange, Stabenow, Leahy, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Casey, and Van 

Hollen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Thank you for your rapt attention. The room was abuzz. People 

were happy and smiling, talking, and then I came in, and everybody just got quiet. I do not understand that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Today, our Committee turns its attention to 

two important titles in the Farm Bill—conservation and forestry. 

Across the country and throughout my State of Kansas, I have 

heard repeatedly from farmers and ranchers about the importance 

of these programs, how they successfully incentivize farmers to 

take conservation to the next level and the need for continued Federal investment in these critical programs. 

Farmers and ranchers, through voluntary conservation programs—not through regulatory action—are making a difference 

and contributing to environmental benefits to address resource concerns, like reducing nutrient runoff, improving soil health, reducing 

erosion, and improving water quality, all while meeting the demand of growing the safest and most abundant food supply in the 

world. 

Reflecting on the 2014 Farm Bill, that law made a number of 

changes to both the conservation and forestry titles. 

Within the conservation title, 23 separate programs were consolidated, and streamlined into 13, with the sole purpose of improving 
2 

program efficiencies and program delivery. The conservation title 

also contributed to deficit reduction through voluntary cuts to conservation programs totaling $6 billion over 10 years. 

The forestry title eliminated unused and unfunded authorities, 

and it provided some helpful tools for land managers on private, 

State, and Federal land part of the National Forest System. 

We have before us today two panels of witnesses who will be able 

to provide input and advice on the current status of programs, 

what is working well, and what challenges remain. 

We have invited the Department of Agriculture to hear firsthand 

from folks who administer and deliver the conservation and forestry programs our Committee authorizes in the Farm Bill. 

We also have a panel of stakeholders comprised almost entirely 

of producers and landowners who utilize and participate in these 

conservation and forestry programs. 

More importantly, I hope we hear input from our witnesses about 

the future direction of these programs and how improvements can 

be made. 

This hearing is timely, especially having just visited Big Sky 

Country with Senator Daines. I had the opportunity to visit and 

learn about several issues facing the forestry sector, landowners, 

regulatory challenges related to Federal land management and endangered species. 

Now, while Kansas may not be the most forested State, I understand the challenges facing the forestry sector, which are not vastly 

different from the challenges facing agriculture. 

As our Committee works to craft the next Farm Bill, we will find 

ourselves in a very tough budgetary environment. I know many 

within the conservation community will be looking to increase 

funding for programs that experienced cuts in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

However, Congress will have difficult decisions to make as we try 

to figure out how to address the needs, but I simply would urge everyone, at the very least, to work to protect conservation and to 

consider working within the confines of the existing programs. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses, and with that, I recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Stabenow, for 

any remarks that she might like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and as on each of our hearings, it is a pleasure to work with you 

as we move forward to get the Farm Bill done. Thank you for holding this important hearing. 

As the world population continues to grow, American farmers 

and ranchers are growing more food with fewer resources, while 

also protecting our land and water. 

This is nothing new for those of us from Michigan, where protecting the Great Lakes is in our DNA. 

With 70 percent of U.S. land privately owned, our farmers and 

ranchers and foresters are the original conservationists and our 

first responders to sustain the health and diversity of our natural 

resources. 
3 

However, they should not have to bear this responsibility alone. 

The Farm Bill provides important conservation and forestry tools, 

as the Chairman indicated, that help farmers and foresters keep 

our water clean, improve the resiliency of our landscapes, and protect habitat for wildlife. 

In addition to these important environmental benefits, conservation and forestry also creates economic opportunities. I have always 

said that the Farm Bill is a jobs bill, and conservation and forestry 

is no exception. 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, we made historic investments in voluntary conservation methods that maintain healthy soils to boost 

productivity and increase a farmer’s bottom line. 

The Farm Bill also supports farmers who open up their farmland 

to be used as wildlife habitat for hunting and fishing and outdoor 

recreation, which we do a lot of in Michigan. These activities pour 

$100 billion into the U.S. economy and support over 700,000 jobs 

in small towns and rural communities. 

Matching public conservation dollars with private dollars was another success of the 2014 Farm Bill. The Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program is a new and innovative approach to voluntary conservation, which has leveraged more than $1.2 billion in 

private funding and brought together over 2,000 diverse partners 

to address local conservation goals. 

The impact of these projects can be seen in all 50 States. Nearly 

half of the partnership projects awarded are addressing water quality, something that is very important to the economy and very important to our way of life in Michigan, where people come from 

near and far to visit our beautiful Great Lakes. 

Our forestlands are equally important to our economy. From 

loggers and bio-manufacturers to hunters and hikers, the health of 

our forests impacts everyone. Many rural communities depend on 

forests as the foundation of their economy. 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, we made great strides to give the Forest 

Service new tools to manage our national forests. The Good Neighbor Authority has been one of the biggest accomplishments of the 

bill, allowing State foresters to manage forestlands more efficiently 

by preparing Federal timber sales and partnering on restoration 

projects. In addition, the last Farm Bill allowed expedited treatment of forests ravaged by insects and disease. 

To date, 38 governors have worked with USDA and the Forest 

Service—and we are very pleased that Chief Tidwell is here 

today—working with them to designate over 55 million acres for 

expedited restoration. 

As we look to the 2018 Farm Bill, we must continue to support 

smart forestry and smart conservation practices that are helping 

the environment and our economy. 

I am sure we will hear about the broken Forest Service budget, 

an issue that most people from both sides of the aisle agree we 

ought to fix. It is also important to continue to coordinate restoration efforts across ownership boundaries, because forest health 

challenges do not end at the federal property lines. 

Additionally, voluntary conservation must continue to be a priority in this Farm Bill. As we support farmers’ efforts to address 

emerging challenges across the country, from algae blooms in Lake 
4 

Erie to drought in the Dakotas, conservation tools are more important than ever. 

The 2014 Farm Bill also included a linchpin agreement to protect 

highly erodible soils and wetlands. According to USDA, more than 

99 percent of farmers are meeting these requirements, which benefits taxpayers, our environment, and our farmers. Maintaining this 

agreement will be critical. 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important ways the conservation and forestry titles protect our land and 

water and contribute to our economy and way of life, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

We issue a strong welcome to our first panel of witnesses before 

the Committee this morning. 

As you have already pointed out, first, we have Mr. Tom Tidwell, 

who currently serves as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, a position he has held since 2009, and 

throughout his 40-year career of public service, Mr. Tidwell has 

served in a variety of positions at all levels of the Forest Service, 

including as District Ranger, Forest Supervisor, and Legislative Affairs Specialist in the Washington, DC, office. 

Welcome, Chief, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Second, we have Mr. Jimmy Bramblett, who serves as the Deputy Chief of Programs with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. In this role, Mr. Bramblett is responsible for managing 

and delivering the agency’s financial assistance programs, easement programs, and conservation technical assistance. 

Welcome, and thank you, sir, for participating in today’s hearing. 

Next, we have Ms. Misty Jones. Ms. Jones joins us from the 

USDA’s Farm Service Agency, where she currently serves as Director of the Conservation and Environmental Programs Division. In 

this role, she oversees the FSA’s voluntary conservation programs, 

including the Conservation Reserve Program. 

Welcome, and thank you for joining today’s panel. 

We will move ahead with the testimony with you, sir, Mr. Tidwell, Chief. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you again for this opportunity to address the Committee regarding 

our implementation of Farm Bill provisions. 

Over the past five decades, the Forest Service has received authorization for numerous valuable programs through past Farm 

Bills. I especially want to talk about the 2014 Farm Bill. The forestry title in that bill has definitely helped us to improve the 

health of the nation’s forests, reduce the wildfire threat to communities, and sustain rural America. 

The insect and disease provisions, as has already been mentioned, through the recommendations of the governor, I designated 

over 55 million acres that allow us to expedite projects to be able 

to address the increased risk of insect and disease infestations. So 

far, 94 projects spanning over 43 National Forests and 19 States 

have moved forward with these provisions. 
5 

The Good Neighbor Authority has increased our capacity to do 

more work through agreements with our State partners and Puerto 

Rico. It allows us to be able to access the States’ expertise to perform watershed restoration work, forest management services on 

Federal lands. To date, we have completed 95 agreements with 29 

States to accomplish a variety of restoration work. This authority 

not only increases our capacity, but allows us to be able to learn 

from our State partners, to be able to use their processes, their procedures, for us to be more efficient, for us to be able to manage our 

National Forests. 

Also, the permanent authority for stewardship contracting has 

helped us to be able to get more work done, to improve watershed 

health, and it has also reduced controversy and litigation. It is 

probably our best tool to provide certainty to communities and industry. 

In fiscal year 6, we had 225 stewardship contracts and agreements. We treated over 96,000 acres of hazardous fuels, 22,000 

acres that we improved wildlife habitat on, and we produced 718 

million board feet. 

Also, through our previous Farm Bills, the Forest Service has received authorities such as forest stewardship, which allows us to 

work with our State foresters to be able to help private landowners 

keep their forested land forested. 

For the Forest Service to build on your good work, I have to ask 

you that the public needs your support for us to be able to find a 

fix to the budget issue we have when it comes to funding for 

wildfires. 

Just one point I want to make, and that is since 1998, our fire 

programs made up 16 percent of the Forest Service’s budget. 

Today, it is 53 percent. This is just no longer sustainable if we are 

going to be able to carry out the work that we need to do to restore 

the resiliency, the health of our forest and grasslands. 

So I appreciate your efforts today to move forward with this 

work. We are committed to working with you on the Farm Bill, and 

I can tell you that the Forest Service—we welcome legislation that 

can expand the tools that we can use to restore the nation’s forests, 

to reduce the wildfire threat to communities, while we sustain 

rural America, while earning and maintaining the public’s trust. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell can be found on page 116 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Chief. An excellent statement, 

more especially with regards to the forest fire situation and the 

need for better forest management, and thank you for the work 

that you. 

Mr. Bramblett, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY BRAMBLETT, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS, NATIONAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. All right. Good morning. Chairman Roberts, 

Ranking Member Stabenow, distinguished Committee members, 

thank you all for the opportunity to be here and testify on behalf 
6 

of the men and women and our clients, your constituents, to deal 

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. We appreciate 

the ongoing support and leadership of this Committee for voluntary, incentive-based conservation on private lands. 

As Senator Stabenow mentioned in her statement, 70 percent of 

land ownership in this country is privately held, and those individuals make decisions every day that affect not only their property, 

but the property of their neighbors, their watershed, and in fact, 

the entire U.S. population. 

Voluntary, incentive-based conservation results in improved 

water quality, increased agricultural productivity, and improved 

wildlife habitat. Through the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program and the past couple of Farm Bills, we have invested $7.2 

billion to cover 94 million acres—that is the size of the State of 

Montana—to address natural resource issues, with over 267,000 

farmers. Through this locally led process, we can also address national, regional, and State priorities as well. 

We complement EQIP with the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), which we have recently revamped. It is now the nation’s largest conservation program with over 80 million acres, but 

the changes we recently made also better complement EQIP, offer 

increased productivity and flexibility to producers, and increase the 

scientific defensibility of the program. These changes have been 

well received, as we have seen an increase of 30 percent in the applications that have come to us this fiscal year. 

Through our easement programs, we continue to experience high 

demand. This past fiscal year, we only were able to fund about 15 

percent of the request to put lands in either working land easements or in wetland easements, and today, NRCS has 17,000 easements in our portfolio, covering 3.5 million acres and 50,000 miles 

of boundary. 

The RCPP program basically is another example of locally led, 

partner-driven conservation. By the end of this Farm Bill, we will 

have invested over $800 million, with over 2,000 partners in this 

program, and that has attracted over $1.2 billion of non-Federal investments in the conservation space. 

These partners are taking advantage of NRCS’s unique delivery 

system of 2,400 field offices across the country, our technical 

science-based approach to conservation planning, and that science 

approach that we use has proven successes, whether it has been in 

the Mississippi River Basin, the Chesapeake Bay, or the Western 

Lake Erie Basin, and whether or not it has been associated with 

water quality or with wildlife. We have been able to work with 

landowners to help get species from the brink of being listed on the 

Threatened and Endangered Species List for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which has saved thousands of landowners undue regulatory pressures and burden and helped them continue with the 

profitability of their operations. 

None of this would be possible, though, without the Conservation 

Technical Assistance Program. That Conservation Technical Assistance Program enables us to reach out, bring in the latest science 

and technology into our conservation planning process, and as a result, we are able also to work with our other sister agencies, 

whether it be the Forest Service or the Farm Service Agency, and 
7 

provide critical conservation planning support to help address resource issues and needs in the CRP program and in other State 

and private forestry needs across the country. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, again, thank you all for the opportunity to be here, for the 

authorities that you have offered to NRCS to help bring a wide 

range of technical, scientific, and financial resources to America’s 

producers. 

We are happy to answer any questions you may have and look 

forward to the discussion. 

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

61 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Bramblett. 

I think we have a record, I would say to my distinguished Ranking Member. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Both witnesses have finished at their time. 

That is rather remarkable. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I did not mean to put the pressure on you, 

Ms. Jones. 

Senator STABENOW. The pressure is on. Yeah. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Ms. Jones, please. 

STATEMENT OF MISTY JONES, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS DIVISION, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of 

the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony this 

morning on USDA’s Farm Service Agency’s conservation programs. 

The Conservation Reserve Program first appeared in the 1985 

Farm Bill and is one of USDA’s largest conservation programs. 

CRP improves water quality, reduces soil erosion, and restores 

wildlife habitat. In doing so, CRP spurs hunting, fishing, recreation, tourism, and other economic activities across rural America. 

Currently, 23.5 million acres are enrolled in CRP, including 16 

million acres under general sign-up enrollment, 7.3 million acres 

under continuous sign-up enrollment, and 90,000 acres under 

grasslands sign-up enrollment, with another 800,000 acres coming 

online in fiscal year 2018. This is 13.4 million acres below the peak 

enrollment in 2007 and just short of the 24-million-acre cap established in the 2014 Farm Bill. CRP contracts on 2.5 million acres— 

combined, general, and continuous—are set to expire on September 

30th, 2017. 

FSA is constantly on the lookout for ways to help new and beginning farmers gain entry into farming. The Transition Incentives 

Program provides 2 additional years of payments for retired producers who transition expiring CRP acres to socially disadvantaged, veterans, or beginning producers. 

Under the 2014 Farm Bill, almost 1,000 eligible new producers 

have been helped. FSA has also heard from beginning farmers that 

it can be difficult to compete for farmland in certain areas, given 

the high level of CRP rental rates. Since the initiation of CRP in 

1985, CRP rental rates have been set to align as closely as possible 
8 

with cash market rents. Rates are updated periodically, and we are 

planning for new rates to be effective on October 1, 2017. 

CRP has many flexible elements to allow adjustment to critical 

conditions, such as emergency haying and grazing, and we look forward to continuing our flexible approach. 

In April, USDA authorized emergency grazing on CRP lands in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, the three States, which were most 

heavily affected by wildfires that started in March. Just last week, 

Secretary Perdue authorized emergency grazing on CRP land in 

the drought-stricken counties in Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota. 

The Emergency Conservation Program also provides critical 

emergency funding and technical assistance, in this case, to help 

farmers and ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural 

disasters and to help livestock producers enhance water supplies 

during periods of severe drought. 

With the 2017 flooding in Missouri, Arkansas, and other States, 

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 rehabilitation farmland. 

Again, I want to thank you for allowing me to provide FSA’s perspective on the valuable conservation programs your Committee 

authorizes. I am happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones can be found on page 91 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Ms. Jones. 

I want to let the Committee know that we are awaiting one other 

member to come before we get into the business for a very short 

business meeting with regard to the nomination of J. Christopher 

Giancarlo. As soon as that takes place, we will take a brief detour, 

and we will be right back to you. 

But seeing that is not the case yet, I am going to start the questioning of Mr. Bramblett. Can you talk a little about the participation level of livestock and dairy operations in the Conservation 

Stewardship Program? Have there been any barriers or disincentives that prevent livestock operations from entering this program? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you, Chairman. 

The answer that we would give in short is no. The Conservation 

Stewardship Program offers a lot of opportunities to livestock producers, whether it is managing their water sources, managing the 

grazing sources, even helping them with calving cycles, stockpiling 

cool-season grasses, dealing with nutrient management, integrated 

pest management, and weed management. So the opportunities for 

livestock producers, whether they are cattle producers or dairy producers, have full access to the Conservation Stewardship Program. 

Some may have a misperception that when you are dealing with 

a dairy operation and heavy engineering infrastructure like a 

waste storage structure or a waste transfer system, you get into 

some very expensive conservation practices to the tune of hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. 

The Conservation Stewardship Program, with its limitation of 

$18 per acre, actually manifests itself as a good complement to 
9 

EQIP in that regard as well, allowing those producers as well as 

other cash grain operators to do many more land management activities. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Bramblett, earlier this month, the Department’s Office of Inspector General released a report on NRCS’s 

handling of funding provisions in the new Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program. The report suggests that the agency may 

have been in violation of the 2014 Farm Bill and the Antideficiency 

Act. 

While RCPP is a new model—I understand that—for conservation programs, the original intent behind the program is to provide 

flexibility for the NRCS to leverage Federal conservation dollars 

while also encouraging new partnerships to deliver conservation on 

a watershed scale. 

Some concerns in that report that were raised include making 

available multiple-year funding in a single year and complications 

associated with the obligations and commitments of funds. Now, 

while it appears the agency agrees with most of the findings and 

is taking corrective action—we thank you for that—what additional 

legislative safeguards should we consider incorporating into the 

RCPP to provide clarity to the NRCS with regard to the future administration and delivery of program funds? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, Senator Roberts, the agency basically 

identified and recognized the intent of this Committee with respect 

to the flexibility of the RCPP program. The Office of Inspector General, in their evaluation of the program, basically identified the 

term ‘‘commitment’’ by the April 1st deadline to return donated 

program funds, whether it be EQIP, CSP, or easement funds, back 

to their respective program if those funds were not committed by 

April 1st. 

Given the timing of the Farm Bill and the need to implement 

that in working with OGC, we felt like we could combine the fiscal 

year—FY14 and fiscal year funds and have a $398 million offer out 

there. 

As a result, we had over 600 applications requesting $2.8 billion. 

From that perspective, the threshold of commitment, we feel like 

was made and therefore not a need to return those funds to their 

donor programs. 

We are currently in consultation with OGC to make sure that 

our interpretation was correct and hope to have a definitive answer 

by end of next month or the beginning of August. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank you for that. 

It appears I think we have—all right. My marching orders are 

to finish the questions. 

Ms. Jones, for the Conservation Reserve Program, I have been 

hearing several ideas from various groups about the future direction of CRP. It is a pretty hot item right now in farm country. One 

area of interest for CRP is rental rates. Can you discuss the current policy on how the FSA develops rental rates? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Currently, we base our rental rates on NASS Cash Rental Rate 

Survey, which is conducted at least every other year under the 

2014 Farm Bill. Rates were most recently updated in 2015. The 
10 

survey was conducted annually from 2008 to 2014, as required by 

the 2008 Farm Bill. 

The 2014 Farm Bill, however, provided the option of conducting 

the survey every other year. NASS conducted the survey in 2014 

and ’16, and FSA is currently using 2016 survey data to examine 

soil rental rates and plans to adjust them to be effective for October 1, 2017. 

Once a contract is approved, the rental rate is held constant for 

the length of the contract. FSA State offices will be allowed to provide justifications for alternative rates to the NASS survey results. 

Our rates are set to follow the market rather than set the market. 

We are currently reviewing rates within our county office system, 

and we will work through a rigorous process in order to establish 

them as closely as possible to the cash rent rates that are in the 

local areas. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

Now seeing a quorum is now present, I will recess this hearing 

for a brief few moments. 

[Whereupon, at 9:33 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other 

business and reconvened at 9:43 a.m.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I now reconvene the Committee’s hearing reviewing the USDA’s conservation and forestry programs, and I 

thank the witnesses for their indulgence. 

Let us return to where we left off with Panel I, and I think Senator Stabenow is next. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would 

echo your words that it is a pleasure to serve with you on this 

Committee and that we are actually getting things done and working together which is so very important for the people we represent. 

In first asking a question about the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I have two letters—one from Midwest Row Crop Collaborative, who are working 

to improve water quality in the Mississippi River Basin, and one 

from the Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition, which is 

focused on western water issues. They have asked that I submit 

this for the record. 

Both letters reject the President’s budget proposal to eliminate 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and highlight the 

importance of this program, so I would ask that they be submitted 

for the record. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

[The letters can be found on page 139 and 141 in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Again, welcome to all three of you. We appreciate your work. This is a very, very important part of the Farm 

Bill and frankly part of our policies for the country. 

Let me first ask Deputy Chief Bramblett and Director Jones 

about the RCPP. It is one of several working lands programs, as 

we know, and I wonder if you could talk more about the current 

demand for working lands programs at USDA. Are any of the programs oversubscribed, and what are the top resource issues addressed by these programs? 

Mr. Bramblett? 
11 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. 

The answer to your question is yes. These programs are greatly 

oversubscribed. 

Just for example, with the Conservation Stewardship Program, I 

mentioned earlier in my opening statement that we saw a 30 percent increase in applications this year. What that means is we will 

have almost 19,000 applications for the Conservation Stewardship 

Program, and we anticipate we are only going to be able to fulfill 

but about 6,500 of those. 

For the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in your home 

State, there were 1,745 applications last year, which we were only 

able to fill 946 of them, so a 2-to-1 backlog there. 

We are not done with this year, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications coming in, but the range of backlog 

is from 2 to 1 in your State, as much as 6 to 1, 5 to 1 in other 

States, because of local issues, pressures, commodity prices and the 

like. 

With the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, we had $200 million this year to offer out. The demand and the proposals 

that came in that we are evaluating right now are in the range of 

$640 million, so another 3-to-1 backlog associated with that. 

The easement programs, as I mentioned earlier, also we are only 

able to fund those at about 15 percent of the request, so somewhere 

in the neighborhood of a 6.5-to-1 backlog associated with those. 

Senator STABENOW. Those are huge numbers, the differences in 

that. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Those are huge numbers, exactly. 

Senator STABENOW. Yeah. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. It speaks to the value that everybody sees not 

only in conservation, but the farm profitability associated with conservation that we alluded to earlier as well. 

It is a win-win situation for everybody across the board, because 

not only does it help them sustain their operations and make them 

more profitable for today, but for future generations, and also helps 

their neighbors, their watersheds, and helps feed the world, as we 

talked about a little bit earlier. 

Senator STABENOW. If I could just underscore that. When we talk 

about risk management in the last Farm Bill, we strengthened risk 

management tools, crop insurance being one, but conservation is 

also a risk management tool for farmers and ranchers today. Isn’t 

that right? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That is exactly right. While we are not a farm 

management agency, we do like to think of the fact that these conservation programs offer a financial blueprint for farm management plans, and so as we talked about the increase in productivity 

and profitability, one quick example that I will give you is soil 

health. Every 1 percent increase in organic matter and soil health 

holds 27,500 gallons of water. That is a reduction in cost of irrigation. That is a resiliency in drought. That is an increase in productivity. Every 1 percent increase in organic matter leads to about a 

12 percent increase in productivity across the board, so yes. 

Senator STABENOW. Very important. 

Ms. Jones, would you respond to those questions as well? 

Ms. JONES. Yes. Thank you for the question. 
12 

Under CRP’s grasslands program, landowners and operators can 

protect grasslands, including rangeland and pastureland and certain other lands while maintaining the areas as grazing lands. This 

program emphasizes support for grazing operations, plant and animal biodiversity, and grassland and lands containing shrubs and 

forbs under the greatest threat of conversion. Participation receives 

annual payments and cost-share assistance, and our contracts are 

between 14 and 15 years. 

There are currently about 900,000 acres enrolled in CRP grasslands, with a statutory cap of 2 million acres. Through three ranking periods, there are additional producers who would like to enroll 

their land in the program, but the 2-million-acre cap is currently 

sufficient to meet demand, and we are awaiting the next ranking 

period, which has not been announced yet, because the producers 

compete for the land based on their environmental scores. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. We truly appreciate it. 

I would like to start by sharing a story from one of my constituents. It is a story from Mike Kelley, who is a fifth-generation farmer from Monona County, Iowa, and he wrote me in January to tell 

me about how some of the very productive farm ground that he 

cash rents was outbid by conservation programs. In one instance, 

he was outbid by over $100 per acre by the government. 

The same thing happened to one of his sons in 2016 who lost 88 

acres of land to a pollinator program, where he had recently installed a center pivot irrigation system. To quote from his letter, 

‘‘Never in my 30-plus years of farming did I feel the government 

was going to be a threat to me and my young son’s farm operation.’’ 

Mr. Chair, I would like to submit his letter for the record. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

[The letter can be found on page 144 in the appendix.] 

Senator ERNST. I have heard similar stories from across Iowa 

about CRP outbidding cash rents on productive farm ground, and 

it greatly concerns me and many others in the State of Iowa. 

We have a lot of producers who are participating in important 

voluntary conservation efforts targeted at marginal lands to protect 

soil health and water quality, but it appears the current structure 

of some of these programs has misaligned incentives. 

For Ms. Jones and Mr. Bramblett, please, in your opinion, is 

idling whole farms through CRP the best use of taxpayer dollars 

in a tight budget climate, or would we be better served focusing 

those dollars on marginal lands that could have the biggest bang 

for our taxpayers’ bucks through the working lands programs? 

Ms. Jones, if you would start please. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you for the question. 

We offer a range of opportunities to our producers. Through our 

general sign-up, we allow it to be a competitive process where they 

come in, and they are scored on their environmental benefits. 

We generally see larger tracts of land, more whole fields in that 

regard, but we also have our continuous practices, which are smaller. They are highly incentivized in order to make the opportunity 
13 

there for the farmer to invest and put those conservation practices 

in place. 

We support both sides of conservation in order to make it work 

for the farmers. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you for your answer. 

Mr. Bramblett? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

From the NRCS perspective, we really aggressively pursue all 

kinds of conservation activities we can do on working lands, so 

EQIP, CSP basically do working lands. We even have an easement 

component called Agricultural Land Easement Program, which allows those operations to stay in a working land status. 

With respect to the CRP, we basically work within the authorities that are offered by the Committee and stand ready to help 

with our CTA program, offer conservation planning process support 

to the Farm Service Agency, however those authorities are delivered. 

Senator ERNST. Well, I appreciate that. 

The concern with the CRP program is that we are seeing more 

and more acres of highly productive land that is farmable and not 

a threat to really any erosion. 

The original intent of the CRP program was to protect those 

marginal lands, and we see more and more producers, especially 

those that are maybe older, wanting to retire, taking those acres 

out of production. That is a threat to some of our younger farmers 

or those that are wanting to engage in farming activities. I do 

think there are ways to fix the program, and we need to focus on 

those marginal lands rather than highly productive acres. 

Ms. Jones, the average age of a farmer in the U.S. today is 58. 

That is an average farmer today. I have heard from many young 

and beginning farmers who are trying to access farmland but are 

being outcompeted by CRP. Are you hearing this from other young 

producers, and if so, where? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you for the question. 

We have several opportunities. One is our Transition Incentives 

payment program, where we allow our retiring landowners that 

have CRP contracts to transition to a new beginning farmer and 

rancher and in return for 2 years of annual rental payments. That 

allows the new and beginning farmer to have access to that land 

for production or other sustainable agricultural uses. 

Senator ERNST. So are you hearing from other States, or is Iowa 

the only State that is seeing this issue with CRP? 

Ms. JONES. I think that we often hear about new and beginning 

farmers and the opportunities that they want. 

Specifics, we have a coordinator at Farm Service Agency that 

specifically works with new and beginning farmers and ranchers 

throughout all of our programs, and I would be happy to look into 

that and get more information to you. 

Senator ERNST. I would appreciate that very much. I do think we 

have an issue out there. 

Thank you very much to our witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Heitkamp. 
14 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As much 

as I would like to get into a lot of the details of conservation, I have 

a couple North Dakota-specific points to make. 

Mr. Tidwell, as you know, North Dakota and the Forest Service 

and the Justice Department have been in a protracted ongoing dispute regarding section lines in the grasslands in North Dakota. 

As Attorney General, I wrote the opinion on that, basically said 

those section lines exist because these were reacquired lands. 

After I wrote that opinion, the United States Government asked 

the State government to engage in a discussion about how we were 

going to resolve the dispute. I since left State government, but I 

will tell you I was shocked to find out that one of the arguments— 

in fact, now the winning argument that the government pursued 

is that because the State was willing to actually engage in discussions and negotiations, that forbearance was used against the State 

of North Dakota to basically stop North Dakota from pursuing its 

claim. 

If that is the position of the Department of Justice, that when 

we actually engage in a friendly discussion, we lose our rights, I 

would suggest to every State government, they sue you immediately. That is not a good use of resources. 

So Senator Hoeven and I are sending you a letter, sending USDA 

and Justice Department a letter, asking you to reconsider, to take 

a look at where we are in this litigation, but I wanted you to understand how greatly disappointed I am with the line of argument 

from the Department of Justice regarding the State’s position on 

not pursuing this earlier in litigation. It was not pursued earlier 

in litigation because of the request of the United States Government, and so I just had to get that off my chest. 

So, with that said, I hope you can look favorably on our request, 

and I am sure Senator Hoeven will follow up on some of this. 

My question goes to Ms. Jones. As you know, North Dakota and 

many of our regional States—Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota—are experiencing severe drought with almost 47 percent of 

the State categorized in extreme drought and severe. 25 percent is 

extreme. 

We have been begging you guys for a decision to allow haying, 

because people have to make decisions right now about what they 

are going to do with their herd. We believe that those decisions can 

be made without hurting any fundamentals of the CRP program. 

Can you give me some assurance that you are going to make this 

decision before the August 1st deadline? Can we get you guys to 

move quicker on a decision on haying? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes. The Department of Agriculture will soon make an announcement. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But on haying, even if haying is not otherwise allowed? 

Ms. JONES. So what we are looking at right now are all the 

weathers, making sure that everything is tracking. 

The Secretary received a request from the States, letters, and as 

you said, we have already authorized emergency grazing on CRP 

during the primary nesting season in North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Montana, for being in the D2 or higher drought categories. 
15 

Knowing what is ahead, the Secretary has heeded congressional 

recommendations and is authorizing emergency grazing of all CRP 

for all counties in which any part of their border lies within 150 

miles of any portion of a county approved for emergency grazing of 

CRP. 

We have also decided to use our discretion, as we have done in 

the past, and allow CRP contract holders within 150 miles of a D2 

or D3 county who has mid-contract management by haying their 

acreage to donate their hay to livestock producers in need of forage. 

CRP contract holders who mid-contract management by haying 

will still—the producers will still have the ability to destroy hay if 

they wish, or they can sell the hay with a 25 percent deduction, 

as they have been fully authorized to do in the past. 

The Secretary is committed to continuing to monitor conditions 

and will consider expanding emergency authority if conditions 

worsen, such as authorizing emergency grazing in drought counties 

to all CRP practices, including for all grass covers, and authorizing 

emergency haying in drought countries during the primary nesting 

season. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I do not know how things can get worse for 

our ranchers out there. If they are making it, they are making it 

day to day right now, and they do not know how they are going 

to carry this over into the winter. 

I would urge you to do everything. Go to the limit in what you 

can do in providing relief to these ranchers and access to CRP. 

Thanks so much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. The Senator From Alabama, Senator 

Strange. 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess this question should be directed to Mr. Bramblett and 

Chief Tidwell. It has to do with the longleaf pine. That is a very 

important subject in Alabama. One of our witnesses later on the 

next panel will discuss that. 

I would like for you to talk, if you will, about the coordination 

on this—your coordination on this program, how you are assisting 

the landowners in Alabama in the longleaf restoration area. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. All right. Thank you, Senator Strange. 

We are actually excited to be working with landowners in the 

Southeast on the longleaf pine. It actually is a perfect blend of 

some of the things we have talked about a little bit earlier in the 

regard that it helps those landowners in the profitability of the 

land they manage, but also, it helps them address issues related 

to gopher tortoise, the red-cockaded woodpecker, bobwhite quail. So 

the mitigation against some of those particularly at-risk species is 

critical so those landowners do not deal with regulatory pressures, 

number one. 

But the bobwhite quail aspect of longleaf pine has actually been 

extremely intriguing as well because it has introduced a new economy in the Southeast, particularly southeast Alabama, southwest 

Georgia, of over a billion dollars of individuals coming from all over 

the world to be in that part the country to do hunting activities. 

So we are extremely excited about the interest that we have received. We have put in $65 million with landowners across that 

project area so far, and because of the continued increase in de-
16 

mand, this past year alone, we have put $5.6 million into that. We 

can never satisfy the request. 

So, again, our Conservation Technical Assistance Program, not 

everybody actually takes advantage of the financial assistance. 

They take advantage of that technical science-based planning process that we have, and many of them are still doing those activities, 

even without the financial resources. 

Senator STRANGE. That is great. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, what I would just like to add is the work 

that we are doing with the private landowners on longleaf, I think 

is the perfect example of the benefits of forestry by working together to, first of all, develop the research and the techniques to 

be able to reforest and replant longleaf in a way that it is highly 

successful, but it provides all the benefits. Not only does it provide 

excellent wood, but it provides all the key habitats, and it is just 

an excellent species to deal with, not only deal with fire, but also 

with wind, which we get a lot in your country, depending on how 

the storms come in. It just shows the benefits of forests. 

We are also working very closely to be able to find additional 

markets for the wood and also for the pine straw. So that as private landowners make this more long-term investment into a 

longer rotation species, there are opportunities to generate additional economic return during that time versus what they would 

get off some of the more short-duration rotation species that many 

of these folks have had to turn to in the past. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, I appreciate that response. I think it is 

a success story, as we will hear from our panelists on the second 

panel, and I thank you for your efforts there. 

One quick question—and maybe this is directed to you, Mr. 

Bramblett, or maybe Ms. Jones—our State and I know my neighboring States in the Southeast have been hit very hard by the wild 

pig population, and I know you are trying to address this. I wonder 

if you could comment briefly on what you are trying to do to assist 

our farmers and forestry folks who are devastated post-damage, because these are a very destructive species. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Yeah. That is an extremely challenging issue in 

the Southeast and all across the South, in fact. 

One of the things that we are doing is working with the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, because certain authorities that they have go beyond the authorities that we have 

within NRCS. So we are working with landowners to try to help 

identify what routes, what kind of wildlife habitat these critters 

use, for lack of a better phrase, and when we are able to get there 

and work in conjunction with APHIS and do trapping activities and 

get them removed from those properties, then we can go back in 

and work with those landowners and restore that property for however it needs to be, whether it is cropland, pastureland, or woodland. So that is kind of the support we are offering for landowners 

at this current time. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, that is great. We are hopeful that we can 

eradicate the problem, but there is an awful lot of damage that is 

done in a short period of time. So your assistance in that regard 

is great. 
17 

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the rest of my 

time. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, I hope you are well. It is good to see you. Thank 

you for your service, and thanks to the rest of the panel for being 

here. 

In Colorado, Forest Service lands surrounding communities like 

Dillon in Summit County, which I know you are familiar with— 

Forest Service lands surround communities like Dillon; however, 

the geography and land values limit opportunities to develop affordable housing and other community-based facilities. 

The Colorado Department of Transportation recently offered to 

work with the Forest Service near Dillon to construct affordable 

housing for seasonal employees on the Service’s land. This could 

save money, increase affordable housing stock, while creating new 

business opportunities. We are working on a measure that would 

provide the Forest Service flexibility to undertake projects like 

that. 

I wanted to ask you, Chief Tidwell, if you are familiar with this 

work and these issues and you are willing to work with us to ensure that the Forest Service can partner with communities to solve 

critical housing and facility needs in communities like Dillon but 

other communities all across the Rocky Mountain West. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. I am very personally familiar with 

that issue, having lived in some of those communities myself, and 

there is definitely a need to provide some affordable housing, especially in these areas that have very high housing costs. It is just 

a lot in Colorado but also in some of the other States. So we are 

interested and want to work with you to find a way to be able to 

look at the different options that we have to be able to provide 

housing. 

I know with ski resorts, they have come forward with proposals 

to construct housing that would, at their cost, to be able to provide 

for this. It is something we want to look into, but there is definitely 

a need for this, and not only with the ski areas, but just all the 

services in these communities and including our employees too. 

They struggle with the same issue. 

Senator BENNET. Right. I think we have the opportunity to be 

good neighbors. We just have to break down some of these barriers. 

So I appreciate very much your willingness to work on that. 

Then that brings me to my second question, my concerns. I do 

not think this is parochial to be concerned about America’s watershed, which is in our forests in Colorado. Anybody who is downstream of us, which is almost everybody, needs to care about the 

condition of those watersheds and the condition of those forests, 

and this is one of the things that the inability of—even though this 

Committee works well together, the inability to be able to really 

solve some big issues here is having a profound effect. I really want 

to raise the alarm on the condition of our national forests and on 

our inability to do the kind of restoration that is required to protect 

these watersheds and communities downstream from these forests. 

I wanted to ask you, Chief—and I know you know this issue extremely well, but just to be as candid as possible with the Com-
18 

mittee—what is the biggest impediment to accomplishing more restoration, and to what extent is that about a lack of resources, fire 

borrowing, whatever it is? What can we do to finally get to a place 

where we are making the investment that is required here? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, first of all, I just cannot thank the Committee enough for the 2014 Farm Bill authorities. The insects and 

disease designations, it allows us to be able to expedite projects to 

be able to address that risk. Then the Good Neighbor Authority 

that we are really excited about, now we have 95 agreements 

across the country, and we are just really getting started on that. 

Both of those help us to get more work done. It provides additional 

capacity, and there is no question that is one of the challenges that 

we have. 

The Good Neighbor Authority allows us to be able to work with 

our States, to be able to use the States’ personnel, their staff to be 

able to get more work done. But there is no question that this issue 

of how to pay for the cost of wildland fire has had a significant impact on our ability, going from 16 percent of our budget back in 

1998 to now over 53 percent, and I cannot stress enough, it is not 

about the budget. It is about what is not getting done. 

So during that time, our folks have done a great job to be able 

to continue to get a lot of work done, being very innovative, but the 

consequences of that has resulted in a 40 percent reduction in our 

employees that are outside of fire. Once again, it is not about our 

staff, but it is about the work that could be done. 

We right now have anywhere from 65-to over 80 million acres 

that our research and our inventory shows that we need to do some 

form of restoration on that to improve the overall health of our forests. We are making good progress every year, but there is some 

urgency to this. It is just essential that we find the way to be able 

to increase the pace and scale to get the work done to provide for 

the healthy watersheds, and what this does, it just sustains rural 

America. 

So there seems to be a lot of agreement on this, and we are doing 

what we can to increase our efficiencies. But this is one of the 

things that we are going to continue to be asking for your help. 

Senator BENNET. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for your leadership and the Ranking Member on this. 

Because of your work on the last Farm Bill, we were able to introduce important flexibilities like you are talking about; the Good 

Neighbor Authority, for example. But at a certain point—and I am 

for flexibility. I think it is important. At a certain point, we need 

people on the ground that can do this work, and I know in Colorado, for instance, there are a ton of veterans that are coming back 

who would like to do this work on behalf of the Forest Service and 

the country. It would be nice to be able to fund that, so we could 

get it done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Probably one platoon of marines would take 

care of it, do you think? 

Senator BENNET. It would be good. That is all we need. 

Chairman ROBERTS. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BENNET. A platoon of marines. 
19 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here. 

Our farmers, ranchers, foresters are the original and best conservationists, and these voluntary incentive-based conservation 

programs we authorize in the Farm Bill yield tremendous benefits 

to our environment. 

Mr. Bramblett, in Arkansas and several rice-producing States, 

USA Rice and Ducks Unlimited have partnered on a number of Regional Conservation Partnership programs, projects that have 

helped many rice producers in my State put voluntary conservation 

practices to work on their farms. Does USDA see this as a successful model for conservation, and are there flexibilities or tweaks we 

can add in the Farm Bill that can encourage more groups and private partners to utilize the RCPP? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

I want to echo Chief Tidwell’s comments about our appreciation 

for the flexibilities that were given to NRCS in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

Just the range of opportunities and activities that we are able to 

carry out across the landscape really begins to boggle the mind 

once you look at what is taking place and the various ways we 

manifest voluntary conservation in partnership with thousands of 

Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental organizations. 

The benefit to the individual landowner cannot be overstated. We 

talked a little bit about that earlier today. One example of that is 

our Conservation Innovation Grant program. Through that Conservation Innovation Grant program, we work with partners who 

take our existing footprint of conservation practices out there and 

begin to push the envelope and say, ‘‘What else can we do for the 

benefit of the farmer, for the benefit of the environment?’’ 

As a result, in Arkansas, just the last week or last month, we 

had five producers, rice producers, actually take advantage of some 

precision conservation practice activities that enabled them to be 

able to sell carbon credits to Microsoft. That is a pretty fascinating 

model there. 

We are really appreciative of all the authorities that we have, 

and we continue to work with all of our partners to push us and 

stretch us in a variety of ways. We have mechanisms in place, 

whether it be through State technical committees, where local people are telling us what they need, or whether it be through interim 

conservation practices that other people are telling us what we 

need. We have a variety of mechanisms in place to respond to the 

various needs that are coming to us and to help out there across 

the landscape. 

I would say one more thing real quick, and I cannot overstate 

this. I briefly mentioned this earlier, and that is the delivery system of NRCS and the Farm Service Agency through our service 

centers. 

If you think about Senator Daines in northwest Montana, we 

have field offices there. If you think about the Mississippi Delta of 

Arkansas, we have field offices there. The men and women of 

USDA know those people in northwestern Montana. They know 

your people in the eastern part of Arkansas. They know the culture. They know the agriculture. They know the agricultural econ-
20 

omy. So what we would continue to request is that you continue 

to give us the authorities that we have, and if you have any interest of other ideas of authorities that you would like for us to consider, we would be more than happy to give you feedback on those. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

This is really for all of the panel. Our nation’s private foresters 

are facing a critical issue. Projections show we could lose up to 34 

million acres of forests by 2060 due to land conversion to other 

uses, such as urban sprawl and development. We are seeing this 

in our forests in Arkansas; however, because of investments in 

Farm Bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Easements Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and others, we have been 

able to keep our forests as forests and even plant some healthy 

young forests. 

I am interested in your thoughts on how each of your agencies 

can support private landowners in retaining their forests into the 

future and how your agencies plan to work together, especially 

given the recent reorganization of USDA. Are there tools or flexibilities we can provide you in the Farm Bill that would help your 

agencies and your programs that support private forest retention? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, I will start, and for us, it is our forest stewardship authority that you have provided that allows us to 

work with the State foresters to provide the technical expertise so 

that our private forest owners have the ability to access that expertise on sustainable forestry. Not only does it provide for sustainable 

forestry, but it allows them to be able to look at making their land 

economically viable so that they can keep their land forested. That 

is an absolute key. 

In addition to that work, to be able to help them put their plans 

together for sustainable forests, we are also doing everything we 

can to be able to expand current markets and also develop new 

markets for wood and wood products, because it is absolutely essential that those folks have to make money off the land. Otherwise, there is too many other competing issues. 

The other key part about this is that America just needs to understand the benefits of forests. We need our agricultural lands. 

We need that agricultural production. But I will tell you, when it 

comes to the clean air, the clean water, the wildlife habitat, the 

recreational settings, the majority of that comes off of private land. 

Over 50 percent of our forests in this country are privately owned, 

and it is just essential that those folks, I believe, get the recognition for what they provide to America. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. If I might add quickly here—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very quickly because he is going to yell at me 

in a minute. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. —and that is the range of easement programs 

that we have represent an opportunity, and we have had a lot of 

success in the Northeast where there has been a lot of urban pressures to keep lands and forestry. 

I will just speak quickly about the complementary nature of our 

sister agencies, particularly in State and private forestry. Foresters 

are looking at the life of a forest many times with a long-term 

view. 
21 

NRCS and our contributions and complementary relationship 

with the Forest Service and State foresters is to be there at those 

critical moments during the life of a forest, whereas at the time of 

planting or if there is some kind of disaster to help get that forest 

health back in shape or to do that midterm thinning to help with 

forest productivity or to do wildlife habitat, to help realize all the 

benefits that Chief Tidwell just talked about. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell and Mr. Bramblett, Ms. Jones, we are grateful you 

are here. 

I am going to direct a question to Mr. Bramblett, but I want to 

say, Chief, as a Pennsylvanian, I feel compelled to mention I think 

the first Forest Service head was Gifford Pinchot, way back in the 

Teddy Roosevelt days. He later became known in our State as the 

elected governor, but we take, since those days, conservation programs very seriously, just like we take our forestry service seriously. 

I wanted to focus on conservation and, in particular, the challenges we have in the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Bramblett, you know 

this issue well, and one of my top priorities in the Farm Bill when 

we get to reauthorization is ensuring that not only we are focused 

on the Chesapeake Bay, but that Pennsylvania farmers have the 

resources they need to be able to meet the critically important goal 

of cleaning up the bay, the watershed itself. We know that just 

about half of our State is impacted. 

I have heard from many Pennsylvanians who are disappointed in 

how USDA has implemented the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, and I look forward to working with Ranking Member 

Stabenow as well as Senator Van Hollen and others on efforts to 

strengthen that program. 

No matter what improvements are made in the upcoming Farm 

Bill, we know that resources will continue to be limited. Given that 

reality, it is essential that our conservation dollars achieve maximum environmental benefits. 

So the first question is, in examining the effectiveness of the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service’s conservation programs, 

how does the agency measure success? For example, some of the 

questions we get is, Is it in terms of acres that are affected? Is it 

in terms of contracts signed, practices implemented, dollars spent? 

To what extent do environmental outcomes, such as pounds of 

phosphorus, nitrogen, or sediment, sediment reduced from a given 

project, factor into the agency’s assessment? So if you can give us 

an overview of that? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Okay. Thank you, Senator Casey, and I appreciate the question. 

Traditionally, the metrics that you identified were in the ball 

park, and that is, how many contracts, how many dollars, how 

many acres, and I have even given some of those statistics here 

today. 

The nice thing—this happened in probably the early 2000s, 

around 2001, 2002, 2003—is we embarked upon an effort that we 
22 

call Conservation Evaluation Assessments Project, CEAP. CEAP 

basically uses science-based modeling, not only to measure what 

the impacts that we are accomplishing across the landscape happen 

to be, but also to better inform us on how we are going to prioritize 

these limited resources and make sure the conservation practices 

are directed to where they have the biggest bang for the buck. 

But just a couple of examples of the outcome side of this equation 

for CEAP, in the Chesapeake Bay, basically, what we have seen is 

that the work we have done focused through some of the Chesapeake Bay funding that you alluded to—the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program and our ongoing Environmental Quality Incentives Program—has led to a 38 percent reduction in nitrogen as 

well as a 45 percent reduction in phosphorus. 

Some of the recent in-stream water quality modeling activities or 

monitoring activities have actually reaffirmed that, and all the 

aquatic habitat studies in the bay are also reaffirming that the bay 

is responding to some of the good efforts and work that is being 

done through voluntary conservation. 

I could also point to Senator Stabenow’s Western Lake Erie 

Basin and talk in details not only about phosphorus, but with the 

commitment we have made in that area for $77 million—we are 

about to be in the third year of that 3-year commitment—we can 

model with confidence that we are going to reduce phosphorus by 

840,000 pounds, of which 174,000 pounds will be the dissolved reactive phosphorus that is really causing a lot of the blooms that we 

see in Western Lake Erie Basin. 

As far as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, I 

talked several times about the technical science approach we do to 

conservation planning. Many people—and we also, I should say, 

use the term ‘‘conservation practice’’ when we apply practices on 

the ground as opposed to ‘‘best management practices,’’ and the 

reason for that is every 5 years, we take the latest research and 

science and incorporate it into our conservation practices to reinforce that science-based conservation planning approach and then 

assess it with the science approach to give you the outcomes that 

I just mentioned. 

As we were working with partners in the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program, the knowledge base of understanding how 

much science we actually have in this planning process has surprised a lot of our partners, and so we are working with them to 

kind of break that down into manageable chunks and relationships 

where they can be effective and truly help us leverage the Federal 

and non-Federal resources that the program was intended to do. 

Senator CASEY. Well, thank you for that answer, and I have got 

some follow-ups we will send you in writing. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Ms. Jones, I just want to follow up on the very severe drought 

situation in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. As you 

know, we sent a letter requesting that grazing, emergency grazing 

be allowed on CRP acres. That was granted. We appreciate that. 
23 

We are also looking for help through the Livestock Forage Program. Can you talk about that a little bit, when we might expect 

that, and what all it can provide? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Senator. 

The Livestock Forage Program, that is not under my conservation division within USDA, but I would be happy to get back with 

my colleagues at Farm Service Agency and follow up with you on 

that. 

Senator HOEVEN. All right. Well, I would sure appreciate that information but also any other help that you might be able to offer, 

suggest, recommend in regard to drought assistance. 

Ms. JONES. So we have a number of programs that help with 

drought. Our ECP program, that basically allows us to help with 

water issues for your livestock producers. We also have help 

throughout our ELAP program, and that helps with water hauling, 

so it gets water to the cattle. 

Senator HOEVEN. Can you make those available? I mean, are our 

producers in those drought areas eligible to apply for those, that 

assistance right now? 

Ms. JONES. I will have to check on that and get back to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Please do that so that we can help them 

in both those areas. 

Any other ideas that you might have? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Senator Hoeven, if I might? 

Senator HOEVEN. Please. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Again, this is complementary for USDA in the 

way that these agencies are organized. If there is an opportunity 

for Emergency Conservation Program resources to North Dakota, 

NRCS will use the Conservation Technical Assistance Program to 

help support the Farm Services Agency in that regard as well. 

If we have easements—if the drought gets severe enough, we 

have easements. That we have occasionally allowed grazing to take 

place on those easements as long as it does not infringe upon that 

taxpayer investment and the intended protections for that property. 

Then others that have need for irrigation water management, 

water supplies, we are able to help address those needs as well. 

Anyone who has already tried to apply some conservation practices, if those do not materialize because the vegetation cannot survive the drought, then we will go back and work with those landowners also to reestablish those practices. 

Senator HOEVEN. How do we activate that assistance through the 

NRCS? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. It begins with a request to our State conservationists. Our State conservationists direct all of the USDA NRCSrelated programs in any given State. 

Senator HOEVEN. So that would be a request we would make? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Correct. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. So we will do that. 

Any other suggestions? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. No, that—depending on what kind of interest 

and needs you have, if the drought gets severe enough, we have in 

the past had a broader national effort. As you mentioned, this is 

a multi-State drought at this point. So it originally, like all of our 
24 

requests, would begin at a local field office, but because these are 

State-wide, we would like for a request like this to begin with our 

State conservationists. 

If it continues and intensifies, then we would be happy to further 

engage on any other opportunities and resources we might be able 

to bring to bear. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. 

Chief Tidwell, any thoughts to suggestions you would have? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, we have the ability to work with the 

ranchers that graze on the grasslands there to use all the flexibilities that we have, to change the rotations, to be able to use parts 

of the grasslands that have been rested, and we work very closely 

with the ranchers so that they are part of that decision process, because they too have to be thinking about the next year too. We 

have flexibility that is available to work with them to make use of 

what forage is out there and help them get through this drought 

situation. 

The other thing I would mention also, as things are drying out, 

we are paying close attention with our fire resources to make sure 

that we can quickly respond to be able to help the volunteer firefighters out there to be able to respond to any fires. 

Senator HOEVEN. Are you actively engaged right now on both 

issues, on the drought and on the fire issue? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are. It is one of the things that we can be 

working with the permittees, and definitely, we are paying very 

close attention as the fire season is developing throughout the rest 

of the country. 

Senator HOEVEN. Is there action on the part of our delegation 

that would assist with that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I think your questions today, it is very helpful, and 

it is one of the things I will go back and follow up to make sure 

that we are doing everything we can, so thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Appreciate that. 

As we have discussed before, this section line issue is a very important one—— 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. —for our State, and you know my position on 

that. 

So thanks to all three of you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Daines. Senator Daines, before you 

begin your remarks, I want to thank you so much for the opportunity enabling me to come to Big Sky Country along with our new 

Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, where we not only enjoyed 

ourselves, but learned firsthand of the problems that you are facing 

there, in particular, the crucial need for forest management and, in 

particular, what has been mentioned before by all of the witnesses 

here, doing a much better job. 

I know dollars are important, but the thing that struck me the 

most was your meeting with the county commissioners, and I think 

about eight were present. Only one said he had the courage to seek 

a logging permit. I was rather stunned by the fact you are importing lumber from Wyoming, and we know the Canadian situation. 

He remarked, as the others did, ‘‘We have tried that, but always 

we are blocked legally from various organizations.’’ He is going to 
25 

try it again, and I give him an A for effort. I guess that is an E 

for effort, isn’t it? 

But, at any rate, I think everybody should know that within a 

very few days, you convened an Ag Summit, had about 750 to 800 

cowboys. Pretty hard to get them all in one room with those cowboy 

hats. 

But thank you for your hospitality. Thank you for bringing up 

some pretty severe subjects on hand, and we hope to work with 

them and with you on this Committee. I thank you for that. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the very kind remarks, and I am struck as I look at the pad, the notepads we have 

here on the dais. I am reminded. It says the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

Ranking Member Stabenow, I have got increased optimism as a 

new member of this Committee, with this bipartisan spirit, truly, 

that starts with leadership here between the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member, that we may have a chance to move forward 

with some very important reforms that are so needed across our 

country, particularly out West, as it relates to forest management. 

We will hear more about that from our panel coming up. 

But I think I do hold the distinction now on the Committee of 

having more national forest acreage than anybody else on this 

Committee. I think we have about 17 million acres in Montana. I 

think Colorado is about 14 million, so that would be the silver 

medal. It drops off pretty fast after that. 

So I will continue to be a voice on behalf of agriculture in Montana and on behalf of forestry, and thank you for the spirit of bipartisanship I see already in this Committee. It is much appreciated. 

I want to thank you for holding this important hearing, and I 

think thanks are also in order—Chief Tidwell, you mentioned this, 

the battle we are facing with severe drought in eastern Montana. 

It is a crisis. We have a crisis on the eastern part of our State right 

now with drought and the ability now to make these emergency 

provisions to allow our ranchers to get onto CRP just to keep the 

cows fed for a period of time. These are extraordinary measures, 

but they are extraordinary times. So thank you for your assistance 

in that regard. 

We also have a crisis in western Montana, in fact, across most 

of Montana with our national forests. I have always recognized 

that forest health is so critical to Montana’s well-being. It is for our 

loggers. It is for our schools and our teachers where the revenues 

that come off of our public lands for our millworkers, for 

recreationists, for our wildlife. We are going to hear from panelists 

next that will tell us, and we will see how the nexus between 

healthy management of forests and better habitat for wildlife, reduce the wildfire risk, protecting our watersheds, it all ties together. 

I know there are multiple issues facing the Forest Service that 

diminish their capacity to accomplish the work on the ground, such 

as budgeting for and suppressing wildfire, these overlapping and 

excessive regulatory standards, and perhaps the single biggest 

issue is the ongoing litigation of important forest restoration 

projects. 
26 

Chief Tidwell, it is so good to see you again on this Committee. 

We spent a lot of time engaging on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but I am glad to have you here today. 

We have talked about the impact of litigation many, many times. 

I share the story of northwest Montana. In fact, it was the home 

county of our former governor, Marc Racicot. He was a Libby 

Logger. Libby Loggers—Lincoln County is surrounded by beautiful 

national forests and beautiful timber. We get a little more rain up 

in that part of the State, so the trees grow faster, and yet there 

is not a single mill left in Lincoln County. We used to have 30 active mills in Montana when I was a kid growing up. We are down 

to eight, and if you lose that infrastructure, which we are teetering 

right now—I had the Chairman out listening to our county commissioners, listening to our wildlife advocates, listening to our mill 

owners. They are all running single shift right now. They would be 

adding another shift or two if we could get more logs, as we are 

sitting there having these meetings surrounded by millions of acres 

of timber, 5 million of it that is diseased that we need to move in 

right now and cut down dead trees. 

We have these wonderful collaborative efforts, where we get folks 

from all sides across the spectrum, move forward on these collaborative projects, and then folks who are not at the table with the 

collaboration, some of these fringe environmental groups then litigate. We are stopped. 

Could you elaborate, perhaps, Chief Tidwell, with the background right now? That we have got five projects, as we speak 

today, enjoined by this disastrous Cottonwood decision, and many 

others in Montana are impacted by this litigation. Most of these 

projects were developed, again, through the collaborative process. 

Could you briefly tell this Committee? We are kind of building 

Litigation 101 here, because we have got to bring this whole Committee up to speed on things we have talked about for years. How 

is litigation from these fringe groups slowing down forest management? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, thank you for basically making the case 

for all the great work that needs to be done and is ongoing, and 

I cannot give our employees, the State employees, and everyone 

who is working together to be able to move forward and get work 

done—but there is no question that litigation, especially this Cottonwood case, has a significant impact on our ability to do the 

work. That is really what the land needs, and there is tremendous 

agreement on it. 

The collaborative groups throughout your State work so hard to 

come together and reach agreement on the type of work that needs 

to be done, and then we do have a much higher occurrence of litigation, I am sorry to say, in your State than a lot of other places. 

So how it impacts us is that—especially when we get enjoined, 

of course, that just stops the project. But even if we are not enjoined, the same people that are out there putting the projects together, working with the communities and the collaboratives, they 

have to then stop doing that work, and they will put the case report together and then work with the attorneys to be able to get 

the attorneys ready to be able to defend the case in court. 
27 

We win over 70, 75 percent of our cases, but the delay that occurs is what is really the impact. So it is the delay plus the impact 

on people’s time, so it just slows everything down. 

Then we get a case like Cottonwood that has the potential to be 

very far-reaching throughout the entire Ninth Circuit, which is a 

considerable part of our national forests out West. This is a case 

where you have one ruling in the Ninth, a different ruling in the 

Tenth. We have tried to take it to the Supreme Court. They did not 

accept it, and it is one of the places where we appreciate your work 

to be able to introduce legislation, to be able to just fix the process. 

This is not about the impact to a species. This is about meeting 

the requirements of a process, and I cannot stress that enough. 

But I will tell you, it is tremendously frustrating for our employees, our communities, that when they work so hard to reach agreement—and we are talking about the conservation communities, environmental groups working with the county commissioners, with 

local folks. They reach agreement on the work that needs to be 

done, and then you have someone from outside that comes and litigates it. It is just tremendously frustrating. 

I am sorry to go on for—— 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. No, thanks. It is a long conversation. I am out of time. 

These Libby Loggers, that is the namesake of this high school. 

When I was in high school, it was a AA school. Now they are down 

to Class B because they have lost their population. Unfortunately, 

we should rename the Libby Loggers, the ‘‘Libby Lawyers,’’ because 

that is the only folks crawling around the forests right now, the 

lawyers, because the logger has been put out of business. 

We are now getting logs from Canada and other States to try to 

keep our mills alive in Montana. 

Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for letting me go over some time here. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had 

two other hearings, so I appreciate it. 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, I worked on expanding the Good Neighbor 

Authority that gave the Forest Service additional flexibility to work 

with willing State and private landowners to implement forest 

management practices. Minnesota signed an agreement with the 

Forest Service last year. 

Chief Tidwell, what obstacles have prevented agreements from 

moving forward in a timely manner? We have such deviations in 

how some of our forests are managed, and I thought this Good 

Neighbor program in addition to having a good name would be a 

good way to do it. So can you address that, any obstacles, and can 

you talk about any internal or external reviews that the Forest 

Service has conducted to evaluate the authority since it was enacted in the 2014 Farm Bill? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, first, I want to stress that as we 

moved forward after you gave us that authority, we sat down with 

our State foresters and actually developed the process together and 

then moved forward, and because of that, we are having success. 

Yes, we do have a process in place that we are sharing the success that is occurring, but also, when different States run into 
28 

problems or unique situations, we have a team that is in place that 

takes that and looks at what can we be doing differently and to 

make sure that—not everybody has to learn how to do this the first 

time, but we can actually share success across the board. 

The one issue I would raise with—and I have heard this from our 

State foresters and our forest supervisors—is that these projects we 

put together, often there is a need for road reconstruction and road 

maintenance to be part of the project, and it is one of the things 

that I am hearing their concerns about, if there would be some opportunities to be able to address the ability to be able to include 

that work in these agreements. But that is probably one of the 

things that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Are there some changes you think we can 

make in this Farm Bill to the Good Neighbor Authority to make 

it easier for the States and the Forest Service to use? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I do think there are. We would be glad to provide 

everything that we have learned so far and provide a short list of 

how we have been able to move forward and use this. 

The other thing I want to stress is that the Good Neighbor Authority has tremendous potential for us to be able to really share 

stewardship with our State partners on everything from doing the 

forestry work, but also, there are agreements in place to do wildlife 

improvement work, fisheries improvement. We are sharing specialists and also even the potential to provide for the recreation opportunities that is so important off of it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mr. TIDWELL. So it has great opportunity, and we would be glad 

to provide additional thoughts on that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Also, Senator Daines and I have introduced 

a bill to improve coordination across Federal and private boundaries to tackle the difficult management of wildlife challenges 

that—wildfire challenges that many rural forest communities face. 

I think I will just put a question on the record about that for you 

as well as some of the other issues we are facing in northern Minnesota that you are aware of that I care about very much. 

I will move on here to Mr. Bramblett. Voluntary conservation 

programs like the EQIP program are especially popular with conservation-minded younger farmers, yet I have concerns—have 

heard concerns that young farmers are experiencing challenges in 

accessing Federal cost share programs due to a lack of information 

about available programs and a burdensome application process. 

What steps has USDA taken to make these programs more accessible? Are there other ideas, things we could do in the Farm Bill? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for the 

question. 

We have a couple of provisions already in place where we are 

able to access and address what we call historically underserved 

clients. Part of those are beginning farmers, and so one of those 

mechanisms has to do with payment rates. Generally, a payment 

rate is set in each State by a State technical committee’s advice to 

a State conservationist. Some States, it is 50 percent; other States, 

it is 75 percent. 

The provisions in the Farm Bill allow us to work with historically underserved producers, that being beginning farmers in this 
29 

particular case, to increase payment rates to as much as 90 percent 

to help them overcome some of the other capital investment barriers they may be facing to try to get into farming. 

We also have a variety of what we call outreach activities targeted to different historically underserved groups. We can get you 

information to show you what we are doing with respect to beginning farmers. I think it is quality information. It could be as much 

of a challenge as the oversubscription to the programs that we 

talked about earlier, where in many cases, we are looking at five 

or six times the demand. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Like with the CRP. I know Senator Ernst 

asked you about that. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Yeah. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Again, an issue in my State. 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Yes, yes. 

In Minnesota, I should point this out as well. Minnesota has a 

tremendous amount of State resources. So one of the things that 

we do in Minnesota is we work very closely with those State resources to make sure we are not duplicating efforts and try to extend as much of the Federal and non-Federal conservation investment as we possibly can. So there is always ways to improve business practices, and when we collaborate with your office on the activities we are doing, we will be happy to discuss the future options 

and opportunities as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you, 

and again, I will put some more questions on the record on CSP 

as well as CRP. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. I will pass. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There were—that Senator Klobuchar was between Judiciary and 

here, but appreciate being here. 

I was thinking of Vermont has the reputation for agriculture, but 

75 percent of our Vermont is forestland. It is the third most forested State in the country. A small land area remaining for farming, we have to use that very carefully, if they have adequate buffers and protections for water quality and wildlife by the Farm Bill’s 

Voluntary Conservation Forestry Program. But it is such an important role in Vermont. 

So, Chief Tidwell, our forest-based businesses, though, are still 

part of our—a better part of our rural economy. The demand for 

wood pulp and biomass energy has gone down. We need new markets for lower-grade wood in the Northeast. Actually, it could be 

said about wood all across the country. One way is to accelerate research and development using wood in construction not only in tall 

buildings, but also in transportation, bridges, noise barriers, retaining walls. 

So, Chief, I would ask you. The Forest Service has done some 

very substantial work around utilizing smaller diameter of wood 

and a lot of exciting work going on and across laminated timber. 

Do you see the Forest Service exploring ways to expand this and 

even into transportation areas? 
30 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, yes. In fact, at our Forest Products 

Lab, we are going—been doing ongoing research to be able to demonstrate the importance of using wood for things like bridges in addition to taller buildings. We just have to find every possible way 

to be able to expand and create new markets for wood, to be able 

to maintain the industry, maintain those jobs that is essential for 

us to be able to manage our national forests. 

So whether it is for transportation structures—but anywhere we 

can find new ways to use especially the smaller diameter material. 

There is plenty of demand for the saw timber. 

Senator LEAHY. I am glad to hear that. Do you have the resources necessary to explore the various possibilities you might be 

able to use? 

Mr. TIDWELL. So in the fiscal year budget, with our Wood Innovation Grants, where we provide funding to basically help people 

be innovative and do different approaches, we have provided over 

$8 million to those groups, and from that is what has come out, a 

lot of the innovation about how to use different wood and also even 

with biomass. So that what we had in fiscal year is an adequate 

level to be able to continue to do this work to explore new markets. 

Senator LEAHY. I want to ask Mr. Bramblett—incidentally, our 

wonderful Vermont State conservationist, Vicky Drew, speaks very 

highly of you. She worked in Wisconsin and said you understand 

the challenges of implementing conservation, so I will give you a 

shout-out from Ms. Drew. 

But across the country, the Agriculture Conservation Easement 

Program, ACEP, is very important to farms that are facing 

generational transfers. A second panel is going to talk about navigating generational transfers. We have a lot of young farmers who 

would not have been able to get a farmer site of their own had it 

not been for conservation easement and dedicated priorities of the 

Vermont Land Trust and all. 

I am deeply concerned the ACEP funding drops to $250 million. 

It is a dramatic cut, considering the 2008 Farm Bill had an average 

of $780 million in spending. So if NRCS could fund only 14 percent 

of agricultural land and 16 percent wetlands easements when they 

had the extra money, what are you going to be able to do when the 

funding drops to 250? 

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Well, Senator, we are aware of the pending resources that we will be faced with. We are estimating that what 

now is a success rate—I call that being able to fulfill applications 

at 14 percent for ALE and 16 percent for WRE—will likely drop to 

around 7 percent, and so we do not anticipate that the demand is 

going to drop off. But we do want to continue to work with a variety of partners to make sure that they are doing everything they 

can, particularly in the agricultural land easements program, 

where the 2014 Farm Bill gave some flexibility to those entities to 

go ahead and be certified for appraisals and certified for deeds, so 

that if they do get the resources, they can hasten the process of 

getting those critical lands into easements. 

I would also say real quickly, if I may, Senator, your State has 

an opportunity to help all of us in the natural resources community 

to do something unique. We talked earlier about the Conservation 

Evaluation Assessment Project, CEAP, and I know you have got a 
31 

lot of concerns about water quality around Lake Champlain and a 

lot of the dairies associated with that. 

Everybody has tapped into—we have tapped into the hearts, 

soul, minds, and emotions of tens of thousands of producers across 

the country related to soil health. Some of the activities we are 

doing in Vermont related to edge-of-field water quality monitoring 

and the CEAP activities for the modeling are going to inform us to 

take—step out and take the lead for agricultural nonpoint source 

pollution, not just for this country, but around the world. So we are 

really appreciative to your constituents, your landowners for working with us on some of those edge-of-field monitoring activities. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would hope you get a chance to come to Vermont. You would 

find these areas are nonpartisan. The Republican governor and I 

both would be happy to meet with you up there—in fact, all three 

of you—to see what we have been able to do with limited resources 

in a small State that cares about the environment. 

Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

The Chairman will return in a moment, but Senator Thune has 

joined us. If you have any questions for our first panel? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be very 

brief. 

Senator STABENOW. I like the sound of that, actually. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. Yeah. Okay. I am sure you do. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. But I want to thank you for holding this hearing 

today on the forestry and conservation titles. Both are critically important to my home State of South Dakota. 

First of all, I would like to thank USDA FSA for providing additional assistance to those suffering from a severe drought, impacting so much of South Dakota. 

According to today’s Drought Monitor, only 9 percent of South 

Dakota is not suffering from some level of drought, with more than 

56 percent suffering from severe drought. 

This drought shows just how important CRP is to States like 

South Dakota, not only because of the environmental and wildlife 

habitat benefits, but also as a source of emergency feed when 

drought occurs, as it does all too often in South Dakota. So I want 

to say thank you to the panelists from USDA and across the country, including South Dakota, who are here today. 

I would say to Ms. Jones, you are aware of that severe drought 

that we are experiencing in a large portion of South Dakota as well 

as North Dakota and Montana at this time, and I want to express 

my appreciation that certain counties have been opened up to 

emergency grazing of CRP acres. 

However, so much more needs to be done, and you started that 

process by announcing this morning—thank you—that USDA will 

be opening up additional counties for emergency CRP grazing and 

reversing the FSA requirement that certain CRP practices subject 

to mid-contract management be allowed to be harvested for hay, instead of cut, baled, and that the bales be destroyed, as FSA of 
32 

South Dakota informed producers by letter and the newsletters in 

the last couple of weeks. That to me is a crazy, crazy—I still cannot 

explain why we would want to destroy hay in the middle of a 

drought. 

So I would ask you to continue to work with me and my staff to 

provide as much assistance as possible to drought-stricken farmers 

and ranchers and would ask will you do as much as you possibly 

can to allow additional assistance from CRP, which I think can be 

done without hampering wildlife and environmental benefits. We 

have some precedent for doing that in the past, and there are certain CRP areas that certainly could be opened up not only to grazing, but to haying without in any way undermining or impairing 

the wildlife and environmental benefits that come with the CRP 

program. 

So, if you would like to, I would appreciate it if you could respond to that question. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

The Secretary is committed to continuing to monitor the conditions, and he said that he would expand emergency authority if 

conditions worsen, and that included the authorization of emergency grazing in drought counties to all practices, including grass 

covers and emergency haying in those counties during the primary 

nesting season. So we will just continue to work with you and understand better the conditions in your State. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

I would just say that we hope and we have seen in the past, even 

as early as July 15th, CRP acres be opened up to haying as well. 

There are going to be real serious feed shortages out there this 

year, and in the past, that has proven to be a very effective way 

of helping address and give some relief to those producers who are 

struggling with the drought and the lack of feed to feed their livestock. 

I think this panel is wrapping up, so I will conclude with that, 

and if I have other questions, I will submit them for the record. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. 

Chairman ROBERTS. [Presiding.] Well, thank you, Coop. 

That concludes our first panel. I want to thank you all for your 

testimony, more especially for your specific questions, to the answers by the Committee. We will be submitting questions to the 

record for you, and we hope to hear back as your time permits. 

We would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses before the Committee this morning, and we will take the appropriate 

time for that to happen. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Welcome to our second panel of witnesses 

before the Committee this morning. 

I now turn to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota to introduce our first witness. Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I again want to 

thank you and Ranking Member Stabenow. 

I am pleased today to be able to have a South Dakota witness, 

Mr. Steve Horning from Watertown. Not only is he a farmer, he is 

also a CPA. Makes him doubly dangerous. As his testimony shows 
33 

us, he knows the dollar-and-cents value of conservation on his 

farming operation. 

Steve graduated from Watertown High School in 1965 and received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration in 1970 

from the University of South Dakota. He became a Certified Public 

Accountant in 1970, working for a national accounting firm, then 

a regional accounting firm, and in 1975, he opened his own practice. In 1976, he was married to Kathy Stein in Watertown, South 

Dakota, and they have one son, Ted Horning, who was born in 

1980. In 2002, his wife passed away due to cancer. 

After receiving his Master’s Degree in Business Taxation from 

the University of Minnesota, Ted Horning joined Steve in 2005 and 

formed Horning & Horning, P.C., where they still both actively 

practice public accounting. 

Steve was a member of the Watertown School Board from 1979 

to 1986, and he started buying farmland in 1990 and currently operates Horning Farm, a small grain farming operation. 

So, Steve, welcome. It is great to have you here. We appreciate 

your taking the time away from your commitments at home to be 

with us. 

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to recognize our witness from the 

State of South Dakota. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cochran was to introduce our next witness, very proudly, 

but he has been called away on another commitment. So we have 

Mr. Paul Dees. 

Paul, thank you for being here. 

Paul and his wife live in Leland, Mississippi, and are in the family farming business raising rice, corn, and soybeans. In addition 

to growing agricultural crops, he is also a timberland owner. 

Paul joins us today as Chairman of the Board for Delta Wildlife. 

So, Paul, we thank you for participating in today’s hearing. 

I have the pleasure of introducing Ms. Barb Downey of Downey 

Ranch, who joins us from Wamego, Kansas, where she and her 

husband, Joe, are third-generation cattle ranchers. They are assisted in their day-to-day operations by the fourth generation, their 

daughters Anna and Laura. 

The Downey Ranch is located in the heart of the Flint Hills. Kansas is not all flat. We have the Flint Hills. It is beautiful country, 

I just want to let you know, when you are driving I–70 from Missouri to Colorado. At any rate, they are located in the heart of the 

Flint Hills, which is beautiful country, comprised mostly of 

tallgrass prairie, which makes it an ideal location for producing 

high-quality beef. 

Barb is also a member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 

Welcome, and thank you for traveling here to be part of today’s 

panel. 

I now turn to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator—I beg your pardon. This is Ohio. This is not Michigan. 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I now turn to the distinguished Senator 

from Ohio, Senator Brown. 
34 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the 

opportunity to introduce my longtime friend, Adam Sharp. 

I apologize for in and out. I have got to go back to the Banking 

Committee but want to be back for the question period. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Adam, executive vice president of 

the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. We have known each other for 

years, have long relied, as has Jon McCracken in my office and Joe 

Schultz before that, on his policy expertise. I make no apologies to 

my colleagues when I say that Adam is the best Farm Bureau executive in the United States. 

Adam’s passion for farming started as a young man working on 

his family farm, which he operates today with his brothers. His 

work in public policy is guided by firsthand experience. He spent 

his entire career farming and advocating for other farmers. Because of his leadership, Ohio farmers are taking a proactive role in 

improving the State’s water quality. He understands ag’s central 

role in Ohio’s economy. He understands the responsibility farmers 

have towards environmental stewardship. The Ohio Farm Bureau 

Federation’s Demonstration Farm is only the most recent example 

of his commitment to bringing people together to promote best 

practices for Ohio farmers. 

We were standing in the back room—Jon and Adam and Joe and 

Tommy and I just talking about—and the passion I can see about 

what he is working with, local Farm Bureau presidents and the 

State Farm Bureau Federation board, and really educating and 

working with and encouraging and listening to farmers. Especially 

with the problems we have had with the great Lakes, it is particularly important for our State. 

Adam, welcome. 

Thanks. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

I now turn to our distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator 

Strange, to introduce our next witness. Senator Strange. 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we 

are joined by my friend and a fellow sportsman, Dr. Salem Saloom, 

on our witness panel this morning. Dr. Saloom and his wife own 

and manage over 2,000 acres on a tree farm in Conecuh County, 

Alabama. 

Salem recently finished serving a 6-year term as commissioner 

on the Alabama Forestry Commission. Along with being a leader 

in the forestry industry, Dr. Saloom is a general surgeon, and he 

and his wife serve often around the world on medical missionaries 

in developing countries. 

To add to his already extensive resume, Dr. Saloom is an Eagle 

Scout, something that he and I both proudly share, and I want to 

thank my friend for traveling to Washington today for his efforts, 

not only in the industry, but in his community where he is a very 

prominent physician, and we look forward to your testimony and 

expertise on forestry and conservation. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We now turn to our next witness from Montana, my newfound friend, and I turn to my distinguished colleague, Senator Daines, to introduce our next witness. 
35 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are all competing here for who has got the best witness here today. I would 

humbly and proudly submit, I do. 

Chuck Roady is from Montana. He is vice president and general 

manager of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company from Columbia Falls, Montana. Stoltze has been helping to manage the woods 

and sustain the community in northwest Montana—listen to this— 

for almost 105 years and has done so against great odds. 

Chuck is also on the board of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition. They represent timber from 32 States. That is 390,000 people, 

$19 billion in payroll. 

But here is the most important thing about Chuck. He is past 

chairman and current board member of the Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation. It is one of the country’s fastest-growing hunting and 

conservation groups. For those of you who are not from Montana, 

I will humbly remind you elk hunting is not a sport. It is a religion, 

and I am also a convert. Chuck is a great sportsman. 

Thank you for leaving the beautiful beauties of western Montana 

and coming to the swamp to fight on behalf of forest management. 

Thanks, Chuck. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is my 

great pleasure to introduce Dr. Chris Topik, who is the director of 

The Nature Conservancy’s Restoring America’s Forests Program, 

which aims to restore forest health and improve the ecological 

management of America’s forests. 

Previously, Chris was professional staff for the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee for 15 years, where he 

served both Democratic and Republican chairmen. Earlier in his 

career, he worked for the Forest Service for 16 years. Chris has an 

undergraduate degree in Marine Biology from the University of 

California, San Diego, and a PhD in Forest Ecology from the University of Oregon. 

We welcome you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Horning, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE HORNING, HORNING FARMS, 

WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. HORNING. Good morning. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. HORNING. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and members of the Committee, my name is Steve Horning. I am 

a Certified Public Accountant in public practice and owner of Horning Farms in Watertown, South Dakota. 

Because of my love for pheasant hunting, I started to buy farmland in 1990. I now own 10,000 acres of farmland. I produce corn, 

soybeans, wheat, and rent out my pasture to local farmers. I follow 

the model of ‘‘farm the best and conserve the rest.’’ Before I would 

consider purchasing land, I would see what I could do to improve 

the land for conservation. If I could not improve it, I would not buy 

it. 

The primary program I have used is the Conservation Reserve 

Program. My CRP practice includes restoring grassland, imple-
36 

menting buffers, planting tree wind breaks, restoring wetland 

areas. More recently, I installed pollinator practices. 

I have also utilized WRP and WRE for long-term easements. I 

depend upon technical and financial assistance from USDA; NRCS; 

FSA; Game, Fish, and Parks; U.S. Fish and Wildlife; Pheasants 

Forever. All of these conservation practices provide for optimal 

habitat for wildlife. Pheasant hunting is a major economic driver 

for small rural communities, bringing in over $230 million annually 

to small mom-and-pop businesses in South Dakota. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks started a new landowner 

recognition award in 2010. I was extremely honored to be the first 

to receive the Habitat Partner of the Year Award. Along with this, 

I have been recognized by the South Dakota Chapters of Pheasants 

Forever as their conservationist for the year of 2009. 

My purpose to meet with you today is to inform you of the need 

to increase the CRP acreage cap. I have had good success in past 

general CRP sign-ups. I have had about a 75 percent approval on 

my applications. Then came sign-up 49 in 2016. I was zero for six. 

In fact, the whole State of South Dakota only had two contracts approved for a total of 101 acres. There were over 43,000 acres offered. This was one of the worst acceptance rates in the country. 

You can see the table included in my written testimony. I would 

ask that you would take a serious look at the CRP cap and how 

landowners can sign up. 

Another concern of mine is the mid-management of CRP contracts. Every 4 to 5 years, you must either have a prescribed burn 

or mow, bale, and destroy the grass. I suggest instead of you paying me cost share to waste the grass, you let me hay it and use 

it for livestock feed. I have utilized the haying and grazing option 

with my CRP. During 2012, because of emergency, I was allowed 

to hay some of my easement ground, and as relevant today, 2017 

also. 

My livestock neighbors call me annually requesting to hay my 

CRP. If you would allow me to mid-manage one-fifth to one-third 

of my CRP grasses each year, it would save the government twofold; first, by not paying me to waste the grass. Second, I would receive a reduction in my CRP payment for the value of the grass. 

We must be cautious about the impact to soil, erosion, and wildlife. Timing of haying and grazing is also critical, and we should 

keep nesting season in mind as to minimize the impact to wildlife. 

In my written testimony, I have discussed crop insurance. Please 

review the table showing my crop insurance premiums from 2014 

to 2016. 

In closing, please consider the recent demands from farmers, 

ranchers, and landowners for these programs. 

Thank you, and I look forward to any questions. 

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

86 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Mr. Horning. 

Mr. Dees. 
37 

STATEMENT OF PAUL D. DEES, CHAIRMAN, DELTA WILDLIFE, 

STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. DEES. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and members of the 

Committee, for holding this hearing to gather comments on the efficacy of past conservation programs and input for future ones. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of Delta Wildlife. 

As a landowner, farmer, conservationist, and sportsman, the 

things that are discussed in this room are not abstract to me. They 

impact me directly. 

I would like you all to know as well that Delta Wildlife represents the Delta Region of Mississippi, and that is where 80 percent of the State’s row crop agriculture takes place. 

I am also pleased to speak on behalf do Delta Council, Delta 

F.A.R.M., Delta Waterfowl, and the Rice Stewardship Partnership 

formed by the USA Rice Federation and Ducks Unlimited. Our collective message places emphasis on what we believe should be the 

two primary things the next conservation title focuses on, which is 

working lands conservation as well as active management. 

So now that that is out of the way, I can kind of get into the 

meat and potatoes of this thing. You heard Mr. Bramblett and Ms. 

Jones speak earlier extensively about EQIP and CSP. In our region, EQIP has incentivized many producers to begin using tools to 

reduce our environmental footprint and enhance wildlife habitat. 

Incentive is required, as change is not readily embraced where 

there is uncertainty of success on your farm and the cost associated 

with that change, even for those who do not meet the programmatic means test. 

In the Delta, it is common for farmers to rent much of their cropland, and that is a key point, because if you are renting your cropland, you find it difficult to invest significant amounts of capital 

into someone else’s land without a cost-sharing program like EQIP. 

It is our view that EQIP could be strengthened by several means. 

Number one, give the States more authority and flexibility to implement and administer Title II programs. Two, abandon the System for Award Management, or SAM. Three, increase funding for 

water supply and soil health initiatives; and four, increase funding 

and focus to incentivize wildlife management practices on cropland 

and other working lands. 

Mr. Bramblett spoke extensively about CSP and its successes, 

and he mentioned the backlog. I am part of that backlog. In my 

county and the ones surrounding it, there are 154 producers who 

are eligible but have unfunded applications. Beyond traditional 

working land conservation programs like EQIP and CSP, there are 

other valuable conservation programs that could benefit from a renewed focus on active management. 

In the last Farm Bill, this Committee—and I thank you--provided additional flexibility that has already been discussed for 

managing CRP contracts, but this same thing has not happened in 

WRP and WRE programs. There needs to be greater flexibility in 

these programs for active management mid contract. 

There are 2.7 million acres of land enrolled in WRP and WRE, 

and if they are not managed appropriately, their wildlife value will 

be diminished. 
38 

On behalf of Delta Wildlife and our partners in agriculture and 

conservation, we want to express our most sincere appreciation to 

you, Chairman Roberts, and the rest of the Committee for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dees can be found on page 75 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thanks you, Mr. Dees. 

Barb, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF BARB DOWNEY, DOWNEY RANCH, WAMEGO, 

KANSAS. 

Ms. DOWNEY. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, for allowing me to testify today. 

My name is Barb Downey. My husband, Joe Carpenter, and I 

run the Downey Ranch in the beautiful Flint Hills of eastern Kansas. This land has been an ideal location for our cattle, our familyrun cattle ranching operations. 

Family ranches like mine are threatened daily by urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach. Since 

our livelihood is made on the land through the utilization of our 

natural resources, being good stewards of these only make good environmental sense in addition to being fundamental for our industry to remain strong. 

Ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of our country’s natural resources. The Downey Ranch employs various programs, some of which we have put in place utilizing NRCS programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or 

EQIP. EQIP is improving habitat for grassland-nesting birds like 

the greater prairie chicken we see increasing on our ranch, as well 

as enhancing the health of grazing lands, improving water and soil 

quality, and reducing soil erosion. 

One important feature of EQIP has been its focus on livestock 

operations, and we would like to see continued funding to preserve 

this program in the 2018 Farm Bill. 

During the extensive drought of 2011 to 2015 that we endured, 

springs and ponds across our countryside dried up. Had we not 

taken proactive efforts to improve our drought resilience, we would 

have been in a dire situation. We had installed ponds with controlled-access drinking points, so that our banks do not erode, our 

ponds do not silt in, and the water stays clean. Then we put terraces around those ponds, so that any water from the area’s cattle 

that are grazing is filtered through the grasslands. 

A major creek runs through our ranch, and there is a public 

recreation area just 2 miles downstream. Thousands of people, including my family, wade and swim in those waters every year. So 

we fenced cattle away from the creek, and we only cross it at one 

location we deliberately chose because it has a rock bottom and no 

sediments are disturbed. 

We used EQIP to install two of our eight controlled-access ponds. 

The success of these ponds led Senator Jerry Moran, other legislators, the State director of the Kansas NRCS, and others from 

NRCS in D.C. to come out and see what we were doing. 

In our grazing practices, we use an approach that replicates 

bison herd movement. We run one big herd of cows through several 
39 

small different pastures. As a result, we have seen plants that are 

typically grazed out returning to our native pastures. 

Another key to improving the grass on our ranch is brush control. Encroachment of trees, brush, and noxious weeds threatens 

the very existence of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. We use a variety of ways to reduce this brush, including mechanical control and 

prescribed burns. We have been community leaders in promoting 

and using online smoke prediction tools to comply with our State’s 

Smoke Management Plan. 

Flexibility is key to ranchers using conservation programs. We 

are working with innovators in scheme of chemical control for the 

noxious weed sericea lespedeza, supplemented with a fall burning. 

It has been shown to reduce seed production from 800 seeds per 

plant down to one or two. When those seeds stay viable for 20 

years, that is huge. 

This ability to innovate and adapt with local agent oversight 

would allow integrated and holistic strategies to evolve. 

The last point I would like you all to take away from this hearing 

is the voluntary part of conservation programs. It is what makes 

it truly work for us ranchers. 

We have had success using some of these programs, but just because it works for us does not mean it works for our neighbors. It 

is important we keep these programs funded to safeguard their 

continued success, and above all else, these programs must stay 

voluntary. A one-size-fits-all approach that accompanies top-down 

regulation does not work out in the countryside. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Downey can be found on page 81 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much. You hit the clock 

right on the money. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Sharp. 

STATEMENT OF ADAM SHARP, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

OHIO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Stabenow, and the rest of the Committee. 

The environmental challenges we face in Ohio are well documented, particularly related to nutrient issues and water quality. 

I am proud of how focused Ohio’s farmers are in working to address nutrient run-off issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

share with you the value of our State partnerships, which are supported by our Federal conservation programs. 

Farmers have invested tens of millions of dollars of their own 

money in establishing voluntary conservation practices on their 

farms. In addition, the industry has invested millions more in outreach and research projects. 

Our efforts have been successful. A couple of the numbers that 

I wanted to share with you today is between 2006 and 2012, farmers have voluntarily reduced phosphorus applications in the Western Lake Erie Basin of Ohio by more than 13 million pounds. 

One of the most critical partnerships for farmers is the USDA’s 

NRCS in using working lands, conservation tools provided through 
40 

the Farm Bill, programs such as EQIP, CSP, and the RCPP, the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program. 

Between 2009 and 2014, NRCS provided almost $57 million to 

fund over 2,000 conservation contracts on over 435,000 acres in the 

Western Lake Erie Basin. As an organization that represents and 

promotes working land programs over retirement programs, programs such as EQIP and RCPP fit right in line with our organizational policy. 

Today, I wanted to share with you two key examples of the critical programming that have been provided through the Farm Bill. 

The first is our Demonstration Farms in Ohio. It is only the second 

in the nation to be established. This Demonstration Farm is located 

in the heart of the Lake Erie’s Western Basin. 

The farmers that are participating voluntarily in this Demonstration Farm project have done so to demonstrate both new 

skills that are innovative, but also skills that are approved by 

NRCS, but also looking at new research and new practices that 

could also be shared with farmers across the Western Lake Erie 

Basin to educate and to learn more about what we can do on nutrient management. 

The farm organizations involved in this endeavor have voluntarily taken on this project. The three farmers that I will mention 

real quick—the Kelloggs, the Kurts, and the Stateler Farms—we 

really appreciate. This is a $1 million project. It stretches over 5 

years, and the funding is—and it is jointly funded by both the 

NRCS and the Ohio Farm Bureau. 

The second item I would like to mention is our work on the Regional Conservation Partnership Programs. Ohio agriculture and 

conservation organizations took an active role in supporting the 

Farm Bill’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program. They committed resources to the public-private partnership. We appreciate 

that Congress and this Committee specifically saw the importance 

of this program. 

In 2015, USDA awarded $17 million to an RCPP project in Western Lake Erie Basin of Ohio. The target approach focuses efforts 

on over 855,000 acres that have been identified as the most critical 

areas within a 7-million-acre watershed. The 5-year multi-State 

project includes more than 40 collaborative partners, including 

Ohio, Michigan, Indiana State governments, local governments, the 

Farm Bureaus of all three States, environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and others, including, I might 

add, the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan, 

which is not always the best partnership that we can always get 

together. So we are very proud that this program did bring those 

two fine universities together. 

The Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative also was another project 

that we are very proud of to have launched in the Western Lake 

Erie Basin. In 2016, this program that was supported by Ranking 

Member Stabenow, Senator Brown, and Senator Donnelly, it helps 

to also invest additional dollars in conservation practices to reduce 

the amount of phosphorus leaving our farms. To date, this project 

also can be credited for over 640,000 pounds per year of less phosphorus entering Lake Erie. 
41 

As a result, farmer surveys in the Basin show that voluntary 

conservation is making a significant headway in reducing nutrient 

sediment from losses from our farms, and this is absolutely critical. 

I appreciate the opportunity today to address you and to talk 

about our terrific partnership with NRCS and Ohio and some of 

the innovative activities that we are partaking in. 

We support this Committee’s efforts to prioritize working lands 

conservation programs in the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp can be found on page 111 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Sharp, thank you very much. You know 

because of my position, however, that if I have a choice between 

Spartans and Buckeyes, this is where I have to go. 

Senator STABENOW. Exactly. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Saloom. 

STATEMENT OF SALEM SALOOM, M.D., TREE FARMER AND 

OWNER, SALOOM PROPERTIES, BREWTON, ALABAMA 

Dr. SALOOM. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and 

members of the Committee, I am pleased to join you today to provide testimony on the Farm Bill’s forestry and conservation tools. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

My wife Dianne and I own and care for 2,200 acres of forest in 

south Alabama in Conecuh County. We are 2 of the 22 million people in America who own forests. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan made 

landfall and absolutely devastated our forestland. If it was not for 

the Farm Bill’s conservation programs and this Committee’s efforts 

to ensure a forest owner’s ability to access these programs, we 

would be in a different place today. 

With the help of the State Service Foresters from the Alabama 

Forestry Commission as well as USDA technical staff and our consulting forester, we were able to restore our land, transitioning into 

longleaf pine, which we found to be more resistant to hurricanes. 

The role that these conservation programs often play in forest 

management cannot be understated, and I urge you to maintain 

funding for and forest inclusion in the Farm Bill programs like the 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program and Conservation Reserve Program and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. 

Additionally, increasing technical assistance for new landowners 

seeking to access these programs and streamlining plan requirements would both be highly beneficial in increasing participation. 

Our work with the Farm Bill’s programs also help us to discover 

benefits our forest could provide local endangered species. By working closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to secure regulatory 

assurances, we were able to expand the activities that benefit these 

species without having to be concerned that we are exposing ourselves to the sort of additional regulatory risk under the Endangered Species Act. 

But I am a unique landowner. Most landowners do not have that 

relationship with these agencies and are worried about doing more 

for species that face regulatory risk. I hope that the next Farm Bill 
42 

can provide additional tools to streamline regulatory assurance for 

landowners voluntarily protecting at-risk species. 

Landowners like us also need diverse markets to sell our timber 

that we harvest. Support for a successful forest products industry 

in the next Farm Bill will go a long way toward ensuring the vibrant markets that we need. 

I would finally like to note that successful forest policy does not 

end at the boundary lines, as we see every year in the forest fires 

that consume millions of acres, regardless of owner. For this reason, programs that address Federal lands should also encourage 

cross-boundary, landscape-scale cooperative efforts like outlined in 

Senators Klobuchar and Daines’ legislation. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Saloom can be found on page 103 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Doctor. 

Chuck? 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK ROADY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, F.H. STOLTZE LAND AND LUMBER COMPANY, COLUMBIA FALLS, MONTANA 

Mr. ROADY. So thank you, Chairman Roberts. I would also like 

to thank Senator Daines. That was a very kind introduction. I hope 

I can live up to that. 

I am privileged to live and work in the Rocky Mountain West, 

and I have helped manage our precious forests in Montana for almost my whole life, and it means a lot to me. 

First, I want to thank Senate Daines for hosting the Agricultural 

Summit in Montana and for you, Chairman Roberts, for coming out 

to see our piece of paradise, not that Kansas is not paradise. We 

appreciate your commitment and also the support of Secretary 

Perdue to start to turn around our struggling communities and 

help our forests. 

Second, I want to thank the Committee for the forest authorities 

that were provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. They are a model to 

build upon for this next Farm Bill. 

I will highlight some areas where we believe the approach embodied in the 2014 bill can be expanded and improved upon. 

The insect and disease provisions from the 2014 Farm Bill have 

been very effective. The Forest Service tells us that by using them, 

they can treat twice as many acres in one-third the amount of time 

needed over the older NEPA approaches. So over a dozen projects 

covering more than 15,000 acres have been conducted in Montana 

alone and with an additional five projects covering 12,000 acres 

that are under way right now. 

However, we need to drastically scale up and pick up the pace. 

We need to streamline the approaches, and if we are ever going to 

get ahead of the forest health problems that plague our national 

forests, we have got to pick up the pace. 

The fact remains that 4.9 million acres were designated in Montana alone, and over 56 million acres were designated in 37 States 

across the nation. At the current pace of this treatment, it will take 

over 440 years to treat all 56 million acres designated for treat-
43 

ment in 2016, and I earlier heard the Chief say it is now up to 65 

million acres that need treatment. Needless to say, the time horizon does not do much for our rural communities. We need the help 

right now. 

While many of our forest management projects in Montana are 

developed through the collaborative approaches, we still face some 

obstacles to success because of the rampant litigation. It is out of 

control. My company is involved in at least a half a dozen formal 

collaborative groups and many smaller project and specific 

collaboratives that we work on. I can tell you from experience, a 

few bad actors can sit out the collaborative process, and they still 

delay all these projects. 

The East Reservoir Project is a project on the Kootenai National 

Forest, just to the west of my facility, and it is a case in point. We 

worked 4 years with our collaborative partners on a project to design and improve the wildlife habitat, reduce the fire danger, and 

the project now has been in and out of the courts for the last few 

years. Thanks to one of our frequent flyer litigants, it was enjoined 

last year and will remain so at least until this fall. 

This is not an isolated incident: 38 timber sales in my region, Region 1, are under litigation; 23 of these are not going forward. 

17,000 acres of timber harvest and more than 171 million board 

feet of timber are held up in litigation right now in Region 1 at this 

moment. That is a significant number of real jobs, family wage-type 

jobs that are in jeopardy because of this litigation. That is why expanding the current CEs to more forest types, increasing the size 

of the projects, will start help turning the tide on our national forests. 

Now, some of the early seral stage CEs will particularly be helpful in our eastern and our southern national forests, while the ability to salvage timber on appropriate acres will help tremendously 

in the western forests. 

On behalf of the industry, I again want to thank this Committee 

for your bipartisan efforts. It shows cooperation while giving the 

Forest Service some new management tools. We realize there are 

jurisdictional issues, but we also hope that Congress can find its 

way to address the fire borrowing problem that has plagued the 

Forest Service for more than a decade. 

Thanks a lot for your time. Any major reforms that this Committee can come up with through a bipartisan basis can help both 

our local communities and our nation as a whole. It could help us 

nationwide a lot, not just the West. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roady can be found on page 95 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Topik. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER TOPIK, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF 

NORTH AMERICA FOREST RESTORATION, NORTH AMERICA 

REGION, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you. 

I am proud to represent The Nature Conservancy. Our mission 

is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. We 
44 

have been doing this for over 65 years. We work in all States, the 

District, territories, and now 70 nations. We own and operate a lot 

of our own land, and we are deeply familiar with conservation practices as well as the production of forest, farm, and ranching products. 

For instance, our Two-Hearted River Forest in Michigan is vital 

to protect Great Lakes water and restore forest sustainability, 

while also producing high-quality wood products. 

This year, the NCAA Championship Final Four basketball game 

was played on a court made from our wood, on wood made by Connor Sports in Michigan. 

Besides owning land, we are involved in a nearly endless array 

of conservation partnerships. We recognize the Farm Bill as one of 

America’s great conservation tools. We are deeply engaged in farming and ranching policies, but today I am going to just talk about 

forests, which is my area of expertise. 

I also want to note that we are working with a bunch of coalitions, including the Forests and the Farm Bill coalition. 

Our forests are currently stressed by climate and land use 

changes. The Farm Bill can help make forests healthy so they can 

be part of the solution to climate stresses and rural economic problems. In the years ahead, climate change will dictate that we invest 

in maintaining the powerful carbon sequestration function of our 

forests, while also protecting and enhancing water production. 

I want to stress TNC’s appreciation for strong forestry provisions 

in the last Farm Bill. I also thank you for making the Forest Service stewardship contracting permanent and expanding Good Neighbor Authority. These authorities are powerful tools that increase 

the workforce and funding so more and larger forest restoration is 

done. 

The next Farm Bill must continue to fund this forestry work 

throughout the conservation and forestry titles and allow the benefits of forests to be used to enhance rural development. We recommend that forest landowners continue to be encouraged to participate at greater rates in programs such as EQIP, CRP, ACEP, 

and others. 

In particular, Congress should support strategic programs that 

provide large landscape benefits. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program, you have heard a lot about it today, is a big success. We can and we should build on it. 

Substantial cross-boundary private and public forestry is getting 

done through the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership. 

These model strategic forest projects produce needed timber, while 

enhancing source water quality and delivery that our agriculture 

and cities depend on. 

I also need to stress the need to maintain and enhance vital forestry research and science capacity, and to use it to guide sound 

forest management. 

Finally, as you have heard, it is time for Congress to solve the 

Federal fire suppression funding mess. A bipartisan solution should 

address three key issues: budget erosion, access to disaster funding 

for bad fires, and an end to emergency fire borrowing. Forest Service budgets have lost half of their buying power since the 1990s, 
45 

so we all need to push for a variety of investments that will provide 

society the benefits of healthy forests and rivers. 

I also want to encourage you to avoid amending Federal forest 

management laws to exclude the public by shortcutting NEPA, 

which would lead to worse decisions than occur with open and collaborative forestry. I do not think the Farm Bill should get sidetracked on this. I hope you can leave the E in NEPA. Please focus 

on the widely supported funding and policies that help forestland 

owners and our environment. 

Forest Service land management can be improved by increasing 

partnerships with many more sectors and by integrating local, 

county, tribal, and State sectors into shared stewardship of forests 

based on science and collaboration. Mutual trust must be carefully 

built, so large projects, with appropriate use of fire, can be implemented and monitored. 

I think you should consider emulating the framework of the cohesive strategy for wildland fire which brings all levels of government 

together. 

So, in conclusion, I want to reiterate, TNC welcomes the chance 

to work with the Committee to help build a Farm Bill that answers 

the needs of our forestlands and our forest producers, with sound 

policies and adequate funding. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Topik can be found on page 118 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the panel. I think we have had an 

excellent panel—— 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, absolutely. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —Senator Stabenow. 

Senator Strange, I know you have a conflict, and so I am going 

to recognize you at this point. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank the panelists for their excellent testimony today. It is 

very enlightening to me as a new member of the Committee that 

I am honored to serve on. 

I want to direct my questions to my friend, Dr. Saloom, if I may. 

We have been sportsmen for a long time and have hunted all over 

the—both of us have hunted all over the various parts of our State, 

and I am always impressed by the management of our private 

landowners, as they engage in their various voluntary practices. 

I was hoping you could describe some of these practices, how our 

private landowners utilize the USDA conservation programs and 

tools to ensure they are protecting the diversity of species that you 

and the other landowners protect and enjoy. 

Dr. SALOOM. Thank you, Senator Strange, and I am very glad to 

talk about that. 

Without these Farm Bill conservation programs, the habitat in 

Alabama and most of the United States probably would not be as 

improved as it is now. There is a lot more room for improvement, 

of course. 

But from our standpoint and from the people that we know in 

a lot of these hunting areas, we are using EQIP in terms of managing our private forests, doing prescribed burning, planting 

longleaf, which is an ideal pine species for wildlife, only ideal if it 
46 

is planted on the right soils and in the right place. Longleaf is not 

for everyone, to be understood. 

Of course, we are not in CRP, but there are other people that are 

in CRP. If one plants, CRP—and 30 years later, returns back and 

harvest it, then they have not really done anything for the value 

of that land and the wildlife. It needs to be managed, and we need 

to continue that type of mid-contract management in the CRP 

pines. Extremely important. 

The wildlife in terms of gopher tortoise management that we are 

doing, that other people are doing in south Alabama, with other 

species that are endangered or threatened is critical in terms of developing good wildlife habitat within those woodlands, so that these 

species can survive. 

This carries over not only to those endangered or threatened species, but carries on to the other species that are involved. It is a 

symbiotic relationship with the ecosystem, and improving that 

wildlife habitat further increases the non-timber resources that all 

of society values and partakes of—clean air and clean water, all of 

those particular non-product values that are extremely important 

to all Americans. 

So I am hoping that is answering your questions that these programs are vitally important. We need to continue that, but we also 

need to make it available to those others that are not on those programs in terms of our neighbors doing cross-boundary line, larger 

landscaped work that really makes an impact difference. 

Thank you. 

Senator STRANGE. I have one more quick question, if you have 

time, in the remaining time we have. We, of course, do not have 

the type of Forest Service management lands that other States 

have, but we do have some national forests, and I wonder if you 

might comment a little bit about the need for the Forest Service 

to be a good neighbor with our private landowners, which, of 

course, are the majority in our State. 

Dr. SALOOM. That is very, very important. We all have room to 

grow and improve our lands. This includes the Forest Service as 

well, and I know listening to Chief Tidwell this morning, capacity 

is a big, big difficulty there. It is a big hurdle. They do not have 

the manpower and the women-power to do the work that needs to 

be done. 

But the other problem that we see is the regulations. Their work 

is stifled so much by the regulations that they have to encounter 

just to even do management. Just to even cut timber and do the 

right timber management, it takes a year and a half sometimes to 

sell the timber off a national forest. I am not a land manager in 

terms of Federal lands, but those are things that I am quite—not 

knowledgeable, but understand, especially on the Conecuh National, which is a national forest within our region. 

This cross-boundary that we have been talking about, neighbor 

to neighbor, and especially the Klobuchar and Daines legislation is 

very, very important, because if we can get landowners engaged— 

the private landowners on those contiguous acres and those border 

acres engaged in management, then that spills over to a better 

management throughout the entire region. 
47 

The West is significantly important. That cross-boundaries are 

extremely important in terms of wildfire reduction, fuel reduction, 

and even wildlife management to have that good neighbor-to-neighbor work across boundaries. We need that leeway. 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Ms. Downey, you stress in your testimony 

the importance of voluntary nature of conservation as the cornerstone for success. You listed quite a few examples of things that 

you wanted to do, anyway, all commensurate with recommended 

conservation practices. Doubtlessly, your operation of the livestock 

industry faces a number of challenges on a number of fronts. Can 

you elaborate on the regulatory challenges facing your operation in 

the livestock industry? What regulatory uncertainty do you face as 

a producer as it relates to air quality or prescribed burns or water 

quality or endangered species? 

After you answer that, I am going to recommend that question 

for anybody else on the panel that wishes to comment, please. 

Ms. DOWNEY. Certainly, Chairman. 

Smoke management is a big issue in our State, and air quality 

is a big issue, because fire is an integral part of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. It is an ecosystem that developed in concert with 

fire. So we use that in the spring of the year, generally, as part 

of maintaining this prairie ecosystem. Fire comes with smoke, and 

smoke, of course, travels. 

Currently, we use our smoke management prediction tools to try 

to mitigate and, in fact, have changed plans on the fly so that we 

would not send smoke to our neighbors and cause exceedance 

events, but should it come down from the top that we can no longer 

apply this practice, at the risk of sounding overdramatic, that could 

very well spell the end of the tallgrass prairie. You cannot mow. 

You cannot spray. If you could come out to my ranch, you could see 

that fire is the way nature intended for this system to be preserved. We have got to have that. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Anyone else? 

Mr. Horning. 

Mr. HORNING. I do prescribed burns. They are required, and they 

are very beneficial. The mid-management is really necessary to 

keep the CRP grasses going, and I love mid-management. I just 

want you to change it, how I can use it more effectively. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Dees, any regulatory burdens that you 

would like to mention? 

Mr. DEES. With regard to mid-management on the permanent 

easements, WRE and its predecessor WRP, a lot of those bottomland forests in our region are nearing 20 years old now, and they 

really do not have as much timber value as they could to the landowner or as much wildlife habitat value as they could, because the 

trees are planted too densely. We need more flexibility in that program, similar to what is allowed as you did in the last Farm Bill 

with the CRP programs. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Mr. DEES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Sharp? 

Mr. SHARP. I would comment on RCPP. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Hit that. 
48 

Mr. SHARP. I am sorry. I have to hit the button there. 

I would comment particularly on RCPP and improvements in 

that regard when we are talking about some flexibility with program dollars as they move out into areas where there is RCPP-targeted programs. 

Right now, of course, only NRCS-approved projects can be funded. It would be interesting if we could have a small portion of dollars that are available for new innovative approaches that may be 

even cost savings to farmers, in particular, when it comes to construction; for example, manure storage facilities, which can be very 

pricey, so looking at maybe ways to cut cost and save the government money with some flexibility and some innovative approaches 

there. So I would put that out. 

But also, conservation—NRCS staff and the conservation experts 

is also something that has been a bit of a struggle for us too on 

occasion in our project with our Demonstration Farms, for example—Farms—and also, I hear it from a number of our farmers, is 

the technical expertise within NRCS being available at the right 

times to be able to give the input into the projects in a timely manner so that the projects can move forward in a timely manner has 

also been a bit of a struggle. 

So I know that NRCS does struggle with staffing, time, and ability, and technical expertise being targeted at the right time. So I 

would raise those couple issues of things that we would definitely 

see as opportunities for improvement. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Saloom. 

Dr. SALOOM. Yes. Thank you. 

Prescribed fire is primo importance in the South, and it really 

should be very important in the entire United States. It is historically why longleaf pine has been longleaf pine and has survived. It 

is the most important tool that we have in terms of managing our 

woodlands, and some of these regulations, yes, they are there, but 

probably not as much in the South as it is in the West and some 

other areas, except if you live in an urban wildland interface, 

where smoke is a problem but can be mitigated. 

One of the things that I am really concerned about is this wildfire funding. How are we going to manage the Forest Service’s 

budget and help them out so that we can mitigate fuels, especially 

in the West, so that these wildfires will become not wildfires, but 

may be able to be controlled burns rather than disaster fires? 

So there is a lot of insight into that that we can look at and talk 

about, and hopefully, through these Farm Bill programs, we can 

start encouraging more landowners with incentives to do the prescribed burning. That is one of the things that we are seeing on 

private lands. We need more prescribed burnings on private lands. 

Federal lands are doing pretty good, but private lands need to step 

it up. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Roady. 

Mr. ROADY. We have a little different situation in our forests 

west of the Continental Divide, so to speak our fires are catastrophic anymore. We did a really good job being Smokey Bear for 

a lot of years, but we did not follow it up with active management. 

Now we have got forests that are so thick when we have a fire, you 

have got to get out of the way. It is terrible. We need to work 
49 

through these problems that are blocking active management of 

our forests. 

It is scary if you are the one that is in that path of the fire and 

you see those fires coming over the hill, yeah, you can certainly 

wish you had done some prescribed burning, but we really need to 

add an active management component to it. Prescribed burning is 

one of those tools, but I can tell you about living with smoke and 

fire. It is not fun and it is not good. We need to manage our forests, 

period. It is the right thing to do. 

Chairman ROBERTS. When I was privileged to go up to Glacier, 

following the Ag Summit that we had there in Montana, I noted 

that the 2003 forest fire that occurred right across from the lodge 

at Lake McDonald, it was still gray. No green. That is since 2003. 

I would have thought there would have been some green showing 

or at least some kind of an organized effort. 

Then walking along the Cedar Trail—that is for couples who 

have achieved a certain level of maturity as opposed to the hiking 

I used to do there—just an awful lot of old timber, and I mean 

huge cedar trees. One stroke of lightning and I could see that going 

up. That would just be absolutely criminal. 

I want to ask you one more question before I get to another topic. 

Stay with me. What is going to happen with regards to the Endangered Species List and the grizzly bears now that you have gone 

from—I think they were down to about 400. Now there are over a 

thousand and posing real threats, human threats as well to the 

livestock. 

Now, I think I got this right. The stockmen would prefer that you 

would list—no—you would delist the grizzly so that you would have 

a bear hunt only to a certain point. I am not talking about national 

parks now. I am talking about where you live. 

Then I also heard from the folks that are in the sheep business 

that the grizzlies eat the coyotes—I hate to put that so brusquely, 

but that is what they do—and the same thing with wolves. So they 

were for continuing the number of bears to eat the wolves and 

grizzlies because they eat the sheep. This reminds me of Zane 

Grey’s old books on the sheep and cattle wars. Where does that 

stand now, and how do you see that plan out? There is a human 

safety problem there. 

Mr. ROADY. So they have proposed to delist the grizzly bear in 

the Yellowstone ecosystem to the south where I live. They have 

met their goals of numbers, and what I live in and work in is called 

the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem, and I am referring to 

grizzly bears. We have almost three times now the recovery number. 

The proposal there when you delist is you would turn it over to 

State management, and the State management allows a more— 

one, it means the Endangered Species Act worked; it was a success. 

We should be celebrating that, but we have got to manage it, just 

like our forests. 

I mean, man is here now. We need to get over that, and we need 

to manage these things to the best of our ability, and we learn 

more all the time. But the bears are just one component of that, 

and I propose, just like any other animals and any other wildlife, 
50 

whether predators, ungulates, birds, you got to manage it, and we 

tried to do the best job we can. The same thing with the bears. 

I understand the ranchers and the farmers when it kills some of 

their livestock, but if we get that back under State management, 

I think—and hunting can be one of the tools. I think it will be very 

limited at the start, but also, those animals are smart. They learn, 

‘‘Oh, man, I better fear that person with a firearm.’’ 

I am a proponent of management, period, and I think we can all 

benefit from it. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Got the message. 

Dr. Topik. 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you. 

To be brief, I want to make sure I associate myself with the remarks on fire and smoke from Ms. Downey, Dr. Saloom, and Mr. 

Roady. I strongly support those statements. 

I would like to add to the last comment Mr. Roady was talking 

about managing forests to reduce fire risk—I think it is absolutely 

essential that we realize that in most of the U.S., we have a lot 

of fire-driven ecosystems naturally, and so thinning alone needs to 

be followed up with appropriate fire, depending on where you are 

at. 

With respect to smoke, we have to learn to work together. We 

and many others are working through the Wildland Fire Leadership Council on smoke issues, bringing in the CDC, bringing in the 

local county and State air controllers, and this is an area where the 

agriculture industry is so vital to create some space in the airsheds 

for the kind of prescribed burning that we need. It is absolutely essential. I think those are the main things I would like to point out. 

I have been around a lot of fatal wildfires myself, seen thousands 

of houses destroyed by fires, particularly in Southern California. So 

we need to make sure we have appropriate techniques for the appropriate area. It is really different, depending on where you are. 

It is too bad Senator Boozman is not here from Arkansas. I 

would love it if the Committee could see the kind of forest management where they have had repeated prescribed burns going, like on 

the Ozark National Forest, those are model reference stand areas 

where you can see what it looks like, and they are harvesting 

shortleaf pine, making money on timber. The wildlife is so abundant, it is crazy. The wild turkeys and even elk are abundant there 

on the Ozark. It is something to see, and you should have Senator 

Boozman tell you about that, so thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 

emphasis on wildfires. We just lost 850,000 acres in Kansas with 

a prairie fire, the largest prairie fire in the State’s history—maybe 

the United States on non-Federal land. I was out there the next 

day, stories of the 60-foot flames and 70-mile fire, 70-miles-perhour winds. It is a frightening thing. It can turn on a dime, and 

we are very lucky that we did not lose—I think we lost one life, 

but that was quite an experience. 

Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

think the whole question of what is happening with wildfires is incredibly serious. We all know that. I am also a member of the Energy Committee, and we were discussing this issue there as well 
51 

as here, and frankly, after working very hard to get a small 

amount of mandatory dollars into the forestry title in the last Farm 

Bill, and to see that we cannot use it for forest management because we keep seeing all the dollars going over to fight fires, we 

definitely need a different way to do this. 

I have seen numbers showing that if we just took 2 or 3 percent 

of the top fires and put them over in a category where it would be 

viewed from a FEMA perspective, you could solve the problem, and 

so it seems to me this is of great urgency because we all care about 

having our work on this Committee not be about fighting fires, but 

be about how we can do forest management and the things that involve prevention. 

In Michigan, we are eleventh in national forestland, and we fortunately are not on the front end of the big fires all the time. However, we do care deeply about this issue, and forest management 

is where we want to be. So thank you to all of you. 

I want to start, Dr. Topik, with you, because in various forums, 

we are hearing what are the strategies going forward to address 

issues that have been raised, and we have heard testimony in this 

Committee and others that Congress ought to establish new exclusions to environmental laws to speed up forest health efforts. 

I am happy to engage in a dialogue on these issues. As you know, 

we enacted exclusions in the 2014 Farm Bill for forests experiencing insect and disease epidemics. Based on your experience 

working for the Forest Service and working under both parties for 

the House Appropriations Committee as well as The Nature Conservancy, do you feel that large-scale categorical exclusions to environmental laws are the best way to spur forest health efforts, and 

if not, what types of policies would you prioritize? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, thank you. 

It is a question of scale. So I would say no if it is really large 

scale. 

I and we—we do support categorical exclusions when they are for 

project activities where we have a known kind of activity, where we 

can understand what the impact is. So I am very anxious to see 

what is going to happen with the insect and disease categorical exclusion. 

I get fearful, frankly, of really large ones. So when you think 

about something like 30,000 acres, that is 50 percent larger than 

Lansing, Michigan, and it is almost on the order of size of Topeka, 

Kansas. It is a big area, and you do not want to just have people 

do projects without bringing in the benefit of local knowledge. 

So I am very much a believer that you are going to get much better decisions if you make it open to public participation, and NEPA, 

when it is done right, is a vital tool to get that done, to bring the 

counties in, to bring in the tribes, to bring the local people who are 

affected. 

If we go to really large CEs that are just done in the back room, 

I am really fearful that we will not have the benefit of the knowledge of people that are out there. 

Senator STABENOW. Could you talk a little bit more about why? 

I mean, as you are saying, collaborative decision-making makes 

better management decisions, but also is really more durable and 

less subject to litigation? 
52 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, in many places. Montana has a crazy problem. 

But when we look around the country—I am fortunate. I have been 

able to go all over the country in my job for the last 15 years. 

There are an awful lot of successes that are out there when you 

see things that get done, but the buying power really is a serious 

problem on Federal forests. I mean, it is way, way down compared 

to what it used to be. 

I could tell you detailed stories, but basically, there is less than 

half the buying power than they had before, and it is expensive to 

manage forests. What buying power they have, it goes to fire emergencies. 

So I think we have to be honest. I think there is a lot that can 

be done to expand and share the stewardship, though, to bring in 

more companies, more administrative tools. I love things like Good 

Neighbor, where we can try to bring other partners to the table, 

so that is something we are very interested in. I think that is a 

real important area. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Mr. Sharp, we will not talk about Ohio State versus Michigan or 

Michigan State, but we all care deeply about what is happening in 

Lake Erie and appreciate the efforts that are going on there. Algae 

blooms are incredibly serious, and when we saw what happened 

when a whole city’s water system shut down, that proved how serious the situation was. 

So I wondered if you might speak a little bit more about the tools 

we put in the Farm Bill, particularly the Regional Conservation 

Partnership, and a little bit about how the Ohio Farm Bureau’s involvement has been important in terms of the regional partnership. 

Mr. SHARP. The tools that are in the Farm Bill with conservation 

programs have been critical in this area for several reasons. One, 

it has given a lot of different opportunities for farmers to engage 

in the issue, and I think that has been absolutely key—a lot of different tools, a lot of different ways to approach this, this challenge. 

We did—as you mentioned, had water shut off in the City of Toledo for about a half million people for 3 days. I remember exactly 

where I was sitting when the phone rang Saturday morning, and 

the question was, ‘‘Hey, Agriculture, what are you going to do 

about this problem?’’ Those were the questions we were getting 

from the media from across the country: What is happening, and 

what are you going to do to work on this? Voluntary conservation 

programs have been an absolute key cornerstone of what we have 

been able to do. 

Now, a couple of the examples, with RCPP, the flexibility within 

that program, the ability to deliver programs for farmers has been 

critical. It also has allowed us to do things like edge-of-field research. 

So, for example, we have over 40 monitoring stations on farmers’ 

fields across the Western Lake Erie Basin. These monitor both surface and subsurface runoff of nutrients and collecting some of the 

best data that we have in the country on what actually happens 

when you apply fertilizers to fields, both commercial and manure, 

commercial fertilizers and manure, and then what happens when 

you change the practices. So when you are modifying your practices 

to deal with these challenges, what are the results? So we are get-
53 

ting real results, and some of those are not easy results that we 

are going to have to deal with. 

For example, for many years, we have talked about—and NRCS 

has talked about—in conservation, we have talked about no till 

being no till being very valuable in keeping soil in place. It absolutely is. There is no question. It still will continue to be a valuable 

process that farmers use. 

But at the same time, what the data is also showing us is incorporating both commercial fertilizers or manures in the soil gives 

you added benefit. Well, how do you incorporate without tearing up 

the ground? It is a huge challenge. Right? But there is new equipment that is coming online that is being developed by companies 

to be able to do this very thing, but it is not cheap. 

So one of the things that we do like to talk about as well is that 

one of our farmers in our Demonstration Farm project, for example, 

has invested $250,000 in new equipment to incorporate fertilizer 

below the soil surface, but also not disturb the ground beyond what 

he wishes to do to maintain some of the benefits that he gets by 

keeping nutrients in place through less till or reduced till practices. 

So these are challenges that we are learning about. We are able 

to study these, engage farmers in new practices, such as cover 

crops and other things happening in the Western Lake Erie Basin 

to find solutions, and it is exciting right now, because when you 

talk with farmers in the western part of our State, across our 

State, but in the northwestern part of our State—and I know also 

in Indiana and Michigan—you cannot get a group of them together 

without having an extended conversation about cover crops, what 

is working, and how are you applying fertilizers and manures and 

also incorporating those, and at the same time, what rotations are 

working for you in your cover crops in your systems, what equipment is needed, what is the cost, what is the best mix of those 

cover crops, so a lot of innovation happening because of what has 

been going on with voluntary conservation practices supported by 

the Farm Bills. 

Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you so much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We have a 15-minute vote that just started. 

Coop, you know more than anybody about High Noon, so you are 

recognized with the knowledge that we have a vote that has been 

called. The same for Senator Daines. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you always manage to recognize me right at High Noon. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Senator THUNE. So I most appreciate it. 

First of all, I just want to make an observation, and that is many 

of you have commented about the need for some sort of midterm 

or other management on permanent easements, and I would like 

to add that I have offered a conservation title improvement bill, 

Senate Bill 909, that offers just such options for these long-term 

easement programs, which I hope ultimately will be included in the 

Farm Bill. 

Mr. Horning, based on your testimony, I assume that you support my proposal for the next Farm Bill to allow all CRP acres to 

be hayed at the rate of one-third of each CRP contract each year? 
54 

Mr. HORNING. I certainly do, Senator. 

When I started getting into CRP, I was not doing a very good job 

with mid-management, and the wildlife numbers would just drop 

dramatically. It would go about 3 or 4 years, and all of a sudden, 

the wildlife—pheasants, deer—would move to other parts, other 

CRP practices. Mid-management is mandatory. We have got to do 

a little better job on that. 

They started policing my CRP, which really helped out. Then I 

started doing a better job of mid-management. 

Senator THUNE. Okay. Do you believe that this can be accomplished without any detrimental effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat? 

Mr. HORNING. You can make it work. In years like this, it is really tough. You are going to probably have to give and take a little 

bit. 

Senator THUNE. Right. 

Mr. HORNING. In normal years, you can make that mid-management work and not suffer wildlife. 

Senator THUNE. I have also got a proposal out there. I am interested in your thoughts about a proposal that would grade CRP 

even during the primary nesting period at a 25 percent level of normal stock rates. 

Mr. HORNING. Yes. What I would rather do instead of coming 

through and haying the whole contract, 100 percent of the contract, 

I would rather do one-third, one-third, one-third, or go one-fifth 

every year. I can provide good feed for my farmer neighbors. They 

always need hay. 

Senator THUNE. It seems like that, yeah. 

Mr. HORNING. Even in good years, they are still demanding the 

hay, and I will have a lot better job for wildlife if I just go a third 

of my contract or a fifth of my contract each year, whichever you 

decide. 

Senator THUNE. What do you suggest the CRP acreage cap ought 

to be in the next Farm Bill? 

Mr. HORNING. Forty million. Okay. 

Senator THUNE. I have one other idea out there, and I would like 

to get your reaction to it. You mentioned in your written testimony 

that you supported—I have got this proposed idea to offer a 3-to5-year conserving use program, the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, and the question is, Do you anticipate that this 

short-term conserving use program is a desirable option and complement to CRP for landowners and farmers who do not want to 

take their land out of production for 10 to 15 years? 

Mr. HORNING. I am a CPA in public practice. I do a lot of farm 

tax returns. Okay? I know a lot of farmers. They are gun-shy to 

go 10 or 15 years. 

I love the 3-or 5-year option and the flexibility or the different 

type of habitat we are going to add for wildlife. Does that make 

sense what I am saying? 

Senator THUNE. Yeah. No, it does. Yeah. 

So just—do you think we ought to incorporate some sort of targeting or allocation method on a State-by-State or regional basis to 

ensure that we do not have CRP leave States like South Dakota 
55 

that had depended so heavily on CRP’s benefits? You know what 

I am saying? 

Because like you suggested the last sign-up, we got two in South 

Dakota. 

Mr. HORNING. Right. Yeah. 

Senator THUNE. On 100 acres. 

Mr. HORNING. Yeah. 

Senator THUNE. We are down now to less than a third of what 

we were at one point in terms of acres. So should there be some 

sort of allocation method that recognizes that there are States like 

ours that heavily depend on it and need it? 

Mr. HORNING. Yes, there should be. In the past, South Dakota 

used to get some priority, priority points, EBI scores. 

Senator THUNE. Right. 

Mr. HORNING. This last sign-up, the 49, they did not recognize 

the EBI points. I followed the 39th sign-up to the 45th on the general sign-ups, and I had a little formula, how I did my EBIs. I 

never anticipated going 0 for 6 on my application. 

Senator THUNE. Yeah. I am sure you did not, and neither did we. 

Senator Daines wants to ask questions, and we have got a vote 

on. I would be interested in any recommendations you all have for 

your highest priorities for this Committee when we write the next 

Farm Bill’s conservation title. 

But thank you all for being here and for offering your thoughts 

and input. This is very valuable to us as we start to shape that 

next bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard you mentioned the potential delisting of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. I can tell you that the people of Montana can 

manage grizzly bear populations. We had this same debate with 

the wolves years ago. I have my own wolf tag here; I pulled out 

of my wallet. We managed wolves much better than the Federal 

Government ever could, and the people of Montana are ready, able, 

and capable of managing the grizzly population. It is a tremendous 

success story. The grizzlies are at a record-level population. This is 

what the Endangered Species Act is supposed to do. You recover 

the species, and they delist the species. So we should celebrate the 

delisting and transfer that to the States. 

Chuck Roady, thanks for coming to this Committee. I am always 

happy to introduce a fellow Montanan. Thank God for some common sense back in Washington, DC. We need you here. 

In your testimony, you mentioned the collaborative work you and 

others in the wood product industry have put forth. You are an example of someone who leads the collaborative efforts. You have 

built strong relationships with the Whitefish Range Partnership, 

the Kootenai stakeholders, the Montana Forest Restoration Committee, the Montana Forest Collaborative Network as well. 

You also mentioned several of the projects that these diverse 

groups supported that then were ultimately litigated and held up 

in court. 

Chuck, in the context of supporting the collaborative process and 

empowering the agency to implement these restoration projects, do 
56 

you believe it is important that we protect collaborative projects 

from litigation and excessive regulation and find ways to empower 

their involvement? 

Mr. ROADY. Absolutely. Nothing is more frustrating than sitting 

in a Grange Hall or a school gym or any place that we have met, 

the county commissioners and with all your partners—and you 

went down the list, Chris, of—and then you get blown out of the 

water after you finally agree on something—and of the people that 

did not come to the table and did not participate. 

So I do not want to exclude anybody out of this public comment, 

but we have been down that road, and it does not work. We need 

some deference to the collaborative. So if you have collaborated— 

and 95 percent of the people who have been at that table, there is 

some deference—and to get around the litigation. I mean, absolutely. We have tried the other part, and I do not want to leave 

anybody out of the public comment, but it is the people that do not 

come to the table that stop the project. 

Senator DAINES. Chuck, you have testified many times here in 

Washington, DC Here is a chance to express to the Ag Committee—Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee—the answer to this question, and it is this: What in your view are the top 

reforms that Congress should pass that would have the most impact on restoring active management in our national forests? 

Mr. ROADY. We could start by one you helped sponsor, is to reverse the Cottonwood decision. The implications of that decision, 

people have no idea. 

Senator DAINES. Incidentally, the Obama administration supported that. 

Mr. ROADY. Yes. I mean, it is—— 

Senator DAINES. We have got—Senator Tester and I—Tester is 

with me on that, so we have got bipartisan support. Obama administration supported that, just for what it is worth. 

Mr. ROADY. The first thing we could do that would help the most 

is to reverse that. 

Senator DAINES. Yep. 

Mr. ROADY. Secondly is something on the litigation, and I am 

willing to try deference to collaboratives, some arbitration, anything that would help us. I mean, when our current system pays 

people taxpayer money to sue the taxpayer to stop a project that 

does not move our society forward, something is not right, and we 

have got to change that. I see it and live it every day. I want my 

kids and grandkids to have the same opportunities that I have had 

to enjoy those forests, and if we do not do something, a lot of those 

opportunities are going to be gone. 

I went out on a tangent there, but I mean that. 

Senator DAINES. Yeah. You talk about health threats and our 

watersheds. We have got municipalities right now that need to do 

timber projects here to reduce the threat of wildfires and do some 

thinning, and we are getting hung up in court, what threatens the 

watersheds with the environmental disasters we have from a wildfire, as we breathe the smoke. As we know as Montanans, every 

August and September, just get ready. It will be coming again. 

Last question. You have been involved with other diverse partners to secure working landscapes on forestlands in northwest 
57 

Montana through conservation programs administered by Department of Ag. Briefly mention for me, if you would, your experience 

with the Forest Legacy Program, and how has that impacted 

Stoltze? 

Mr. ROADY. Forest Legacy Program is a win-win. It is a program 

that my individual company has participated in, and it keeps the 

private forest in private. We still pay the taxes, but we have agreed 

that we will help protect. We own a municipal watershed. We own 

the city watershed of Whitefish, Montana, and then we use the 

Forest Legacy Program to help do that and put it in writing. That 

was a handshake deal for 100-plus years. But it also creates public 

access. So those people in the public now can fish and hunt in perpetuity on our land, and that was through the Forest Legacy Program. I cannot stress enough, if we had more programs like that, 

it would be a big help. 

Senator DAINES. Well, thank you. 

I am out of time, and I just remind the Committee here, Chuck 

is also a conservationist leader with the Rocky Mount Elk Foundation for years, and this is the marriage of forest management and 

wildlife conservation, go hand and hand, and I say that as a fellow 

elk hunter. 

Thanks, Chuck. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Thank you to all of our witnesses on both panels for taking time 

to share your views about the future and the direction of conservation and forestry programs. The testimonies provided today are extremely valuable for the Committee to hear firsthand. 

For those in the audience, if you are still hanging with us, if you 

want to provide additional thoughts on the Farm Bill, we have set 

up an email address on the Senate Ag Committee’s website to collect your input, fair and balanced. Please go to ag.senate.gov, and 

click on the Farm Bill Hearing box on the left-hand side of your 

screen. That link will be open for 5 business days following today’s 

hearing, and for members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the Committee 

Clerk, 5 business days from today or by 5:00 p.m. next Friday. 

That is July 7. 

The Committee stands adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 29, 2017 
60 

Statement by Senator Thad Cochran 

Introduction of Paul Dees - Panel 2 Hearing Witness 

Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing 

Thursday, June 29,2017 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to welcome and introduce one of our 

witnesses today on the 2nd panel- Mr. Paul Dees, of Greenville, Mississippi. 

Mr. Dees serves as Chairman of Delta Wildlife, which is dedicated to the conservation, 

enhancement, and restoration of wildlife and natural resources in the Mississippi Delta. He is also a 

successful row-crop fanner- raising rice, corn and soybeans and private timberland owner. 

In leading Delta Wildlife, Mr. Dees has been a notably strong advocate for conservation and 

forestry programs that focus on agricultural lands and non-industrial forestlands. His successful farming 

operation illustrates that the effective application of conservation practices on active farmland can 

provide significant environmental and economic benefits. 

As this Committee works to identify the conservation and forestry programs that are working 

well and those that need improvement in the 2018 Farm Bill, I am pleased we have the opportunity to 

hear from Mr. Dees today. 
61 

Testimony of Jimmy Bramblett 

Deputy Chief for Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

before the 

Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee 

of the 

United States Senate 

June 29, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of USDA's Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to discuss conservation programs authorized by the 

Agricultural Act of2014 (2014 Farm Bill). We appreciate the ongoing support and leadership 

that this Committee has provided for voluntary, private lands conservation and want to clearly 

communicate that this support is making a critical difference in our ability to accomplish our 

goals and mission. Farm Bill conservation programs provide America's farmers, ranchers and 

landowners with technical and financial assistance to enable conservation of valuable natural 

resources while protecting and improving agricultural operations. Our hope is that this testimony 

will help inform conversations that you will have with your constituents and key stakeholders in 

preparation for the 2018 Farm Bill. 

This Committee's efforts to consolidate the Conservation Title's 23 programs into the 13 current 

programs in the 2014 Farm Bill allowed NRCS to focus on critical resource concerns, provide 

streamlined assistance to agricultural landowners and producers to address existing resource 

concerns with the flexibility to still give attention to emerging issues. The 2014 Farm Bill also 

provides NRCS with more tools to reach historically underserved producers through 

prioritization given to veteran farmers and ranchers and increased program flexibility for practice 

implementation. 

NRCS provides technical and financial conservation assistance to individual, private landowners. 

More than 70 percent ofland in the U.S. is held by private landowners. Decisions those 

landowners make every day not only have an impact on their land, but on that of their neighbors, 

on their communities, and ultimately on the entire U.S. population. 

America's farmers have been able to achieve tremendous success through the 2014 Farm Bill's 

Conservation Title. The 2014 Farm Bill created or improved a series of programs, including the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), 

the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program, to help NRCS facilitate its unique delivery system, carried out through 

local field offices that provide assistance to individual landowners across the Nation. Through 

these programs, NRCS has made tremendous strides in helping farmers, ranchers, foresters, and 

other private landowners restore and enhance our Nation's natural resource base in a voluntary, 

incentive-based fashion. Perhaps most importantly, the decisions surrounding the 

implementation and prioritization of these programs and funding are made on the local level, 

through Local Working.Groups and State Technical Committees to ensure that your State's local 

needs are addressed. 
62 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

EQIP promotes agricultural production, forest management, and environmental quality as 

compatible goals. Since the 2008 Farm Bill was implemented, EQIP participants have impacted 

nearly 94 million acres (93,776,393) through 267,202 active and completed contracts made 

possible with $7.2 billion ($7 ,241,507, 182) in financial incentives. Many of these incentives are 

leveraged with local, State and other partnership financial and technical assistance. 

EQIP has helped producers improve soil health using practices such as planting cover crops, 

using conservation tillage, and conservation crop rotation, which help protect farms from soil 

erosion, increase resiliency to drought and help break pest cycles; thereby reducing the need for 

pesticide and other chemical applications, and saving energy by reducing the number of 

equipment runs across a field. In turn, farmers and ranchers save time and money, while 

increasing productivity. 

Other examples include collaboration with livestock producers who pursue prescribed grazing 

systems for the purpose of managing livestock to best utilize feed and forage, resulting in 

healthier pasture and range lands, and healthier herds. 

As consumers have driven the demand for increased organic production, EQIP provides farmers 

and ranchers technical and financial assistance to help implement their Organic System Plan 

through the National Organic Initiative (NOI). Additionally, EQIP NOI can help transition 

farmers and ranchers from conventional to organic production. In 2016, $5.4 million was 

obligated in NOI EQIP funds (2016 green sheets). 

The U.S. Forest Service and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service are working 

together to improve the health of forests where public and private lands meet, especially in 

locations where insects and drought conditions have contributed to wildfire risk. Through the 

Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership, the two USDA agencies are restoring 

landscapes, reducing wildfire threats to communities and landowners, protecting water quality 

and enhancing wildlife habitat. The Partnership began in FY 2014, and a total of$139 million 

has been jointly invested in 49 projects through FY 2017. Projects funded through this etiort are 

designed to last three years, and the first round of projects concluded at the end ofFY 2016. In 

FY 2017, the agencies are planning to work with partners to catalog and promote the successes 

and lessons learned from collaborative efforts. 

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 

CSP is now USDA's largest working lands conservation program with more than 80 million 

acres enrolled in Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016. Through CSP, agricultural producers and 

forest landowners, who are already established conservation stewards earn payments for actively 

managing and maintaining the existing level of conservation on their land while also 

incorporating advanced conservation activities to take that stewardship to the next level. 

Advanced conservation activities include practices such as using cover crops, buffer strips, 

pollinator and beneficial insect habitat, and soil health building activities. These kinds of 

advanced conservation activities are keeping soil and nutrients out of the rivers and streams, 
63 

enhancing habitat for wildlife and improving the quality of the air we breathe- all while 

maintaining active agricultural production on working lands. 

In the fall of 2016, we made several updates to this popular program, making a good program 

even better. These changes include new tools and methods for evaluating operations, expanded 

options to address the contract recipient's conservation and business objectives and a greater 

emphasis on local resource priorities. The result has been more flexibility to meet producer 

needs and even greater opportunities for and interest in participation, as evidenced by a greater 

than 30 percent increase in applications just this year. 

We also reexamined the conservation practices and enhancements offered through the program, 

making adjustments where the science tells us we should, and creating a direct linkage to 

existing conservation practice standards. These adjustments will result in better reporting tools 

and metrics to provide information on what these enhancements mean for a landowner's 

operation, and also better tell the story of what the nation's largest conservation program is doing 

for natural resources and agriculture. 

We have recl!ived positive feedback from customers, partners, and field staff as we work to 

deliver these changes to CSP in this first year. We are working to further refine the tools and 

processes to introduce greater efficiencies in the evaluation process, streamline activity choices 

and provide even more implementation tools to provide even more options and information to 

help producers take their conservation activities to that next level of stewardship. 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) 

The 2014 Farm Bill consolidated the purposes of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program 

(FRPP), the easement component of the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and Wetlands 

Reserve Program (WRP) into ACEP, greatly streamlining easement program delivery in NRCS. 

ACEP is a voluntary program, consisting of two components: 1) an agricultural land easement 

(ALE) component under which NRCS assists eligible entities to protect agricultural land by 

limiting nonagricultural uses of that land through the purchase of agricultural land easements; 

and 2) a wetland reserve easement (WRE) component under which NRCS provides financial and 

technical assistance directly to landowners to restore, protect and enhance wetlands through the 

purchase of wetland reserve easements. 

Demand for NRCS conservation easements remains significantly higher than available funding 

and the split between the two components continues to be 70 percent for ACEP Wetland 

Reserve Easements and 30 percent for ACEP -Agricultural Land Easements. This is consistent 

with the historic trends under the individual predecessor programs. In FY 2015, approximately 

26 percent of the ACEP-ALE applications and 18 percent of the ACEP-WRE applications were 

fUilded. In 2016, available funding allowed for the enrolment of 14 percent of ACEP-ALE 

applications and 16 percent of the ACEP-WRE applications. 

In FY 2016, NRCS used $188 million in ACEP financial assistance funding to enroll an 

estimated 170,785 acres of farmland, grasslands, and wetlands through 373 new ACEP 

easements. States are actively utilizing the FY 2017 allocation of ACEP financial and technical 

assistance to enroll the highest ranking applications in each State. 
64 

We are also pleased to report that we are over 65 percent of the way through the approved 

creation of a national Easement Support Services (ESS) Branch that will perform real estate 

acquisition functions and the associated administrative tasks for the easement programs 

administered by NRCS. The ESS Branch will improve the delivery of private lands conservation 

through NRCS easement programs by centralizing the real estate acquisition functions and 

associated administrative tasks. The ESS Branch will improve conservation delivery by 

providing easement administrative and acquisition services to all States and territories. 

Additionally, NRCS easement acquisition functions will align nationwide under a strengthened, 

centralized process, with a complimentary oversight role, which will improve accountability, 

strengthen consistency, strengthen customer service, and increase efficiencies in the delivery of 

NRCS easement programs. 

With over 17,000 easements totaling almost 3.5 million acres, NRCS now manages close to 

50,000 miles of easement boundaries if added together that would stretch around the earth 

twice! Because most of the easements NRCS acquires are perpetual, our management 

responsibility is also perpetual. Managing a large number of acres brings any number of 

challenges including, changes in ownership, incompatible development pressure, and boundary 

disputes and encroachments. However, the 2014 Farm Bill included an important provision that 

now allows NRCS to work with utilities, governments, and landowners to modify an easement 

when impacts to the easement are unavoidable something that was unavailable under previous 

Farm Bills. Thus far, NRCS has been very successful in partnering with road, pipeline, and 

transmission line developers to allow for necessary infrastructure development while still 

protecting the public investment and mitigating impacts to the land. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) 

RCPP is a partner-driven, locally-led approach to conservation administered by NRCS. It offers 

new opportunities for NRCS, conservation partners, and agricultural producers to work together 

to harness innovation, expand the conservation mission, and demonstrate the value and efficacy 

of voluntary, private lands conservation. In four years, NRCS has invested about $800 million in 

284 high-impact projects, bringing together more than 2,000 conservation partners who have 

contributed an estimated $1.4 billion in financial and technical assistance. By 2018, NRCS and 

partners will have invested at least $2.4 billion. Conservation partners represent a wide variety 

of groups, including Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, State and local governments, private 

industry, water districts, universities and many others. 

RCPP projects, underway now in all 50 States and Puerto Rico, are born locally. These projects 

aim to clean and conserve water, improve the quality of soil and air, enhance wildlife habitat and 

result in more resilient and productive agricultural lands and stronger rural economies. RCPP 

brings an expanded approach to investing in natural resource conservation that empowers local 

communities to work with multiple partners and agricultural producers to design solutions that 

work best for them. 

With over 70 percent of the lower 48 States under private ownership, RCPP plays a critical role 

in connecting partners with producers to design and implement conservation solutions that 

benefit both natural resources and agriculture. The Farm Bill is the largest source offederal 
65 

funding for private lands conservation, and RCPP is one of the important Farm Bill conservation 

programs contributing innovative conservation solutions to America's communities. RCPP 

enables NRCS, partners and producers to work together to overcome natural resource challenges, 

including unhealthy forests, wildfire risks, drought and poor water quality. 

Proven Success 

Our latest science-based modeling under the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) and assessment 

through the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) continues to show voluntary, 

incentive-based conservation is effective. In the Chesapeake Bay, voluntary adoption of 

conservation practices has led to reductions in erosion and sedimentation by over 60 percent, and 

reductions in nutrient losses, specifically of nitrogen, approached 40 percent. Since 2009, NRCS 

has provided $890 million in financial and technical assistance within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. Through a landscape focus to our conservation investments, some 80 percent of the 

Bay's critical cropland acreage has had conservation measures implemented on them. NRCS 

conservation investments in the Bay have resulted in a reduction of 15.1 million tons of sediment 

per year, enough to fill 150,000 train cars- which would stretch from Washington, DC to 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Improvements in water quality monitoring data and aquatic habitat 

identified by external parties also confirms the positive impact of these investments. 

This science-to-solutions approach has been demonstrated to positively affect critical wildlife 

species as well. Through another targeted landscape initiative, our Working Lands for Wildlife 

Initiative, NRCS has helped private landowners install appropriate science-based conservation 

practices on over 6.7 million acres. Wildlife species targeted for listing on the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's Threatened and Endangered Species List have recovered to the point where a 

pending listing decision is no longer being considered. As a result, thousands of landowners will 

not face increased regulatory pressures. 

NRCS uses a Long Leaf Pine Initiative (LLPI) to achieve restoration and reestablishment goals 

for longleaf pine forests, consistent with the objectives of the public/private America's Longleaf 

Restoration Initiative. In FY 2016, NRCS invested $12.8 million to support restoration efforts 

on I 07,000 acres. LLPI includes the nine Southeastern states in the longleaf range, and it plays a 

crucial role in stitching together public and private lands. Overall, more than half of the forests 

conserved are located near military installations, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, 

state forests or heritage reserves. From 2010 to 2016, NRCS has invested $65 million to help 

over 4,500 forest landowners restore nearly 400,000 acres on private lands. In FY 2017, NRCS is 

investing $15.6 million to continue restoration efforts. 

Utilizing Landscape-Scale Approaches 

Such landscape-scale approaches are foundational to progress toward meeting today's 

challenges. NRCS uses Landscape Conservation Initiatives to accelerate the benefits of 

voluntary conservation programs, such as cleaner water and air, healthier soil and enhanced 

wildlife habitat. NRCS conservation programs help agricultural producers deliver these benefits 

while maintaining a vibrant agricultural sector. 

These initiatives also enhance the locally-driven process to better address nationally and 

regionally important conservation goals that transcend localities. They build on locally led 
66 

efforts and partnerships, and they are based on science. Through the initiatives, NRCS and its 

partners coordinate the delivery of assistance where it can have the most impact. 

These landscape-level efforts have seen success across the country. From the removal of streams 

from the list of "impaired" waterbodies to the determination not to list the Greater Sage Grouse 

and New England Cottontail under the Endangered Species Act, NRCS' work with producers 

benefits wildlife, natural resources and agricultural operations across the country. Most of these 

initiatives have outcome-based goals and strategies established for implementation through the 

life of the current Farm Bill. I an1 attaching to my written testimony an update on these 

exceptionally successful initiatives. 

However, the synergy NRCS creates between science and program implementation is not limited 

to informing our landscape initiatives. The sound science that NRCS brings also directs policy 

development to ensure that taxpayers receive the greatest return on their conservation 

investments. Many of the aforementioned accomplishments have been realized through our 

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Progran1, which is the backbone of our Agency's 

conservation delivery machine. Many customers begin their relationship with NRCS through 

requests for technical assistance that later evolve into conservation plans that may include 

financial assistance through one of the farm bill programs. Our CTA Program, in combination 

with our organizational delivery system, affords us the opportunity to visit with landowners on 

their property, to analyze their land, learn their objectives, and then collaboratively formulate a 

plan to help them meet their objectives, comply with federal, State, and local laws and 

ordinances, sustaining their operation for future generations. 

NRCS provides outreach to ensure historically underserved farmers and ranchers are aware of 

the conservation programs available to them, and have access to these programs. Military 

veteran farmers and ranchers who are also beginning farmers and ranchers, and historically 

underserved producers, may be eligible to receive advance payments and increased financial 

assistance. Additionally, veteran farmers and ranchers are provided "preference" to 

conservation programs by being screened or ranked as high priority applicants. 

NRCS's technical and financial innovations have proven beneficial for both producers and the 

Nation's resources. On June 14, 2017, seven farmers- two from California and five from 

Arkansas and Mississippi- tested an innovative idea and implemented conservation practices on 

their crops to reduce methane emissions, which led to the first ever carbon credits generated from 

rice farmers. As voiced by our Arkansas State Conservationist, Mike Sullivan, 

"The partnership that enabled this first-of-kind carbon offsets began with the growers and 

leveraged the expertise of many, many organizations. Getting innovative conservation on the 

ground requires forward-looking growers and a team of experts to support their efforts. This 

project had all of the components of success. It wasn't easy but innovation is never easy. That's 

where the NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants program provides such important value to our 

nation's rural economies and rural innovators." 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Men1ber, and Men1bers of this Committee, the Farm Bill's Conservation 

Title has historically provided NRCS a full range of technical, scientific, and financial resources 
67 

to assist America's producers, providing the greatest impact on the sustainability and resiliency 

of our Nation's resources. These programs reflect our commitment to local leadership on critical 

conservation issues and have a reach that touches every Committee Member's District. As I 

mentioned in the conclusion of my testimony before the House's Conservation and Forestry 

Subcommittee two weeks ago, NRCS continually seeks to take responsible steps toward 

streamlining and modernizing our operations, while maximizing opportunities to get more 

conservation on the ground. Assisting with protecting our Nation's food security and ensuring 

the viability of future agricultural production is USDA's foremost mission. I would like to thank 

all of you for continuing to invest in voluntary conservation, and of course for the opportunity to 

appear before you this morning. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 
68 

Attachment One 

NRCS Landscape Initiatives Update 

Bay Delta Initiative 

The 38 million-acre Bay Delta region ofCalifomia includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

watersheds in the Central Valley and drains to the San Francisco Bay, one of the most important 

estuary systems in the nation. The region provides drinking water for more than 23 million 

people and irrigation water to four million acres offarmland. Resource issues include balancing 

demands for water between agricultural and urban uses, against often scarce surface and ground 

water supplies; maintaining groundwater quality for drinking water use, and maintain surface 

water quality and quantity to support at risk wildlife species. 

NRCS works with local partners where action plans have been developed to target high priority 

resource concerns. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds to help producers 

implement practices that improve irrigation water efficiency, manage manure, nutrients and 

chemicals improving water quality, and improve habitat. Producers benefit from using less 

inputs and water while enhancing revenues through higher crop yields and improved crop 

quality. 

Chesapeake Bay Initiative 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. The Bay and its rivers, wetlands 

and forests provide homes, food and protection for diverse groups of animals and plants and 

supports more than 17 million people who live, work and play within the watershed. 

Agricultural lands compose nearly 30 percent of the watershed, and the region- which includes 

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of 

Columbia has more than 83,000 farms responsible for more than $10 billion of agricultural 

production each year. 

The Bay has suffered from high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. By 

working with farmers on a voluntary basis, NRCS has provided technical and financial assistance 

to implement "Avoid-Control-Trap" conservation systems on over 3.6 million acres that benefit 

water quality in the Bay watershed. Since 2009, NRCS has provided $890 million in financial 

and technical assistance within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This federal investment is 

leveraged by the matching finanCial and management resources of the watershed's farmers and 

forest landowners, increasing the investment by at least $400 million. 

Driftless Area Landscape Conservation Initiative 

The Driftless Area is a 24,000-square-mile landscape that straddles the Mississippi River in 

Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The area includes rocky bluffs, deeply carved river 

valleys and more than 600 cold-water springs and creeks. Its soils are highly vulnerable to 

erosion. When soil erodes, water quality and aquatic habitat is threatened. 

The initiative focuses on restoring cold-water stream corridors. Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) funding helps producers install practices to protect streambanks from 

erosion, install fish habitat structures, fence livestock out of streams, and implement soil and 
69 

water conservation practices on adjacent farm and forest land. By 2017, NRCS aims to help 

producers restore 25 miles of streams, increase brown trout numbers by 30,000, reduce runoff of 

sediment by 150,000 tons and improve 20,500 acres of upstream habitat. 

The Driftless Area initiative concludes at the end ofFY2017. NRCS state offices will support 

practices used in the Driftless initiative through their regular EQIP programs. Partners will be 

able to use RCPP to develop new targeted efforts. 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was authorized by Congress and launched in 2010 

as a collaborative effort of II federal agencies, including NRCS, to accelerate the restoration and 

protection of the Great Lakes. EPA is the lead federal agency and provides funding for NRCS 

activities through and interagency agreement. NRCS has entered into more than I ,900 

conservation contracts, with over $81 million in GLRI funding, to help farmers implement 

conservation practices on over 370,000 acres to improve water quality and address other needs 

within the Great Lakes Basin. Through Farm Bill conservation program authorities, NRCS 

provides technical and financial assistance to landowners, enabling them to make conservation 

improvements to their land. This assistance helps producers plan and implement conservation 

practices that address priorities of the Great Lakes Action Plan including combating invasive 

species, protecting watersheds and shorelines from non-point source pollution, and restoring 

wetlands and other habitat areas. 

Illinois River/Eucha-Spavinaw Watersheds Initiative 

The Illinois River Sub-Basin and the Eucha-Spavinaw Lake Watershed provide drinking water 

for the urban center of Tulsa, Oklahoma, as well as many smaller nearby municipalities. As part 

ofthe Illinois River Sub-Basin and Eucha-Spavinaw Lake Watershed Initiative, NRCS is 

working with its conservation partners in northwestern Arkansas and northeastern Oklahoma to 

ensure an adequate supply of healthy drinking water for local residents. Utilizing EQIP, NRCS is 

helping agricultural producers implement a suite of conservation practices that decrease 

agricultural runoff and nutrient-loading into rivers and streams. Besides clean drinking water for 

Tulsa citizens, these conservation practices also will help benefit local recreation opportunities, 

since the Illinois River is designated a Scenic River. 

Longleaf Pine Initiative 

NRCS uses the Longleaf Pine Initiative (LLPI) to support voluntary private lands conservation 

that restores and reestablishes longleaf pine forest, consistent with the objectives of the 

public/private America's Longleaf Restoration Initiative to restore 4.6 million acres of longleaf 

pine forest. In FY 2016, NRCS invested $12.8 million to support restoration efforts on 107,000 

acres. LLPI includes the nine Southeastern states in the longleaf range, and it plays a crucial role 

in stitching together public and private lands. Overall, more than half of the forests conserved are 

located near military installations, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, state forests or 

heritage reserves. From 2010 to 2016, NRCS has invested $65 million to help over 4500 forest 

landowners restore nearly 400,000 acres on private lands. In FY 2017, NRCS is investing $15.6 

million to continue restoration efforts. 
70 

Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) 

MRBI was initiated in 2009 to accelerate voluntary, private lands conservation investments to 

improve water quality through a targeted approach, and complements efforts by the Hypoxia 

Task Force (HTF) states within the Mississippi River basin. Each HTF state has developed a 

Nutrient Reduction Strategy to reduce agricultural impacts to the Gulf, and MRBI funding is 

used to help implement these local strategies. From 2010 to 2016, $250 million (EQIP) was 

obligated for MRBI project contracts providing treatment on over 1.2 million acres. There are 

currently 72 active projects, with 385 local partners leveraging $8.5 million in fmancial 

assistance and providing over $16 million in technical assistance. Partners include state agencies, 

conservation districts, city governments, private industry, NGOs, and local organizations. 

Findings from a 2014 report by the USDA's Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) 

show that conservation work on cropland in the Mississippi River basin has reduced the amount 

of nitrogen and phosphorus flowing to the Gulf of Mexico by 18 and 20 percent, respectively. 

Since 2009, nitrogen prevented from leaving agricultural fields in MRBI project watersheds 

could be used to fertilize over 63,000 acres of com in the basin. 

National Water Oualitv Initiative (NWQI) 

NWQI is a cooperative program between NRCS, EPA, and state water quality agencies to 

accelerate voluntary, private lands conservation to improve water quality, focusing on 

conservation systems that have the greatest benefit. NRCS provides financial and technical 

assistance to implement practices that help avoid, trap and control run-off and erosion from 

agricultural fields in targeted watersheds. Since 2012, NRCS has obligated more than $120 

million in funding for water quality-related conservation systems in over 250 small high-priority 

watersheds throughout the country, treating almost 600,000 acres. NWQI has significantly 

increased the installation of primary water quality practices, compared to General EQIP, 

increased average annual funding for conservation practices increased by 200%, and served 

twice as many producers. State water quality agencies and other partners contribute additional 

resources for watershed planning, monitoring, implementation, and outreach, and NWQI has 

fostered additional collaboration within watersheds. To date, 8 stream segments within NWQI 

watersheds have been recommended for delisting from the impaired waters list. 

Ogallala Aquifer Initiative 

The Ogallala Aquifer underlies the Great Plains in eight states from South Dakota to Texas (CO, 

KS, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX, WY) and covers about 174,000 square miles. Ogallala groundwater 

supports nearly one-fifth of the wheat, com, cotton and cattle produced in the United States and 

is the main water supply for the Plains' population. In much of the aquifer groundwater is being 

pumped at a greater rate than it is being replenished, leading to significant declines in 

groundwater levels. 

Funding from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP) is targeted to focus areas where NRCS and partners work with 

producers to implement projects that conserve ground water. NRCS provides technical and 

financial assistance to help producers implement practices that improve irrigation efficiency, 

manage nutrients, and help producers transition to dry land farming and grazing systems. 
71 

This helps maintain the long-term viability of the irrigated agricultural sector and offsets rising 

water costs and restricted water supplies on producers. By conserving water the useful life of the 

aquifer may be extended and flow is increased in rivers, benefiting wildlife. 

Red River Basin Initiative 

The Red River basin covers 25 million acres in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota and 

includes 16 million acres of cropland. It's part of the Prairie Pothole Region and is a critical 

migratory bird pathway. Severe flooding damages homes, businesses, and farmland, decreases 

wildlife habitat, and impacts water quality. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funding helps producers implement soil and 

water management practices on cropland and pasture. Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) 

funding through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) helps landowners 

restore and protect wetlands. 

Water quality is improved through reduced delivery of nutrients and sediments to lakes, streams 

and rivers. Flood damage is reduced through detention of runoff water within restored wetlands 

and easement acres, and from improved water infiltration on agricultural land. Restored wetlands 

benefit migratory waterbirds and other water dependent species. 
72 

Attachment 2 

NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife Initiatives (WLFW) Update 

Bog Turtle 

NRCS and state wildlife agencies have collaborated on habitat restoration and protection efforts 

under a WLFW partnership since 2012 when bog turtle was selected as a target species. The bog 

turtle's status under the ESA is endangered; the primary focus has been on the northern 

population distributed from New Hampshire to Maryland. NRCS approved in 2017 a 

complementary partnership effort in the Northeast and Midwest to conserve three additional atrisk turtle species (Blanding's, spotted, and wood turtles), and is currently considering 

combining these similar efforts to create one regional partnership. Benefits to landowners 

include reduction in the risk of additional ESA regulation, cost share for popular practices such 

as rotational grazing (e.g. fences and alternative watering systems), and income from voluntary 

conservation easements that secure the small habitats occupied by this species (home ranges 

average less than a few acres) and support reduced need to increase regulation of working lands. 

Golden-winged warbler 

In 2012, the golden-winged warbler was selected as a target species for WLFW after the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list it under the ESA. WLFW conservation 

actions are focused on forestry management practices that create young forests by harvesting 

mid-stage forests. Young forests currently represent only approximately 6% of private forest 

lands across Appalachia based on Forest Service data, but forestry experts say this percentage 

should be closer to 25%, or preliminarily up to an additional 3,500,000 acres of harvests needed 

on private lands to support forest health and promote stable rural economies. In 2016, with 

partner and private landowner input, new priority areas and a strategic plan were developed to 

renew and strengthen this effort through 2021. Outcomes include habitat creation for the target 

species as well as a host of other at-risk migratory birds, and game species including deer, 

turkey, woodcock and grouse; additionally, resulting improvements to forest health will be 

reflected in future timber production income. State forestry agencies and private forestry 

consultants are strongly engaged in writing forest management plans that reflect landowner 

goals, marking trees, and completing projects. 

Gopher Tortoise 

Designated as a WLFW target species since 2012, in 2016 WLFW narrowed its priority area 

focus and released a strategic plan that doubled our previous acreage commitment to recover this 

species through practices that prioritize timber stand thinning, prescribed bums, invasives 

control, and management actions. The tortoise is currently listed as threatened under the ESA in 

the western portion of its range, from Louisiana to central Alabama; from central Alabama to 

South Carolina it is a candidate for ESA listing. NRCS is working very closely with FWS in 

hopes that our partnership with state agencies and ag producers might be successful in not only 

precluding further ESA listing in the eastern portion of its range, but also delisting the gopher 

tortoise in its western range. Landowners benefit from financial and technical assistance for 

managing longleaf pine forests, and these practices increase the market value of pine stands. 

Other benefits include the strong potential to influence a reduction in regulatory risk to working 

lands across six of the southeastern U.S. States. 
73 

Lesser Prairie Chicken 

NRCS launched the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative (LPCI) in 2010 to strategically focus 

conservation efforts to maximize biological benefits to prairie chicken populations. NRCS' 

efforts are part ofWLFW, through which NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to 

help ranchers restore and protect habitat for prairie chickens in five Great Plains states to 

improve habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken and improve sustainability and productivity of 

grazing lands. 

LPCI is enhancing NRCS' ongoing conservation efforts to support prairie chicken recovery by 

strategically focusing resources to promote healthy grazing lands management. Anticipated longterm outcomes of this initiative are improved rangeland health, greater connectivity of core 

prairie chicken habitat, and stabilization or recovery of prairie chicken populations. Since 2010 

NRCS has assisted about 770 ranchers treat nearly 1.5 million acres for the benefit of their 

operations and the lesser prairie chicken. 

Monarch Butterfly 

The most recently announced WLFW effort supports the monarch butterfly. NRCS is working 

with agricultural producers in the Midwest and southern Great Plains to combat the decline of 

monarch butterflies by planting milkweed and other nectar-rich plants on private lands. This 

region, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Texas and Wisconsin, is the core of the monarch's migration route and breeding habitat. 

Milkweed not only provides food for monarchs, it also supports other pollinators such as honey 

bees that are vital to agriculture. Milkweed also provides homes for beneficial insects that 

control the spread of destructive insects. 

Meanwhile, NRCS conservation practices that benefit monarch butterflies and other insects also 

help reduce erosion, increase soil health, control invasive species, provide quality forage for 

livestock and make agricultural operations more resilient and productive. NRCS provides 

technical and financial assistance to implement these practices, helping producers improve 

working lands and strengthening rural economies. 

New England Cottontail 

NRCS has worked closely with state agency partners in New England and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) since 2012 to implement voluntary habitat restoration projects on private 

lands that would result in recovery of this species and preclude the imminent need to list it under 

the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2016, the FWS publicly announced a no-list 

decision. Leading up to this decision, NRCS had developed a strategic plan in 2016 that fulfills 

agency commitments made for additional conservation actions through 2018 (the end of the 

current Farm Bill). Beyond helping the New England Cottontail, the related benefits to private 

landowners include remedies to forest health issues such as invasive plants and diseases, as well 

as improvements to the abundance of both game and non-game species. 

Sage grouse 

NRCS has worked closely with private landowners, local, state, and federal agency partners 

since the 2010 launch of the NRCS-led Sage grouse Initiative (SGI) to implement voluntary 
74 

rangeland habitat restoration and protection projects on working private lands across eleven 

western states. Sage grouse occupy 186 million acres of western federal and privately owned 

lands. NRCS utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to help producers 

implement practices addressing habitat threats on their private land. Additionally, voluntary 

NRCS conservation easements through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Programs 

(ACEP) ensure private working lands arc protected from fragmentation and continue as working 

lands that benefit Sage grouse. 

SGI has supported ranchers to implement conservation actions on 5.6 million acres, reducing real 

threats facing both the bird and the grazing lands upon which those ranches depend. In 2015, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced no-list decisions for both the Greater Sage 

grouse and the Bi-State population of Sage Grouse due to the unprecedented partnership in 

implementing conservation and the continued conservation implementation commitment. This 

conservation work benefits landowners through implementation of sustainable ranching practices 

that benefit both their agricultural operation and local communities, along with the sagebrush 

ecosystem, Sage grouse, and 350 other species of plant and animals. 

Southwest Willow Flycatcher 

NRCS provides technical and financial assistance through WLFW to assist agriculrural 

producers implement conservation practices that benefit the species on their working lands. 

Practices aim to protect and restore breeding habitat, combat habitat losses because of surface 

water diversion and groundwater pumping, address changes in flooding and fire regimens and 

manage non-native and invasive plants. 

Landowners are restoring habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher and other ripmian habitat 

species, aiding in the implementation of its recovery plan and increase landowner confidence that 

the conservation practices they implement will not harm the species or its habitat. Since 2012, 

NRCS has assisted about 70 landowners with over II ,000 acres of conservation treatments that 

have or will make significant progress for the recovery goals of the species. 
75 

TESTIMONY OF 

PAUL D. DEES, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD 

DELTA WILDLIFE 

SENATE COMMITIEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, & FORESTRY 

9:30a.m., THURSDAY, JUNE 29,2017 

216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this hearing to gather input on past and current conservation 

programs. I hope my recommendations will provide valuable perspective and be helpful 

to this committee as you begin the process of writing a new farm bill. I appreciate the 

opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of Delta Wildlife. 

My name is Paul Dees and I produce com, rice, and soybeans in a family farming 

operation in McGrath, Mississippi. As I mentioned, I'm here on behalf of Delta Wildlife, a 

regional non-profit organization comprised of farmers, sportsmen, and landowners who 

agree that locally led, voluntary-based conservation offers the best strategy to address 

natural resource concerns throughout the Delta. As a landowner, farmer, 

conservationist, and sportsman, my interests and those of Delta Wildlife are one in the 

same as we strive to accurately reflect the interests of a majority of landowners and 

land managers in the region we call home. I am also pleased to speak on behalf of 

Delta Council, Delta F.A.R.M., Delta Waterfowl, and the Rice Stewardship Partnership, 

which is a working lands conservation partnership, formed by the USA Rice Federation 
76 

and Ducks Unlimited. Our collective message places emphasis on what we believe 

should be the primary focus of the next Conservation Title: working lands conservation 

and active management. 

According to the USDA Economic Research Service, agriculture, forestry and 

related industries contribute nearly 6% of the United States GOP and represents more 

than 11% of U.S. employment Our agricultural and forest lands must continue to work 

for us, but the food security we enjoy today and the benefits to our economy cannot be 

sustained unless we manage these working lands wisely. Environmental sustainability 

provides the only path to ensure economic sustainability in the agriculture and forestry 

sectors. 

There are two primary working lands programs currently offered through Title II 

that have had more impact on how we manage land today than any others - the 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP). 

The Environmental Quality Incentive Program or EQIP provides financial and 

technical assistance to agricultural producers to implement conservation practices on 

agricultural lands and non-industrial private forestlands. In our region, this program has 

incentivized many producers to begin using tools that reduce our environmental 

footprint and enhance wildlife habitat. The incentive is required, as change is not easily 

embraced when there is uncertainty of success on your farm and a cost associated with 

that change, even for those who do not meet the programmatic means test. In the Delta 

it is common for farmers to rent much of their cropland. Renters do not have certainty of 
77 

whether they will hold the lease on a piece of ground from one year to the next so it is 

often not worth the risk to invest significant capital into someone else's land. Costshare programs like EQIP to bridge that gap, allowing land-renters to install 

conservation measures while footing only a portion of the cost. 

To accelerate our path towards environmental and economic sustainability in our 

agriculture and forestry sectors, EQIP must be strengthened in the next Farm Bill 

through simplification and expansion. Simplification can be achieved by giving the 

states more authority and flexibility to utilize their funds to address statewide and local 

needs with the help of state and regional partners who have the expertise, access, and 

trust of private farm and forest land owners. Further simplification can be achieved by 

abandoning the System for Award Management or SAM. Expansion can be achieved 

through increased funding and focus on national resource concerns like Water Supply 

and Soil Health. as well as making a new commitment to other resource concerns that 

have not always received adequate funding, like Wildlife Management practices on 

cropland. 

The Conservation Stewardship Program or CSP takes a slightly different 

approach to advancing environmental stewardship as compared to EQIP. CSP requires 

a producer to take a comprehensive look at their production system and identify areas 

for improvement. A plan is developed and specific goals are set for the producer to 

achieve over a CSP contract period. CSP incentivizes smaller incremental changes as 

compared to EQIP, but it does so on a broader basis. 
78 

While CSP has been successful, the consensus in our region suggests it is not 

adequately funded. 154 eligible producers, including myself, have unfunded 

applications in my county and those that surround it. Many more producers have not 

even applied because of the lack of funds. For those who have been enrolled and are 

seeking re-enrollment, the list of CSP Enhancements are too limited to offer incremental 

conservation adoption. 

While more funding is needed for both EQIP and CSP, I'm pleased to see how 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program or RCPP has used private investments 

to leverage existing conservation title funds. As an example, a RCPP partnership 

between agribusinesses, Delta FARM, Ducks Unlimited, and USA Rice has helped rice 

producers across the country conserve ground and surface water supplies. 

Beyond traditional working land conservation programs like EQIP and CSP, there 

are other valuable conservation programs that could yield greater environmental and 

economic returns through a renewed focus on active management. This Committee 

provided additional flexibility to Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract holders 

in the last Farm Bill to more efficiently manage upland and bottomland forests to 

increase both wildlife habitat and timber quality. This trend towards active management 

should continue as should the enrollment of new CRP lands restored to appropriate 

habitat covers including both grasslands and forest. However, similar flexibility has not 

yet been provided for lands enrolled in Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE) under the 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and its predecessor, the Wetland 

Reserve Program (WRP). 
79 

Demand for WRE is growing, as should funding. Today, there are 2.7 million 

acres in the U.S. enrolled in WRE and WRP. Much of these lands in southern states 

have been planted to bottomland hardwood trees with the balance of the acres restored 

as seasonal and permanent wetlands. Many of these wetland areas are not being 

managed adequately to provide real benefits to migratory waterfowl and other wetland 

dependent species. And even less is being done to plan or actively manage these new 

forests to maximize wildlife habitat and future timber quality. 

A greater emphasis must be placed on active wetland and forestry management 

on WRE and WRP lands. Active management would provide a greater return on the 

public investment. Greater environmental returns could certainly be measured. And 

additional annual investments in wetland and forestry management would help to 

support local businesses and economies that may have been impacted by initial land 

use changes. If sound forestry management is put in place today, it will begin to yield 

new jobs and opportunities for the forest products industry. 

Before I conclude, I would like to mention a separate issue that is considered by 

some an epidemic - feral swine. A ten year-old national study places a $1.5 billion 

dollar negative annual economic impact on our economy, most of which is in the 

agriculture and forestry sectors. We have no doubt that those numbers are markedly 

higher today. Many public and private landowners are working to slow the spread of 

local populations. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is 

working hard to manage feral swine populations, but more help is needed, especially on 

USDA conservation lands. In line with our message of active management, CRP, WRE 
80 

and WRP landowners need more help, either through direct assistance from USDA or 

their partners in conservation. 

On behalf of Delta Wildlife and our partners in agriculture and conservation, we 

would like to express our most sincere appreciation to you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking 

Member Stabenow, and all the members of the Committee for affording us the 

opportunity to appear before you today and submit these comments. 

Respectfully, 

Paul D. Dees, Chairman of the Board 

Delta Wildlife 
81 

Testimony 

on behalf of the 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

with regard to 

"Conservation and Forestry: Perspective on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm 

Bill" 

submitted to the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Pat Roberts, Chairman 

submitted by 

Barbara Downey 

Owner 

Downey Ranch 

Member 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

June 29, 2017 

Washington, DC 

(?! ?. National Cattlemen's d. Beef Association 

USA 

Cattlemen • Leadership • Solutions 
82 

Thank you Chairman Robe1ts and Ranking Member Stabenow for allowing me to testify today 

on conservation and the farm bill. 

My name is Barb Downey. My husband, Joe, and I own and operate the Downey Ranch in the 

Flint Hills ofWabaunsee County and Riley County, Kansas. This land is comprised mostly of 

virgin tallgrass prairie and has been an ideal location for our registered and commercial Angus 

cow herd. We work to diligently maintain and improve the varied ecosystems found on the ranch 

which sustains our cattle and provides abundant habitat for wildlife. 

U.S. cattle producers own and manage considerably more land than any other segment of 

agriculture-- or any other industry for that matter. Cattle producers graze cattle on 

approximately 666.4 million acres of the approximately 2 billion acres of the U.S.land mass. In 

addition, the acreage used to grow hay, feed grains, and food grains add millions more acres of 

land under cattlemen's stewardship and private ownership. Some of the biggest challenges and 

threats to our industry come from the loss of our natural resources. The livestock industry is 

threatened daily by urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach. Since our 

livelihood is made on the land, through the utilization of our natural resources, being good 

stewards of the land not only makes good environmental sense; it is fundamental for our industry 

to remain strong. We strive to operate as environmentally friendly as possible, and it is through 

voluntary conservation programs that ranchers will continue to be a proud partner with the 

government to reach our environmental conservation goals. 

A major item on the mind of many cattle producers is the development of the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Farm Bill programs have a lasting effect, and sometimes a dramatic impact, on producers. This 

hearing today is about conservation, so I will focus my testimony on that, but I would be remiss 

as a cattle producer ifl didn't mention the livestock industry's need for a more robust foot-andmouth disease vaccine bank. An FMD outbreak has the potential to cause catastrophic economic 

losses to not only livestock producers, but also to the feed industry, auction markets, 

slaughterhouses, food processors; not to mention that we would shut us out of export markets. 

The economic consequences would be astronomical, and our current FMD vaccine bank is 

insufficient. So please consider supporting an enhanced FMD vaccine bank. Thank you for 

letting me veer off topic for a moment, now back to conservation. 

Producers pride themselves on being good stewards of our country's natural resources. The 

Downey Ranch employs various conservation practices, some of which we put in place by 

utilizing NRCS programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (or EQIP). 

EQIP is improving habitat for grassland-nesting birds, like the Greater Prairie-Chickens we have 

on our ranch land. This program is enhancing the health of grazing lands, improving water 

quality, improving soil quality, and reducing soil erosion. One important feature of EQIP has 

been its focus on livestock operations, and we would like to see continued funding to preserve 
83 

this program in the 2018 Farm Bill. Federal funds spent on conservation are a good investment 

in our country's natural resources and the sustainability of agriculture and wildlife. 

During the extensive drought from 2011 to 2015, springs and ponds across the countryside dried 

up. Had we not unde1taken an effort to improve our drought resilience we would have been in a 

dire situation. Prior to the drought, we added water storage on our landscape. We also put 

measures in place to ensure that cattle do not have unrestricted access to the creeks and ponds. A 

public recreation area is located just 2 miles downstream and thousands of people, including our 

family, wade and swim in its waters each year. We move our cattle across these creeks via 

restricted crossings in parts of the creek that have solid rock bottom so little sediment is 

disturbed. We also installed controlled access drinking points on our stock ponds so cattle can't 

erode the banks, and we put terraces around the ponds so that any water from the cattle areas are 

filtered through the grasses rather than the ponds. 

We used the EQIP program to install 2 of our 8 controlled access ponds. The success of our 

ponds led Senator Jerry Moran, other legislators, the state director oftl1e KS NRCS, and others 

from NRCS in DC to come out to the ranch and tour it. The ponds are a cost-effective way to 

provide beneficial effects for water, wildlife, and cattle. 

At Downey Ranch, we employ rotational grazing which controls the hom fly population and 

allows the prairie grass to regenerate nicely. We use an approach that replicates bison herd 

movement over the prairie in the 19th century, running one big group of cows through different 

pastures. As a result, we've seen species that are typically grazed out coming back to the ranch. 

Eastern Gamma Grass, Catclaw Sensitive Briar, Leadplant and other indicator species are 

growing strong in our pastures. 

Another key to improving the grass on our ranch is brush control. Encroachment of trees, brush, 

and noxious weeds like the Sericea Lespedeza, represent the single largest threat to the Tallgrass 

Prairie ecosystem. We use a variety of ways to reduce brush including prescribed bums and 

mechanical treatment. We have been a community leader in promoting and using online smoke 

prediction tools in order to comply with the state's Smoke Management Plan. This is done to 

keep cities and regions downwind of a prairie bum from violating EPA air quality standards. 

Flexibility is key to ranchers using conservation programs. We are working with innovators on a 

scheme of chemical control of the noxious weed Sericia Lespedeza complemented with a fall 

burning of affected areas. It has been shown to reduce seed production from 800 seeds per plant 

to less than I, which is very effective. The ability to innovate and adapt with the local agent's 

oversight would allow integrated and holistic strategies to evolve. I'd urge you to support 

initiatives in the Farm Bill that allow this sort of innovation to be supported by NRCS programs. 

The main point I'd like you all to take away from this hearing is that the "voluntary" part of the 

conservation programs is what really makes it work for ranchers. We've had success using some 

of these conservation programs, but just because this system works for us does not mean it's 
84 

right for everybody. It's important that we keep these programs funded to safeguard their 

continued success, and above all else- these programs must stay voluntary. A one-size fits all 

approach that accompanies top-down regUlation does not work in my industry. If these programs 

were to become mandatory, the rules and regulations that farmers and ranchers would be 

subjected to would make it harder for them to utilize the unique conservation practices that help 

their individual operations thrive. 

Economic prosperity and conservation go hand in hand and we are always looking for new, 

innovative conservation programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment, and help 

to improve our ranching lands. USDA's voluntary conservation programs have been a great asset 

to cattle producers and it is important that these programs are implemented in a practical, 

producer friendly, and voluntary manner for years to come to ensure that cattle producers will 

continue to have the ability to do what we do best- produce the world's safest, most nutritious, 

abundant and affordable protein while operating in the most environmentally friendly way 

possible. Ranchers across the country maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, provide wildlife 

habitat and feed the world. Together we can sustain our country's natural resources and 

economic prosperity, ensuring the viability of our way of life for future generations. I appreciate 

the opportunity to visit with you today. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions 

you have. 
85 

Biography 

Barb and her husband, Joe, own Downey Ranch, Inc., a family owned operation started in 1986 

by Joe Downey, a 3rd generation cattle producer. The 550 head cowherd is comprised of both 

registered and commercial cows. Currently, day to day operations are handled by Joe and Barb, 

along with daughters Anna & Laura. 

The ranch is located in the heart of the Kansas Flinthills southwest of Wamego, KS. This 

location has been an ideal one for our registered and commercial Angus cow herd. Since day 

one, the Downey family been focused on beef quality. This focus has led to the Ranch being 

recognized nationally for producing high quality beef. In 1993, Downey Ranch won the 

Certified Angus Beef Value Discovery Project and in 1995, had the highest marbling pen of 

Angus steers in the 20,000 head Angus Alliance project held at Syracuse Feedyard. 
86 

TESTIMONY OF 

STEVEN HORNING 

HORNING FARMS 

BEFORE THE: 

THE UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

REGARDING: 

CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY: PERSPECTIVE ON THE PAST 

AND FUTURE DIRECTION FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL 

THURSDAY JUNE 29, 2017 

261 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 
87 

General Acres EBI >= 292 !49th! 

Number Number Number •Offen Acres Accepted Acres I Acres 

Slate Offers Accel!ted Acceeted 1"1 Not acceeted Offered Acres Ac~dl"l Not accepted 

TtXAS 1,452 197 14" -1,255 216,735 28,505 13.2" -188,230 

MONTANA 1,084 138 13!1. -946 188,276 17,829 9.5" -170,447 

KANSAS 2,802 498 18" -2,304 212,939 44,156 20.7!1. -168,783 

COLORADO 1,093 342 31!1. -751 180,921 48,005 26.5!!. -132,916 

WASHINGTON 1,578 797 51% -781 227,729 116,452 51.1% -111,2n 

MISSOURI 2,649 472 18% -2,177 121,307 20,867 17.2!1. -100,440 

OREGON 508 169 33% -339 110,534 27,812 25.2!1. -82,722 

NORTH OAKOT A 1,094 69 6% -1,025 74,059 5,944 8.0% -68,115 

NEBRASKA 1,599 288 18% ·1,311 88,381 25,024 28.3% -63,357 

IOWA 2,310 401 17% -1,909 63,391 9,725 15.3% -53,666 

ILLINOIS 2,426 160 7% -2,266 49,330 2,157 4.4% -47,173 

OKlAHOMA 598 139 23% -459 55,528 12,188 21.9% -43,340 

50l1TH DAKOTA 727 0% -725 42,352 101 0.2% -42,251 

MINNESOTA 1,367 149 11% -1,218 31,662 2,966 9.4% -28,696 

MISS1SSIPPI 622 212 34% -410 36,419 13,303 36.5% -23,116 

IDAHO 224 57 25% -167 28,902 10,544 36.5% -18,358 

WISCONSIN 957 124 13!1. -833 17,886 1,988 11.1!1. -15,898 

MICHIGAN 568 30 5!1. -538 13,539 923 6.8% -12,616 

WYOMING 33 21% -26 12,155 2,043 16.8% -10,112 

UTAH 54 13 24% -41 9,302 1,287 13.8% -8,015 

ALABAMA 250 64 26% ·186 9,808 2,193 22.4% -7,615 

KENTUCKY 367 111 30% ·256 9,620 2,790 29.0% -6,830 

INDIANA 365 44 12% ·321 7,638 851 11.1!1. -6,787 

NEW MEXICO 39 11 28% ·28 8,926 2,175 24.4!1. -6.751 

TENNESSEE 306 99 32% ·207 8,957 3,665 40.9!1. ·5,292 

OHIO 350 37 11% ·313 5,625 541 9.6% ·5,084 

ARKANSAS 108 28 26!1. ·80 4,971 1,046 21.0% -3,925 

VIRGINIA 211 43 20% ·168 4,236 982 23.2% ·3,254 

LOUISIANA 81 20 25!1. -61 4,041 811 20.1% ·3,230 

GEORGIA 123 35 28!1. ·88 3,894 1,161 29.8!1. -2,733 

CALIFORNIA 11 27!1. -8 2,021 718 35.5% -1,303 

NEW YORK 61 5!1. ·58 1,365 75 5.5% ·1,290 

NORTH CAROLINA 152 70 46% ·82 2,263 1,171 51.7!1. ·1,092 

SOlJTH CAROLINA 35 11 31% -24 1.166 443 38.0% -723 

DELAWARE 26 5 19!1. ·21 458 0 0.0% -458 

FLORIDA 20 0 0% ·20 585 176 3o.t% -409 

MARYLAND 20 6 30% ·14 303 130 42.9% ·173 

MAINE 5 20% -4 130 18 13.8!1. -112 

WEST VIRGINIA 0 0!1. ·1 40 0 0.0!1. -40 

PENNSYLVANIA 67!1. ·1 20 9 45.0% ·11 

CONNECTICUT 

HAWAII 

NEWJ£RSEY 

VERMONT 

us 26,279 4,857 18% ·21,422 1,8S7,414 410,774 22.1% ·1,446,640 

U50A Farm Service Agency • CRP Slgnup 149 
88 

Good morning chairman Roberts, ranking member Stabenow, and members of the committee. My name 

is Steve Homing. I am a Certified Public Accountant and owner of Horning Farms in Watertown South 

Dakota. Because of my love of hunting pheasants, I started to buy farmland in 1990. I now own ten 

thousand acres of farmland. I produce corn, soybean, and wheat and rent out my pasture to local 

farmers. I follow the model of "farm the best and conserve the rest". Before I would consider purchasing 

land, I would see what I could do to improve the land for conservation. If I could not improve it, I would 

not buy it. 

The primary program I have used Is the Conservation Reserve Program. My CRP practices include: 

restoring grassland, implementing buffers, planting tree wind breaks, and restoring wetland areas. More 

recently I installed pollinator practices. I have also utilized WRP and WRE for long term easements. I 

depend on technical and financial assistance from USDA, NRCS, FSA, GFP, USFWS, and PF. All of these 

conservation practices provide for optimal habitat for wildlife. Pheasant hunting is a major economic 

driver for small rural communities bringing in over 230 million dollars annually to small mom and pop 

businesses. 

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks started a new land owner recognition award in 2010. I was extremely 

honored to be the first to receive the "Habitat Partner of the year Award". Along with this, I have been 

recognized by the South Dakota Chapters of Pheasants Forever as their conservationist or the year 2009. 

My purpose to meet with you today is to inform you of the need to increase the CRP acreage cap. I have 

had good success in past general CRP signups. I have had about 75'16 approval on my applications. 
89 

Then there was signup 49 in 2016. I was zero for six in my applications. In fact, the whole state of South 

Dakota only had two contracts approved for a total of 101 acres. There were over 43,000 acres offered. 

This was one of the worst acceptance rates in the country (see attached table).! would ask that you take 

a serious look at the CRP cap and how landowners can sign up. 

Another concern of mine is the mid management on CRP contracts. Every 4 to 5 years you must either 

have a prescribed burn or mow, bale and destroy the grass. I suggest instead of you paying me cost 

share to waste the grass, you let my hay it and use it for livestock feed.! have utilized the haying and 

grazing option with my CRP. During 2012, because of emergency, I was allowed to hay some of my 

easement ground. My livestock neighbors call me annually requesting to hay my CRP. If you would allow 

me to mid manage 1/Sth to 1/3rrJ of my CRP grasses each year, it would save the government two fold. 

First by not paying me to waste the grass, and second, I would receive a reduction in my CRP payment 

for the value of the grass. 

We must be cautious about the impact to soil, erosion, and wildlife. Timing of haying and grazing is also 

critical and we should keep nesting season in mind as to minimize the impact to wildlife. 

Another area I'd like to address is crop insurance. Since most of crop insurance claims come from 

marginal ground, I have taken this out and put into CRP programs. Marginal ground either burns up or is 

to wet, thereby, creating the most crop insurance claims. 
90 

1 have switched from optional unit (where you account for each unit separately) to enterprise crop 

insurance (where each crop in the county is treated as one crop) by taking my marginal ground out I 

have reduced my claims to zero for 2014, 2015 and 2016. I have been on Enterprise crop insurance since 

2014, where the premium is approximately 30% of the optimal unit. 

Below are my crop insurance results: 

Year Total Subsidy Steve's Acres 

Premium Premium 

2014 $115,000 $84,000 $31,000 2660 

2015 $90,000 $70,000 $20,000 2807 

2016 $58,000 $46,000 $12,000 2582 

I also like Senator Thune's new Soil Health & Income Protection Plan (SHIPP). This program allows for 

shorter contracts. This will appeal to most farmers as they are reluctant to put it into a 10 or 15 year CRP 

contract. 

In closing, please consider the recent demands from farmers, ranchers and landowners for these 

programs. 

Thank you and I look forward to any questions. 
91 

Testimony of Misty Jones 

Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, 

Farm Service Agency 

United States Department of Agriculture 

before the 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee 

of the 

United States Senate 

June 29, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members ofthe Committee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to offer testimony this morning on the USDA Fann Service Agency's (FSA's) conservation 

programs authorized by the Agricultural Act of2014 (2014 Farm Bill). 

CRP and the 24 Million-Acre Cap 

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 can be devoted to conservation benefits. Participants 

establish long-term, resource-conserving cover and, in return, FSA provides participants with 

annual rental and other assistance. Contract duration is between I 0 and 15 years. CRP improves 

water quality, reduces soil erosion, and restores habitat for pollinators, ducks, pheasants, turkey, 

quail, deer and other wildlife. In doing so, CRP spurs hunting, fishing, recreation, tourism, and 

other economic activity across rural America. 

FSA administers CRP while technical support functions are provided by the USDA's 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), state forestry agencies, local soil and water 

conservation districts, and other non-federal providers of technical assistance. 

Currently, 23.5 million acres are enrolled in CRP contracts, including 16 million acres 

under General sign-up enrollment authority, 7.3 million acres under Continuous sign-up 

enrollment authority, and 90,000 acres under the Grasslands sign-up enrollment authority (see 

figure I) with 800,000 more to come online in FY 2018. This is 13.4 million acres below peak 

enrollment in2007 and just short of the 24 million-acre cap established in the 2014 Fann 

Bill. CRP contracts on 2.5 million acres (combined general and continuous) are set to expire on 

September 30,2017. 

CRP General sign-up is a competitive process conducted on a periodic basis; these signups do not occur according to a fixed schedule. The last general sign-up occurred in the spring 

of2016. 

CRP Continuous sign-up occurs on a continuous basis throughout the year and does not 

involve a discrete sign-up period. The 7.3 million acres in enrollment in Continuous sign-up is 

the result of large demand and strong incentives over the past 8 years and a relatively small 

acceptance rate during the last General sign-up. 
92 

CRP Grasslands sign-up, newly created by the 2014 Farm Bill, is a continuous working 

lands program that particularly benefits livestock producers. FSA has held three Grasslands 

ranking periods and 800,000 acres have been approved for enrollment for FY 2018 contracts. 

Similar to General sign-up, enrolled lands are likely to be larger parcels than associated with 

Continuous CRP sign-up. The statutory enrollment cap is 2 million acres, which counts against 

the 24 million-acre overall CRP cap. 

Largely due to lower commodity prices and the CRP cap, landowner demand and 

competition for program entry has been strong and increasing, having a particularly large impact 

on General sign-up acceptance rates (see figure 2). The FY 2016 General sign-up accepted only 

400,000 acres. With 1.9 million acres offered, the overall acceptance rate was 22 percent. 

Landowners compete against one another for General enrollment entry based on relative 

"environmental benefits index" (EBI) scores, and those with lower scores were unlikely to be 

accepted given the acreage cap. In South Dakota, for example, where the average EBI score was 

215, the acceptance rate was less than I percent. In contrast, in Iowa, with an average EBI score 

of 251, the acceptance rate was IS percent. 

Lower commodity prices also reduced landowners' interest in the 2014 Farm Bill 

provision that allowed CRP contract termination without penalty during FY 2015. Contracts 

were required to have been in place for 5 years to be eligible. FSA data indicate that about 

90,000 CRP acres were terminated under this provision-likely far lower than if this provision 

had been in effect for FY 2012 when many commodity prices were near peak levels. 

CRP Looking Ahead 

FSA is constantly on the look-out for ways to help new and beginning farmers gain entry 

into farming-whether through outreach or other means. The Transition Incentives Program 

(TIP) provides two additional years of payments for retired producers who transition expiring 

CRP acres to socially disadvantaged, veteran, or beginning producers who make conservation 

and land improvements, begin the certification process under the Organic Foods Production Act 

of 1990, or devote the land to sustainable grazing or crop production. The 2014 Farm Bill 

provided $33 million through FY 2018, up from $25 million under the 2008 Farm Bill. About 

$12 million of TIP funding has been obligated under the 2014 Farm Bill so far, helping an 

estimated 931 eligible new producers. 

FSA has also heard from beginning farmers that it can be difficult to compete for 

farmable land in certain acres given the level of CRP rental rates. Since the initiation of CRP in 

1985, CRP rental rates have been set to align, as closely as possible, with cash market rents. 

FSA currently uses data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cash rents 

survey, adjusted for soil types, to set CRP annual payment rates. Rates are updated periodically. 

There is an inherent lag in these rates. As land prices go down over time, rates may be 

temporarily higher than the market, and conversely, as land prices go up, rates may be 

temporarily lower than the market. We try to minimize this lag by updating rates as soon as 

better data is available. 

CRP has many flexible elements that allow adjustment to critical conditions, such as 

emergency haying and grazing, and we look forward to continuing our flexible approach going 
93 

forward. On Apri14, 2017, USDA authorized emergency grazing on CRP lands in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas- the three states which were most heavily affected by wildfires which 

began on March 6, 2017. Without this assistance, many ranchers would have been forced to 

downsize their cattle herds due to lack of sufficient grazing land. This measure allows them to 

salvage what remains of their cattle and return to the important business of feeding the world. 

Just last week, Secretary Perdue authorized emergency grazing on CRP lands in drought-stricken 

counties in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

Emergency Assistance through non-Title II Conservation Programs 

The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) is of great importance to farmers and 

ranchers across the nation after a disaster. This program, 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. 

With 2017 flooding in Missouri, Arkansas and other states, we stand ready to provide 

ECP funding, within our available resources, to farmers and ranchers in those states to restore 

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

far, FSA has allowed for the streamlining of signup at the local county offices by authorizing a 

waiver of on-site visits to farms and ranches. County offices are currently conducting signups. 

Enhanced Service through Closer Interaction with NRCS 

FSA is very much focused on our closer relationship with NRCS and Risk Management 

Agency (RMA) in the new Farm Production and Conservation mission area. Together, we look 

forward to enhancing the service provided to our farming and ranching customers. FSA is proud 

of the vital impact that CRP has had on the landscape to date. 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 sequesters an estimated 43 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. Our linkage with 

NRCS will help us achieve even greater environmental benefits. 

Again, I want to thank you for allowing me to provide FSA's perspective on the valuable 

conservation programs your Committee authorizes. I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 
94 

FIGURE 1. Summary ofCRP Sign-Up Types 

Enrollment through 

periodic competitive 

signups 

USDA announces 

General sign-up 

periods-- typically 

no more frequently 

than once a yearwhere landowners 

submit bids and 

compete for entry. 

The most recent 

General sign-up was 

held in FY2016. 

General sign-up 

enrollment is 

currently 16 million 

acres. 

Initiated in 1996 and is not based on 

competitive entry (if a landowner qualifies, tbe 

land is approved for enrollment) 

environmentally desirable land devoted to 

certain conservation practices may be enrolled 

at any time, includes tbe 

•Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

(CREP) 

•Farmable Wetlands Program(FWP) 

•State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement 

(SAFE) 

• Highly Erodible Lands Initiative (HELl) 

Given proximity to the acreage cap, FSA ended 

continuous enrollment in May 2017 for FY 

2017 entry and "paused" entry for FY 2018 

(although FY 2018 applications are still being 

accepted). Current enrollment is 7.3 million 

acres. Continuous sign-up increased 

significantly relative to General sign-up 

enrollment over tbe past eight years (see figure 

2). 

FIGURE 2. Enrollment trends since 1986 

New witb tbe 2014 Farrn Bill, 

eligible grassland including land that 

contain forbs or shiubland for which 

grazing is tbe predominant use may 

be enrolled tbrougb continuous 

enrollments witb periodic ranking 

periods 

Similar to general sign-up, enrolled 

lands are likely to be larger parcels 

tban associated witb Continuous 

CRP sign-up."working lands" 

program tbat particularly benefits 

livestock producers. 

FSA has held three Grasslands 

ranking periods and 800,000 acres 

have been approved for enrollment 

for FY 2018 contracts. The statutory 

enrollment cap is 2 million acres, 

which counts against tbe 24-millionacre overall CRP cap. 

CRP Enrollment at End of Fiscal Year (Acres) 

40.0 

35.0 

~ 30.0 ... 

~ 25.0 

c:: 20.0 

~ 15.0 

i 10.0 

5.0 

0.0 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~~~O~NM~~~~~~O~N~~~~~~~O~NM~~W 

~~ro~m~~~mm~~~~oooooooooo~~~~~~~ 

~m~~m~~~~o~~m~ooooooooooooooooo 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 

Fiscal Year 

• General Continuous 
95 

FEDERAL FOREST 

RESOURCE COALITION 

Testimony: 

Building on the Success of the 2014 Farm Bill for Federal Forests 

Chuck Roady, Vice President & General Manager: 

F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Company, Columbia Falls, Montana 

Board Member, Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Washington, DC 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Washington, DC 

June 29, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow. My name is Chuck Roady, 

and I am Vice President and General Manager of F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company in 

Columbia Falls, Montana. We are a fourth generation, family owned company operating a 

saw mill, a biomass co-generation facility, and managing just under 40,000 acres of 

timberland. These facilities create 120 direct jobs, and help support an additional85 

contractor jobs. Our company puts nearly $30 million a year into our local economy. 

I am also on the Board of Directors of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, representing 

purchasers of Forest Service timber from 32 States. Collectively, our members employ over 

390,000 people, and provide over $19 billion in payroll. Our members purchase, harvest, 

transport, and process National Forest and BLM timber into renewable wood, paper, and 

biomass energy products. 

I am also a board member and past President of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a 

hunter conservation group which has worked to conserve over 7.1 million acres and 

advocate for science-based resource management. I'm also on the board ofthe Montana 

Wood Products Association, a 37 year old association that includes sawmills, 

manufacturers of plywood, particle board, fiberboard, pulp and paper, posts and poles, log 

homes, as well as timberland owners and managers and logging contractors. MWPA's 

mission is to promote healthy forests and healthy communities through management of 

Montana forests. 

The 2014 Farm Bill was the most significant Forest Service reform legislation at least since 

the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in 2003. Among other provisions, the 

2014 Bill included: 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
96 

• Permanent reauthorization for Stewardship Contracting, including reforms that 

protected contractors from unlimited fire liability; 

• Expanded Good Neighbor Authority from a two-state pilot to a nation-wide 

program; 

• Authority to use Designation by Prescription and Designation by Description, 

streamlining timber sale preparation and reducing costs; and 

• Creation of new Categorical Exclusions and streamlined Environmental Analyses to 

implement forest insect and disease treatments on certain national forest acres. 

These provisions, while much appreciated, have yet to yield significant progress in 

reversing alarming trends in forest health on our National Forests. Greater flexibility is 

required in order to move the National Forests closer to forest plan objectives, including 

healthier forests, reduced fire danger, and increased timber outputs. 

As you well know, millions of acres of National Forests have been affected by insect 

epidemics and catastrophic fires, and the Forest Service estimates that over 82 million 

acres of National Forests are at elevated risk of catastrophic wildfires, insect, or disease 

outbreaks. Last month, the Colorado State Forest Service estimated there are 834 million 

dead trees in the State, mostly from devastating insect epidemics. California is dealing with 

a large and rapidly growing mortality event, with as much as 10 billion board feet dead on 

just two of their overcrowded National Forests. Large scale wildfires cost billions annually 

to suppress, and cities such as Denver have been forced to spend tens of millions of dollars 

restoring damaged watersheds. 

In other National Forests, such as those in the Lake States and New England, passive 

management has allowed forests to develop into closed canopy stands where little sunlight 

reaches the forest floor. These forests have limited value as wildlife habitat and are 

susceptible to fire and insects, while populations of species that require early successional 

habitat, such as the ruffed grouse and Kirtland's Warbler, continue to decline. 

The extent of the problem is not in doubt. The Government Accountability Office 

recognized the urgency of the need to reduce hazardous fuels way back in 1991. The Forest 

Service acknowledges that over 73 million acres of their lands are a high priority for 

management and that "one time treatment of all high fire risk areas would not fully address 

the fuels problem, as landscapes continue to change over time and fuels would build up on 

many lands currently in historic condition, without periodic maintenance treatments." The 

Western Governors' Association this week issued a report urging rapid legislative and 

administrative action to address the hazardous conditions on our National Forest. 

These problems are often the most severe in States which have lost most of their wood 

using industries due to constrained supplies from Forest Service lands. We've learned 

through painful experience that rebuilding the industry infrastructure in such places is a 

slow, laborious process. Efforts to increase the pace and scale of management are often 

stymied by this classic chicken-or-egg problem. The Forest Service must demonstrate it 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
97 

will reliably offer viable projects to attract investment, and it's difficult for the Forest 

Service to offer these projects under current authorities. 

Current Forest Plans allow for roughly twice the current level of harvest from our National 

Forests. Increasing the pace and scale of management to meet the roughly 6 Billion Board 

Feet called for in current plans will not only create American jobs in frequently hard 

pressed rural areas; it will reduce fire hazards and improve wildlife habitat coast to coast. 

Current authorities do not allow the Forest Service to plan and implement needed 

management projects in a timely fashion. Badly needed projects to thin hazardous fuels can 

take years to plan, at which point groups opposed to management file lawsuits that cause 

further delays. Many National Forests are woefully behind on meeting forest plan 

objectives, particularly those associated with young forests. At best, it takes the Forest 

Service at least a year to plan and begin implementing salvage projects. Worse yet, the 

Forest Service has, in our view, been slow to implement streamlined authorities provided 

in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

The Insect & Disease Treatment Areas authority created by the 2014 Bill is a case in point. 

The authority allowed States to petition the Secretary of Agriculture to designate certain 

NFS lands as "Insect & Disease Treatment Areas," where the Forest Service would then be 

allowed to use expedited NEPA tools- including Categorical Exclusions of up to 3,000 acres 

-to reduce fuel loads and increase stand health. 37 States petitioned for the inclusion of 

over 56 Million acres of National Forest lands. Since the petition process ended in May of 

2014; 

• 41 Categorical Exclusions have been decided in 12 States, covering a grand total of 

about 78,000 acres of treatments, including 26,000 acres of timber harvest. 

• An additional28 projects- using Categorical Exclusions and focused Environmental 

Assessments & Environmental Impact Statements- covering an additional127,000 

acres - are in the works. 

This May, it will be 3 years since the close of the designation period. At this rate, the Forest 

Service is treating just over 26,000 acres per year. If we assume that the additional 127,000 

acres will be decided entirely in this fiscal year, that would represent a significant ramp up. 

However, even at that higher rate, it will take over 440 years to treat all 56 million 

acres designated in 2014. 

We are flummoxed at the low rate of use of these new authorities in regions that have had 

significant forest mortality events. Region 1, where my businesses are, has only used the 

new authorities on 12,000 acres, despite the fact that we've had millions of acres of damage 

from Mountain Pine beetles and Spruce Beetles. Oregon, for another example, had over 6.5 

million acres designated as treatment areas, yet has completed only had two projects 

covering a few thousand acres, with only 5,100 acre in progress. 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
98 

Likewise, we are concerned that Good Neighbor Authority Master Agreements are only in 

place in 18 States (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming). The Forest Service should have 

Master Agreements with every State that includes NFS lands. 

Moreover, we are concern.ed that implementation of the current Good Neighbor Authorities 

has exposed limitations which are hampering program effectiveness. Overlapping and 

conflicting authorities present this committee with the opportunity to fix problems we 

didn't foresee in 2014. 

Wby More Relief Is Needed: 

The Forest Service faces many challenges, including an aging workforce, loss of key skill 

sets, a large infrastructure backlog, and a broken system for paying wildfire suppression 

costs. We do not expect the Farm Bill to address all of these challenges. But the Committee 

must understand- rampant litigation and the ripple effects it creates are a serious problem 

for the Forest Service. 

In Region 1 where I work, 38 timber sales are under litigation, and 23 of these are enjoined. 

Over 17,000 acres of needed management- fuels reduction, creation of habitat diversity, 

and watershed protection are currently being blocked by the court, and another 11,500 

acres could be delayed. More than 171 Million Board Feet of timber timber that could be 

putting loggers, truckers, and mill hands to work- is currently being delayed by legal 

action. 

While its true that the Forest Service conducts many minor projects using streamlined 

authorities, in general in our region when they are trying to execute larger projects they 

tend to use Environmental Impact Statements. It seems that any size project is subject to 

challenge, especially the larger landscape analysis that makes the most sense - even in a 

region that takes great pains to avoid controversial areas. At one point in 2015, 80 percent 

of the acres the Forest Service was trying to manage pursuant to an EIS was under 

litigation. 

Example after example oflitigation against collaboratively developed projects can be cited 

in Region 1. Here are just a few: 

The East Reservoir Project on the Kootenai: After more than 4 years of strong local 

collaborative work on a project designed to improve wildlife habitat and reduce fire 

danger, the project has been in an out of court for the last few years, thanks to one of our 

frequent flyer litigants. It was enjoined last year and will remain so at least until this fall. 

The Colt Summit Project on the Lolo -7 years from scoping to final court clearance in order 

to do just over 3,200 acres of thinning in a fire prone forest. The lawsuit was filed by people 

who did not participate in the collaborative 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
99 

The Lonesome Wood Project on the Gallatin National Forest- scoping began seven years 

ago. Extremist groups have won yet another injunction- on a 2,500 acre project. 

The Telegraph Project on the Helena National Forest- a 5,700 acre fuels reduction efforthas taken seven years and five months to go from scoping to the filing of a lawsuit. 

The Stonewall Project on the Helena National Forest- a collaborative project first 

proposed in 2008- remains under injunction today, even after years of support from a 

local collaborative. 

Because they know they will be sued, the Forest Service tends to propose less management 

then they should- and then to analyze it to death in the hopes of prevailing in court. Even 

in Regions with fewer active litigants, the effort to bulletproof NEPA saps resources, delays 

projects, and prevents efficiencies. 

Recommendatjons for the Next Farm Bill: 

The Farm Bill is a viable vehicle for meaningful reforms of our National Forest System. We 

urge you to continue this bi-partisan commitment to ensuring better management of the 

191 million acres of National Forests, working closely with your counterparts on the 

Natural Resources Committee and, of course, your colleagues in the other chamber. 

In order to address the continuing forest health crises these Federal lands are experiencing, 

we urge you to take the following steps in the next Farm Bill: 

CreateAdditionql CqtegoricalExclusions: Additional CE authority through new 

categories or expansion of existing categories would mean fewer projects would require 

detailed NEPA analysis. In adopting new CE's, Congress should specify that the Forest 

Service has the discretion to determine when and how to apply "extraordinary 

circumstances" reviews to the projects, and clarify that projects conducted pursuant to new 

and existing CE's do not require documentation of cumulative impacts. We recommend the 

following new or expanded CE's: 

o Early Sera! Habitat Creation on up to 10,000 acres 

o Expansion of insect & Disease Treatment Area CE's to 10,000 

o Improve wildlife habitat on up to 10,000 acres. 

Allow the FS to conduct projects consistent with the Insect & Disease CE: The existing 

Insect & Disease CE's could be improved by (1) allowing the Forest Service to move 

forward with projects on lands that it determines meet the criteria for designation; (2) 

expand its application to all acres outside of designated wilderness, roadless, or on which 

removal of vegetation is prohibited by law; and (3) making the authorities permanent; and 

( 4) authorizing projects in lands in Fire Regime IV. 

ClarifY NEPA Resoonsibilities qt the Forest Service: GAO has found that the Forest Service 

does more NEPA compliance, produces more EIS's, and takes longer to do so than most 

other Federal agencies whose projects have inherently more lasting impacts on the 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
100 

landscape, for instance through creation of permanent infrastructure. Congress should 

clarify that at the Forest Service: 

o Application of NEPA should be restricted to truly "major" actions, not routine land 

management: Thinning of forests in general forest or "suited for timber production" 

acres under existing forest plans should presumptively not be considered a major 

action. Taking steps to rapidly address hazard trees after wildfires, ice storms, or 

wind throw events should not presumptively be considered "major." 

o Clarify that (1) environmental impact statements only require an agency to analyze 

the proposed action and a no action alternative, and that consideration of additional 

alternatives is solely at the discretion of the Forest Service; and (2) environmental 

assessments done by the Forest Service do not require analysis of a no action 

alternative. 

Clar(fjiProblems Restricting Use ofGoodNeighborAutborit;y: Due to a rapidly unfolding 

series of events, Congress enacted two different Good Neighbor Authorities during 2014. 

Unfortunately, both of these authorities contain language that, as explained in Forest 

Service guidance, limits the applicability of these authorities. In our view, an effective, 

single National Good Neighbor Authority is needed to strengthen the Forest Service 

relationships with the States, create program efficiencies, and maximize program 

effectiveness. A single new Good Neighbor Authority should: 

o Allow the Forest Service to use GNA for projects anywhere on the National Forest 

System, not just those that meet abstract and poorly defined adjacency 

requirements; and 

o Remove restrictions on road repair and rehabilitation. Current practice defines road 

reconstruction so broadly that even limited road work triggers concern when the 

Forest Service uses GNA. This leads to poorly designed timber sales and precludes 

some projects altogether. 

ClarifY Congressional Intent on Stewardship Contracting: Stewarqship Contracting is 

one tool for achieving land management goals; in many cases, the same land management 

results can be - and are currently being- achieved with traditional timber sale contracts. 

Congress recognized this when they made the authority permanent in the 2014 Farm Bill, 

saying that Stewardship Contracting authorities is not intended to replace or supplant 

other contracting tools. 

The Forest Service and BLM can achieve greater program efficiency and transparency in 

the use of Stewardship Contracts, while ensuring local support for the projects performed 

using this important tool. These reforms will also help attract a broader variety of potential 

partners who want to support and participate in Stewardship Contracting projects. The 

next Farm Bill should: 

o Make retention of existing wood products infrastructure a co-equal objective with 

other goals of Stewardship contracts and agreements. 

o Provide clearer criteria to help the Forest Service determine when to use 

Stewardship Contracts, Stewardship Agreements, or other contracting mechanisms. 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
101 

In general, if a project is located in the suitable timber base and can be a viable, 

commercial timber sale, it should be offered as such. 

o Clarify the Forest Service and BLM ability to use "best value" or "lowest cost, 

technically acceptable" criteria when making contract awards. 

o Where Stewardship contracts or agreements result in payments to the Forest 

Service, 25% of those gross payments should be directed to the County where the 

project is being performed. 

o Congress must remind the Forest Service that funds collected under the KnutsonVandenberg Act may be used beyond the sale area boundary, and direct the Forest 

Service to reduce overhead costs charged against K-V collections. 

Provjde Greater Certainty for Prq,iect Level Decisions: This Committee played a key role 

in providing some of the judicial review relief for certain Forest Service decisions in the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. In addition to creating a streamlined "objection" 

process (expanded to all Forest Service projects in 2011), HFRA encouraged courts to 

provide deference to the Forest Service for a narrowly defined set of projects, required 

participation in the administrative objection process in order to be eligible to file suit, 

required courts to consider the "balance of harms" from a proposed project versus the 

harms that could be caused if a project wasn't done, and provided that injunctions be 

limited to 60 days. In the next Farm Bill, the Congress should: 

o Expand HFRA judicial review provisions to all Forest Service vegetation 

management projects, except on acres where timber management is prohibited by 

law or the Forest Plan; 

o Provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including "baseball" style 

arbitration, for some projects on a pilot basis. 

o Restrict EAJA payments to reasonable limits for hourly reimbursement, and provide 

stricter controls to ensure that payments do not go to losing plaintiffs or 

organizations which have substantial financial resources. 

Conclusion: The Federal Forest Resource Coalition is extremely grateful for the work this 

committee did in the 2014 Farm Bill. We continue to encourage the Forest Service to more 

fully utilize the authorities provided in that landmark bill. However, we've also become 

aware of some key missing elements and unforeseen challenges as the Forest Service has 

worked to implement these authorities. The above recommendations would allow the 

Forest Service to rapidly propose, analyze, and implement needed forest management 

projects across the landscape. Doing more work, better, and faster will result in lower 

costs, more community support, and potentially higher returns to the Treasury. 

If we fail to act, however, the alarming trends in declining forest health, loss of forest 

industry jobs, continued catastrophic fires, destroyed watersheds and degraded wildlife 

habitat are a virtual certainty. While the Congress has consistently provided streamlined 

authorities since 2003, we've seen that they have yet to succeed in moving the Forest 

Service far enough, fast enough to address its many and serious problems. 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29, 2017 
102 

We urge you to take the opportunity offered by the next Farm Bill to help move the trend 

towards more, better, and faster management. 

FFRC Farm Bill Testimony June 29,2017 
103 

Testimony of Salem G. Saloom, M.D. 

On Behalf of the American Forest Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation 

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

June 29, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, members ofthe Committee, I'm pleased to join you 

today to provide testimony on the Farm Bill's forestry and conservation tools from the 

perspective of a family Tree Farmer, certified by the American Tree Farm System® (ATFS), a 

Board member of the American Forest Foundation (AFF), which houses ATFS, and an avid 

sportsman and Diamond Life Member of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF). 

My wife Dianne and I own and care for 2,200 acres of forest Conecuh County, Alabama. We are 

one family out of the 22 million people in America who own forests. When most people think 

of forests in America they think of our National Forests and other public lands-when in fact, 

more than one-third of America's forests are owned by people like Dianne and me. Families 

and individuals own more of America's forests than the federal government or private 

companies. 

Both the American Forest Foundation, a non-profit conservation organization that helps 

families manage our land and provide benefits like clean water, wildlife habitat, and sustainable 

wood supplies for all Americans, and the National Wild Turkey Federation, a non-profit wildlife 

conservation organization dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and the 

preservation of our hunting heritage, have been essential to my success as a Tree Farmer. 

Unlike some landowners whose land was passed to them through multiple generations, Dianne 

and I started out by buying 158 acres of forest in 1983 because yve wanted a place to enjoy 

both the outdoors and the wildlife we love to hunt. This dream, what some would call the 

"American Dream," was nearly destroyed when Hurricane Ivan made landfall in 2004, wiping 

out most of our standing pines and leaving only a few older, longleaf pine trees on the land. 

After this devastating feeling of loss, Dianne and I made a conscious effort to manage 

proactively. As we began envisioning the new beginnings of our ruined forest, we also made 

plans for its future welfare. Many of the loblolly pine trees were either uprooted, twisted, or 

snapped-in-two due to Ivan. Compared to the other tree species, we were surprised to see that 

some of the larger longleaf on the property made it through the storm intact. This provided us 

an opportunity to learn about longleaf, and to change our management plan by incorporating 

longleaf pine in our restoration efforts. 

Dianne and I began the hard work of recovering our forest with the help of the Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program, which has since been merged into the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, which helped us to prepare the site and plant 156 acres of longleaf pine. It is because 

of the work of this Committee, in its efforts to allow forest owners to participate in these 

programs, that this was made possible. Today, we have our land enrolled in the Conservation 
104 

Stewardship Program, which helps us continuously improve our land. We have also been 

blessed to have the support of the state service foresters from the Alabama Forestry 

Commission, some of which is funded through the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Stewardship 

Program. 

Today we have planted about half of our now-2,200 acres in longleaf pine, with the other half a 

mix of loblolly, shortleaf, and slash pines, as well as some mixed hardwoods-- A diverse array of 

species that helps us manage for a variety of risks. 

We actively manage our land, produce timber that fuels local mills and regularly initiate 

prescribed burns to maintain the stands in healthy condition. With our forest management 

alone, we provide jobs to many in our community and, with landowners throughout our state, 

help fuel $23 billion economy in Alabama alone. I can say, without a doubt, that we would not 

have been able to get back on our feet were it not for these Farm Bill programs. 

As we began learning more about longleaf and managing the ecosystem, we began seeing 

significant improvements in the habitat for not only deer, turkey, and quail, but also for the 

gopher tortoise-an at-risk species that could be listed under the Endangered Species Act in my 

area. The gopher tortoise is already listed as threatened in areas of southwestern Alabama. 

I had, of course, heard the worries from other landowners who were afraid of having at-risk 

wildlife (endangered, threatened, or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act) on 

their land. Those warnings made me think long and hard about whether I wanted to do more 

of the proactive management that would eventually bring these species onto my property, and 

how that would affect our land management plans. 

I ended up becoming more excited about the prospect as I learned more about these incredible 

creatures. I thought not only about how I could get value from my woods from timber and 

hunting, but also how little ol' me could be a part of saving species from extinction-how cool is 

that? 

I also learned about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and how I could proactively 

work with them to reduce the risk of future regulatory restrictions on my land while still 

performing the management my lands required. 

In July, 2013 we signed a 30-year Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with USFWS and the 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) that allows me to 

continue the management I've outlined for my land, while also creating more habitat for the atrisk gopher tortoise. In exchange, USFWS gave me two guarantees: First, if I "take" a species 

during this management, I won't be held liable; and second, if my management results in 

additional wildlife on my property, I won't be responsible for their protection in the future. 

While I've worked well with USFWS, along with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

and the state forestry agency, I recognize that I'm very unique landowner. The worry and fear 

of species listings, and the impact that can have on Tree Farmers' ability to manage their land, 
105 

is a very real fear. Truth be told, if I hadn't been forced to reforest my land because of the 

devastation wrought by Hurricane Ivan, I would be in a very different place. 

These fears are well founded. AFF's recent report, Southern Wildlife At-Risk: Family Forest 

Owners Offer Solution, points to the growing number of at-risk wildlife in the South. With 224 

forest-dependent species listed today, and the potential for another 293 candidate and petition 

forest-dependent species to be listed in the future, these species listings are becoming one of 

the most pressing issues for family Tree Farmers in the South. 

But even as landowners are worried, they're still committed to helping maintain our nation's 

forests and associated wildlife habitat. Last year, AFF surveyed family woodland owners asking 

about their interest in doing more for wildlife on their property and 87% of landowners 

surveyed in the South say protecting and improving wildlife habitat is a key reason they own 

land. AFF's survey, highlighted in the above noted report, also found that landowners who are 

actively managing their land and harvesting timber are doing more for wildlife than landowners 

who aren't. 

Forest owners want to do the right thing; they want to help wildlife. This tells us we have an 

opportunity, but we must find ways to protect landowners from the additional regulatory 

burdens that penalize them for doing the right thing. If I'm doing alii can to manage for at-risk 

wildlife, I shouldn't be saddled with extra regulations that tie my hands. 

While USFWS can work with landowners like me to provide regulatory protections, the 

mechanisms in place now are extremely inefficient. Successfully navigating the labyrinth of 

federal regulations takes time, and it takes landowners who really know how to work within the 

system, which prevents many from doing what I did. 

This leads me to both AFF and NWTF's suggestions for the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization. 

This Committee has done so much work in the past few Farm Bills to help Tree Farmers like me. 

As a result of our management, we are helping all Americans by providing not only products, 

but also the countless non-timber benefits all Americans enjoy every day. Tree farmers play an 

integral role in stronger rural economies, the forest products industry, hunting and fishing 

businesses, wildlife habitat, clean water, and many other social benefits. 

To continue and build on this great work, I'd like to offer the following recommendations on 

behalf of AFF, NWTF, and the millions of family forest owners and sportsmen in America these 

two organizations represent. Many of these recommendations reflect priorities of a broader 

coalition, the Forests in the Farm Bill Coalition (FIFB) that AFF and NWTF co-lead with the 

National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and The Nature Conservancy (TN C). While the 

FIFB Coalition has not yet come to consensus on our recommendations, nor has the coalition 

endorsed all the recommendations below,we expect to have those ready to share, with input 

from dozens of organizations, in the near future. 

Maintain Funding and Support for Forest Owners in Forestry and Conservation Programs 
106 

• We know that budgets are tight. For those programs that need reauthorization in the 

next Farm Bill, we ask that you prioritize funding for the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provide support for forest owners and 

wildlife habitat. 

• We also ask that you consider funding the Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) with 

$12 million in annual mandatory funding, or other strategies to help address the 

growing at-risk wildlife concerns. 

• In the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), we asked that you continue to support tree 

enrollment in the program and continue to improve mid-contract management on 

forested CRP acres to require, where feasible, proper thinning, prescribed fire and other 

management on CRP acres and continue funding incentives for this management at $10 

million annually. 

• Additionally, we strongly support the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) 

and authorities that encourage targeted application of conservation program funding to 

priority landscapes to achieve measurable outcomes. While individual landowners 

taking action is important, if many landowners in a landscape take action, our individual 

actions are amplified. For example, if I implement a wildlife habitat practice and my 

neighbors do the same, our combined action can reduce the need to list species because 

we're providing sufficient habitat. This helps all of us. 

Improve Technical Assistance and Program Implementation for Woodland Owners 

Both the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

should be applauded for making significant progress including forest owners in these programs. 

However, we still have challenges with forestry technical assistance and program 

implementation for forest owners. Tackling these challenges will result in more efficient 

delivery of program resources in ways that increase the benefits produced on issues like at-risk 

wildlife habitat. To do this we recommend the following: 

• Encourage stronger forestry and wildlife agency partnerships with NRCS in 

implementing working lands programs such as EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP) in states with limited forestry capacity, similar to state forestry agencies' 

relationships with FSA. 

• Streamline forest management plan requirements for EQIP and CSP by recognizing state 

approved Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP), developed based on national FSP guidelines, 

as equivalent to the requirements laid out in the NRCS CPA-52 evaluation form (i.e. 

when a landowner has an FSP plan, the CPA-52 evaluation would not need to be 

completed, eliminating duplicative processes.) We also request that landowners who 

utilize an area-wide or landscape-scale multi-ownership plan, developed by or in 

partnership with state forestry or wildlife agencies, qualify for EQIP without also 

needing an individual forest management plan or FSP. 
107 

• Increase ability to use Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for "unengaged 

landowners." Currently, because EQIP technical assistance and financial assistance funds 

are linked, and Conservation Technical Assistance is limited, the tendency of NRCS staff 

and Technical Service Providers (TSPs) is to work with landowners that are ready to 

implement conservation practices and ready to sign contracts, as opposed to 

landowners that might need more coaching or assistance before an EQIP contract can 

be designed. To address this, and ensure that landowners that need more upfront 

assistance and are essential to conservation outcomes are engaged, we ask that you 

encourage NRCS to use technical assistance funds flexibly to support assistance through 

TSPs and other partners that get landowners "in the pipeline" for EQIP financial 

assistance and practice implementation. 

• Increase payment limitations on Conservation Title programs to reflect changing 

economic conditions in agriculture and forestry and allowing more landowners who 

contribute to priority conservation objectives to participate. 

To solve some of these challenges noted above, AFF and NWTF have been working alongside 

NRCS and many partners, including state foresters in targeted landscapes, to reach woodland 

owners, educate them on the need for active forest management, and get them access to 

technical and planning assistance. The idea is to get landowners engaged, interested in 

management, and (if and when they are ready) to implement management practices. NRCS can 

then work with them to develop a contract. This work is highly targeted and focused on lands 

with the best opportunity to deliver on water, wildlife, or other goals; but this is the exception, 

not the rule. Funding for this work is limited. Aligning resources with this important up-front 

work with landowners will enhance the important conservation outcomes achieved through 

federal financial assistance. 

Provide Support and Regulatory Assurance for At-Risk Wildlife 

In addition to the above mentioned program improvements, there are two important policy 

improvements that we believe will significantly increase landowners' ability to manage for 

wildlife, especially at-risk wildlife, and avoid the need for listing. 

• Increase tools for prescribed burning. Often to maintain habitat for wildlife, especially in 

Southern longleaf and shortleaf pine forest ecosystems that are home to significant atrisk wildlife populations, prescribed burning is necessary. Unfortunately, even as we're 

seeing increased interest in restoring these habitats, landowners are not conducting the 

burning that's needed to maintain and improve the habitat in the long-term. While 

liability insurance is certainly an issue, the biggest barrier is lack of burning professionals 

that can do the work. We ask that you consider new approaches to help tackle this 

barrier. 

• Provide landowners with regulatory assurance. As I noted earlier, landowners want to 

do the right thing and manage for wildlife, but often lack the tools and assurances that 
108 

we won't face costly future regulations as a result. The Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) has been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 

provide landowners in some instances with such regulatory assurances if they are 

participating in NRCS programs. We see significant opportunities for expansion and 

improvement in this work to provide landowners who undertake conservation actions, 

with protection from further regulatory burdens for both listed and at-risk wildlife. The 

Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) offers safe harbor protections and could be 

expanded and other programs could adopt similar protections. 

Support Cross-Boundary, Landscape-Scale Efforts to Tackle Forestry Issues 

All landowners will be better off if we aren't the only ones in our landscape that are actively 

managing our lands. Whether we're trying to reduce wildfire risk or protect at-risk wildlife 

populations, because forests are often a patchwork of small parcels and different public and 

private ownerships, it won't be enough if just one or two landowners in a landscape are 

managing. New tools for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies are 

needed so they can more efficiently work across ownerships boundaries, in targeted landscapes 

and with willing landowners and partners, to address these issues. We ask that the following 

new tools be included in the next Farm Bill: 

• Landscape-Scale Restoration Program: currently the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), using a 

mix of statutory authority, is implementing a Landscape-scale Restoration Program in 

partnership with various state forestry agencies. This program is targeting landscapes 

identified in both state forest and wildlife action plans, helping improve management on 

both public and private land in a way that measurably addresses key outcomes. Rather 

than just working on one parcel here or there, this is allowing the agencies to scale the 

work and fully address management problems. We ask that you clarify and create 

permanent direction and authority for USFS and state forestry agencies to continue this 

work and to carry it out in partnership with Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA), including with the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP). 

• Cross-Boundary authority in USFS Hazardous Fuels Program: currently, the USFS has 

limited authority to work with nearby landowners, when doing wildfire mitigation work. 

With the patchwork of public and private lands in the West, for example, to fully protect 

communities, water supplies, homes, and lives, work is needed on all these lands, not 

just federal lands. Expanding the USFS' ability to work with adjacent landowners will 

better enable the scaled wildfire mitigation that's desperately needed. Our intention is 

not to reduce funding for work on federal land but, as funding increases for hazardous 

fuels, for proportionately more funds to be used on private lands. 

• Continued support for landscape initiatives. NRCS has developed a number of very 

successful landscape initiatives, like the Longleaf Pine Initiative and the Working Lands 
109 

for Wildlife Program. We ask that you support continuation of these landscape scale 

efforts, especially in partnership with organizations like AFF and NWTF. 

Support a Strong, Diverse Forest Products Industry 

As noted above, markets are essential for landowners, good forest management, and growing 

rural jobs and economies. Landowners need a diversity of markets to sell their wood into: 

markets for both high quality trees and for low-grade pulp wood as well as residual tops and 

limbs. 

Markets can be one of the biggest tools for tackling issues like wildlife management. As noted 

above, not only can harvesting timber help landowners stay on their land and afford good 

management, but the harvest itself can help create the types of habitats needed for a variety of 

species, including wild turkey! 

To strengthen markets for forest products: 

• Support the Timber Innovation Act !S.538). Many of you have already agreed to 

cosponsor the Timber Innovation Act, and thank you. This legislation clarifies authority 

and directs the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to conduct research and development into 

new and improved forest products, such as products for building tall buildings out of 

wood. New and improved forest products mean more landowners can sell their wood 

and afford good stewardship. 

• Modify and expand the Community Wood Energy Program (CWEP), with $50 million in 

annual mandatorv funding to focus on not just community facilities but enabling capital 

investment in both public and private facilities that use wood, especially low value 

wood. 

• Ensure Rural Development programs sufficiently support forestry businesses: Maintain 

funding for rural development business, housing, and utilities programs and make the 

programs more accessible to forest-related entities and businesses by broadening the 

categories of eligible matching funds and clarifying that logging equipment is eligible for 

loan guarantees. 

Federal Forest Management 

While I'm not an expert in federal forest management by any means, both AFF and NWTF 

support better federal forest management and reforms that enable more active management: 

Like this committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources next door, we place a very 

high priority on better management of the National Forests. We know good management 

reduces wildfires, generates revenue for counties, greatly improves wildlife habitat, and creates 

early successional habitat that wild turkeys love. In fact, NWTF is the 18th largest purchaser of 

federal timber, a testament to NWTF's focus on collaboration and better management. But 
110 

management of National Forests has been in decline for far too long. We support legislation to 

require better management of these forests. 

The Natural Resources Committee continues to try and move Congressman Westerman's 

legislation, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 (H.R. 2936), which NWTF strongly supports. 

AFF does not get directly involved in federal forest management legislation, but overall believes 

improved management is essential. 

The Senate has been active as well, having worked on comprehensive bills before both the 

Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and Energy and Natural Resources that 

would improve federal forest management. I won't go into detail about all of the bills, as each 

is different, but m! would improve management compared to the current approach. Again, 

while AFF does not get directly involved in federal forest management legislation, NWTF urges 

all stakeholders to do what it takes to merge the best or most palatable elements of those bills 

into something that can gain bipartisan support and address forest management, improve 

collaboration, increase prescribed fire, improve wildlife habitat, generate local revenue from a 

renewable resources, and reduce wildfires. 

Wildfire Funding Fix 

In addition to enacting the above recommendations in the upcoming Farm Bill, there is one 

other policy issue that we ask for your support on. Although largely outside the jurisdiction of 

the Agriculture Committee, if not addressed, this issue could impact the success of 

improvements you enact in the Farm Bill. 

As you all know, wildfire fighting is literally consuming the U.S. Forest Service budget. While it 

may seem tangential to today's hearing discussion, it is far from it. As more and more of the 

USFS budget is used for wildfire fighting, less funding is available for the needed land 

management, technical assistance, and research that USFS delivers. This support is 

fundamental to successfully implementing the Farm Bill programs. We respectfully ask that you 

continue to work with the relevant committees and enact a wildfire funding fix that stops the 

erosion of the agency's budget and stops the persistent "borrowing" that USFS must do when 

they run out of funds for firefighting. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 
111 

Testimony before 

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the United States Senate 

Regarding "Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future 

Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill" 

Submitted by 

Adam Sharp, Executive Vice President, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 

Columbus, Ohio 

June 29, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, Ohio's own Senator Brown and members of the 

committee, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the issue of 

conservation practices in Ohio and the importance of conservation programs in the Farm Bill. 

My name is Adam Sharp and I have the privilege to serve as the Executive Vice President for the 

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, helping represent Ohio's largest general farm organization and 

nearly 165,000 members. I also farm in partnership with my two brothers on our dairy farm and 

row crop operation growing corn, soybeans, wheat and hay in south central Ohio. 

The environmental challenges we face in Ohio are well documented, particularly related to 

nutrient issues and water quality. I am proud of how focused Ohio's farmers are in working to 

address nutrient run-off issues and I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the value of 

our state partnerships supported by federal conservation programs. From what I share with you 

today, I hope that one key component you take away is that Ohio is unique and successful 

because our conservation efforts have been an amazing demonstration of all sectors and 

entities working together as one for the collective good. 

The agricultural community is committed to addressing water quality issues through numerous 

combined and individual measures. There is extensive research being conducted both in the lab 

and in the field. Farmers have invested tens of millions of dollars of their own money in 

establishing voluntary conservation practices on their farms. Between 2006 and 2012, they 

have voluntarily reduced phosphorous applications in the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) by 

more than 13 million pounds.* As farmers are stepping up to implement conservation practices 

now, they are committed to finding additional solutions in the future. 

Part of those partnerships include working with organizations such as the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) with conservation tools 

provided through the Farm Bill such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or 

through programs such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). As an 

organization that promotes working lands programs over retirement land programs, programs 
112 

like EQIP and RCPP fit right in line with our organizational policy. While we are all aware of the 

importance of the funding of these programs, let me take a minute to share just how unique 

this partnership is with USDA-NRCS and Ohio and how critical these programs are to preserving 

water quality. 

Demonstration Farms: 

Ohio Farm Bureau is collaborating with USDA-NRCS along with other partners in creating only 

the second in the nation Demonstration Farms project. This project is located in the heart of 

the WLEB along the Blanchard River focusing on conservation efforts. The farm organizations 

involved with this endeavor have voluntarily taken on this project as have the three farmerstwo row crop and one swine- whose acreage is being used. This total $1 million, 5-year project, 

funds EQIP approved practices. Approximately 75% of the funding is from USDA-NRCS and 25% 

is from Ohio Farm Bureau. 

These demonstration farms are serving as models for new innovations that reduce and prevent 

agricultural runoff and those discoveries will be shared with farmers across the watershed and 

the region, land management agencies, policy makers, the media and the public. These 

conservation practices are being implemented by EQIP dollars and display the best models 

available for other farmers to incorporate on their fields. 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP): 

Ohio's agriculture and conservation organizations also took an active role in supporting the 

Farm Bill's Regional Conservation Partnership Program and committed resources to this publicprivate partnership. Farmers have been eager to participate in this voluntary program that 

allows them to implement on-ground conservation practices for sediment and nutrient 

management. The EQIP programs under RCPP are the perfect combination of allowing farmers 

to keep land in production while practicing effective conservation measures. 

We appreciate that Congress, and this committee specifically, saw the importance of these 

programs. These dollars were used for critical on-farm needs including animal waste systems 

and storages, lot covers and roofs, controlled drainage structures, cover crops, drainage water 

management, nutrient management plans, waterways, crop rotations and multi-year cover 

crops. 

In 2015, USDA awarded $17.5 million to a Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP-Tri 

State WLEB) in the western Lake Erie watershed. The targeted approach focuses efforts on the 

855,000 acres that have been identified as the most critical areas to treat within the larger 7-

million-acre watershed within Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. The RCPP project: 1) expands access 

to public and private technical assistance, 2) supports new and ongoing innovative conservation 

practices, and 3) provides expertise for modeling and evaluating outcomes to farmers in critical 

sub-watersheds. The 5-year multi-state project includes more than 40 collaborating public and 

private sector organizations with representation from Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, state and 

local governments, as well as non-profit entities, universities, and private sector businesses 

committing an additional $28 million to the project. 
113 

Edge-of-Field Research: 

A critical partnership is with the Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Corn and Wheat, Ohio Soybean 

Council, Ohio Agribusiness Association and others that joined together with USDA-NRCS to fund 

a project of over $2 million to conduct edge of field research throughout the state to better 

learn how to prevent nutrients from escaping from fields. The combined efforts of Ohio's 

agriculture community with the Ohio State University and USDA researchers now have 

important baseline data, measures, practices and results. The information being collected is 

invaluable and will be used to modify Ohio's Phosphorus Risk Index as well as help identify 

effective management practices. 

While the findings are under continuous evaluation, preliminary results about how 

phosphorous leaves the field include: 

• Controlling erosion continues to be important. Particulate bound phosphorus makes up 

over 73% of the total phosphorus in surface runoff and over 52% of the total 

phosphorus in tile flow. 

• There is a strong relationship between soil test phosphorus levels and the amount of 

particulate bound phosphorus transported off site in surface runoff. 

• Fertilizer application is a high-risk practice- timing and placement are important. 

• Incorporation of fertilizer during or after application can result in more than a 90% 

reduction in phosphorus runoff. 

These programs would not have been possible without the financial commitment of Farm Bill 

dollars along with the significant matching investment by Ohio's farmers. Some recent data 

provided by USDA-NRCS highlight that partnership well and the tremendous work taking place 

to improve nutrient management and water quality. 

• Between 2009 and 2014, NRCS provided almost $57 million to fund over 

2,000 conservation contracts on over 435,000 enrolled acres in the Western Lake Erie 

Basin. 

• During fiscal year 2015, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiate (GLRI), which provides 

funding for agriculture through Farm Bill programs, funded $1.7 million for nutrient and 

sediment reduction projects on over 100,000 acres in targeted agricultural watersheds 

in the Great Lakes basin. These projects are estimated to prevent over 160,000 pounds 

(72.5 metric tons) of phosphorus from entering the Great Lakes annually. Federal 

agencies and their partners also funded urban runoff projects that are anticipated to 

capture an average annual volume of more than 37 million gallons of untreated urban 

runoff per year. These projects reduce flooding, increase green space in urban areas, 

and return vacant properties to productive use. 

• In FY 2015, NRCS funded 99 EQIP contracts for $3,353,195 in the Ohio WLEB. 

• In FY 2016, NRCS launched a new funding WLEB Initiative and strategy, with support 

from Ranking Member Stabenow, Senator Brown and Senator Donnelly, based on the 

findings of their special study evaluating the impacts of voluntary conservation in the 

western basin of Lake Erie and conservation treatment needs. The Initiative helps 
114 

landowners reduce phosphorus runoff from farms by more than 640,000 pounds (290 

metric tons) each year -175,000 pounds of which is in the form of soluble phosphorusby effectively doubling the acres under conservation in the western basin of Lake Erie 

watershed over the course of the 3-year investment. 

• In the first year of the WLEB Initiative, $20.7 million in EQIP program funds was 

allocated; 79 percent of these dollars went to Ohio farms ($16,306,828). 

• To date in 2017, Ohio NRCS has contracted over $6 million in EQIP with nearly $1 

million additional in approved or pre-approved status. There were 472 applications 

needing $33.3 million (in fund pool including RCPP EQIP, WLEB EQIP and GLRI). 

In addition to the Edge of Field Study, farmers are also committed to coordinating water 

research and programming through our land grant's "Field to Faucet" initiative as well as 

through increased educational opportunities. Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Corn and Wheat, Ohio 

Soybean Council and Ohio Agribusiness Association have also funded four new OSU staff to 

work with farmers to develop Nutrient Management Plans in the WLEB and one new staff to 

work with retailer 4R certification. 

The industry lead 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program covers nearly 1.9 million acres 

in the WLEB that are now under guidance of Agriculture Retailers and Nutrient Service 

Providers that have voluntarily earned certification from the 4R Nutrient Stewardship 

Certification Program. 

I would also be remiss if I did not lift up Healthy Water Ohio. This is an initiative led by the 

agricultural community that included a voluntary and diverse partnership of stakeholders 

charged with developing a 20- to 30-year water resource management strategy for Ohio. 

Healthy Water Ohio has representatives from business and industry, conservation and 

environment, finance, food and farming, lawn and horticulture, municipal water systems, public 

health, recreation and tourism, research, education and outreach. 

The group conducted multiple information gathering sessions throughout the state and 

conducted meetings with water quality experts and public officials. The final report from 

Healthy Water Ohio provides a roadmap of innovative research, policy, education and 

infrastructure proposals along with an implementation schedule. Voluntary implementation of 

components of the report has begun including the pursuit of a Water Trust that can fund a 

variety of water-related needs such as research, monitoring and improvement of gray and 

green infrastructure. 

While the results of the various edge of field studies are beginning to show us possible 

solutions, we also know that the measures farmers are taking to reduce run-off voluntarily are 

also showing success. USDA-NRCS produced a Special Study Report titled "Effects of 

Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres in Western Lake Erie Basin, 2003-

06 and 2012" (March 2016). This study was designed to quantify the environmental benefits 

that farmers and conservation programs in the WLEB provide to society. The report, based on 

farmer survey data in the Basin, shows that voluntary conservation is making significant 
115 

headway in reducing nutrient and sediment loss from farms. Even so, there is opportunity to 

improve conservation management across the basin and no single conservation solution will 

meet the needs of each field and farm. 

Key findings of the survey on conservation practices in the WLEB include: 

• 99% of the cropland acres are managed with at least one conservation practice 

• 70% of the nitrogen applied is removed by crop harvest 

• 58% of the cropland acres are managed with phosphorus application rates at or below 

crop removal rates 

• The cost of conservation practices in place represents a significant annual investment. 

Regardless of funding source (federal, state, local or private) the annual regional 

investment in conservation is $277 million or $56.98 per acre. 

• No single conservation solution will meet the needs of each field and farm. WLEB 

croplands are diverse in terms of soils, farm fields, farming operations and 

management, which creates differences in conservation needs and potential solutions. 

Field-scale conservation planning and conservation systems are needed to 

accommodate different treatment needs within and across farm fields, while 

maintaining productivity. 

• Additional progress in nutrient and erosion control will depend on advanced precision 

technologies directed to unique zones or soils within field boundaries. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today and provide just a brief overview of the 

efforts Ohio's farmers are making to ensure a long future of clean water in our state. We 

sincerely value the partnership we have been able to form over the years with USDA-NRCS and 

appreciate all of your efforts to provide access to federal conservation programs through the 

Farm Bill. We support the Committee's efforts to prioritize these working lands conservation 

programs in the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill. Together we can continue to make a difference. 

If you want to learn more about our numerous efforts go to www.farmersforwater.com or 

www.blancharddemofarms.org. 

* USDA-NRCS Special Study Report titled "Effects of Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated 

Cropland Acres in Western Lake Erie Basin, 2003-06 and 2012". (March 2016) 
116 

STATEMENT of 

TOM TIDWELL 

CHIEF 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE 

Before 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

on 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 

Farm Bill 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to address the Committee regarding our implementation of Farm Bill programs. Over the past 

five decades, the Forest Service has received authorization for numerous valuable programs 

through the Farm Bill. Throughout the 2014 Farm Bill, particularly in the Forestry Title, there 

are many authorities and provisions that assist the Forest Service in accomplishing our priority 

work, particularly ecological restoration, support to communities, and reducing the risk of 

wildfires. Together, these provisions help us demonstrate our commitment to shared stewardship 

of national forests, while strengthening relationships with states and local communities. I will 

specifically highlight the accomplishments achieved through the Insect and Disease 

Designations, the Good Neighbor Authority, and the permanent authorization of the stewardship 

contracting authority. 

The Insect and Disease provisions (Section 8204) set requirements for designating affected 

National Forest System areas, enabling streamlined environmental review procedures to expedite 

projects that reduce the risk and extent of, or increase the resilience of the forest to, insect or 

disease infestations. Based on requests from States, the Forest Service has designated 

approximately 45.6 million acres across the National Forest System that are already 

experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, insect and disease infestations. I also designated an 

additional 10.1 million acres based on requests from Regional Foresters, bringing the total acres 

designated to 55.7 million. So far, the Forest Service is using the Farm Bill Insect and Disease 

provisions for 94 projects spanning 43 National Forests and 19 States. 

The Good Neighbor Authority helps the Forest Service work with States to treat more acres. This 

authority allows the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with States 

and Puerto Rico to allow our partners to perform watershed restoration and forest management 

services on federal lands. To date, the Forest Service has completed 95 Good Neighbor 

Agreements in 29 States to accomplish a variety of restoration work. This authority is very 

helpful to the Forest Service, as it improves our access to State agency expertise to accomplish 

additional acres of restoration work. This State support provides another tool to augment and 

potentially add to the federal timber sold. This authority also helps us to learn from the States so 

we apply innovations broadly on public lands. 

The Forest Service received permanent authority for stewardship contracting in the 2014 Farm 

Bill. Stewardship contracting helps the Forest Service achieve our land management goals while 

promoting closer public-private working relationships by using the value of timber or other 
117 

forest products to offset the cost of restoration activities. In Fiscal Year 2016, the Forest Service 

entered into 225 stewardship contracts and agreements- treating more than 96,000 acres of 

hazardous fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface, selling over 718 million board feet of timber, 

and restoring or improving over 22,000 acres of wildlife habitat. 

In addition to the new authorities in the most recent Farm Bill, Congress also provided 

authorities to work with States and private forest landowners through previous Farm Bills. Over 

half of the forestland in the United States is in private ownership, and over 90 percent of 

domestically-produced wood products come from privately owned forests 1

• The Forest Service is 

invested in protecting all of our nation's productive rural working lands from threats, including 

insect and disease, wildfire, drought, and conversion to non-forest uses. The Forest Stewardship 

Program was originally authorized through the 1990 Farm Bill. This program allows us to help 

private forest landowners actively manage their land through funding and technical assistance for 

management plans. Research has shown us private landowners with management plans are 81 

percent more likely to actively manage their lands2

, leading to local jobs, timber revenue, and 

economic benefit to the local community. Currently, the Forest Stewardship Program has 25.8 

million acres managed under Forest Stewardship plans, and assists 400,000 landowners each 

year through a variety of technical assistance and education programs. Forest Stewardship plans 

enable landowners to access a variety of assistance and programs including USDA landowner 

assistance programs, State tax abatement programs, forest certification, and emerging ecosystem 

services and renewable energy markets. In addition, as a result of direction in the 2008 Farm 

Bill, the Forest Service and State Forestry agencies undertook a new effort to develop State 

Forest Action Plans, which provide an analysis of forest conditions and trends and delineate 

priority forest landscape areas in each State. State Forest Action plans are practical, long-term 

plans for investing State, federal, and other resources where they can be most effective in 

achieving national conservation goals. 

An incredible amount of time and effort goes into drafting a new Farm Bill every five years. I 

appreciate your efforts and look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff as you 

frame and develop the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. The Forest Service stands ready to 

work with you as you craft tl1e next Farm BilL 

1 Oswalt, Sonja N.; et al. 2014. Forest Resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the 

Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA Assessment Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 218 p. 2 Butler, B.J.; eta!. 2016. USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: National, regional, and state 

statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with I 0+ acres, 2011-2013. Supplemental Data, Table 16: 

Management Plans. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 39 p. http:;\lx.doi.org' J 0.2737. NRS-RB-99. 
118 

The Nature ft'~~ Conservancy ,/ 

~ Protechng Mture, Preservmg life: 

Worldwide Ojjice 

4145 N011h Fai1jax Drive 

Suite 100 

Arlington, Virginia 22203-1606 

Statement of Christopher Topik, Ph.D. 

Director, Restoring America's Forests 

The Nature Conservancy 

June 29, 2017 

TEL 703 841-5300 

FAX703 841-7400 

www.tl:c.org 

"Collaborative Forestry Improvements for the 2018 Farm Bill that enhance the benefits of 

America's forests" 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hearing on: 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 

Farm Bill. 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow and members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to participate in this important hearing about the past and future Farm Bill 

direction on conservation and forestry. My name is Christopher Topik and for the past 6 years I 

have been the Director of the Nature Conservancy's Restoring America's Forests Program. The 

Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit conservation organization working around the 

world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for people and nature. Our mission is to 

conserve the lands and waters upon which all life depends. Prior to this job I worked as a forest 

ecologist at the USDA Forest Service for 16 years (10 years in support of forest management in 

the Washington and Oregon Cascades) and then 15 years as majority professional staff for both 

parties on the House Interior and Environment Appropriations subcommittee, responsible for the 

budgets and oversight of important natural resource and science agencies, such as the USDA 

Forest Service. 

The Nature Conservancy 

We at The Nature Conservancy (TN C) are proud to be part of the conversation today since the 

Farm Bill is the nation's largest single investment supporting voluntary and successful 

conservation, restoration and management of America's private lands. We have a long history of 

working directly v.1th farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners, as well as states, Tribes 

and federal agencies, to improve the condition of America's lands and waters, and improve 

economies for citizens and communities. We strongly believe that the best conservation 

outcomes arrive when communities are directly involved and directly benefit from the wealth 

that nature blesses us through agriculture, forestry and land management. In the past, and 
119 

hopefully the future, the Farm Bill provides farmers, ranchers and forest landowners with the 

tools necessary to protect and conserve not only the land, but also the rural way of life. 

The Nature Conservancy is a large and decentralized organization with over 3700 employees, 

including over 500 scientists, working in all 50 states, territories and the District of Columbia, as 

well as 70 nations. Guided by science, we collaborate with local landowners, communities and 

businesses to implement practical conservation solutions that benefit people and nature. We are 

supported by almost a million members and by boards of trustees made up of local leaders in 

each of the states and countries where we work. We are nonpartisan, and our trustees, members, 

and staff come from across the political spectrum. Our recommendations are drawn from the 

hands-on experience of over 60 years working with people from all walks of life, with businesses 

and industries, and with governments from the local to the national level. We seek opportunities 

to advance solutions that work for people and nature, and we stand ready to defend our core 

values and bedrock environmental laws. We own and operate a lot of land, including over 2 

million acres directly and casements on another 3 million; our preserve management includes 

many active forestry, farming and ranching operations so we know what it is like to be a 

producer. We are also very active in communities in many ways, for instance, last year we 

conducted controlled bums to conserve landscapes on 154,577 acres and assisted on another 

306,000 acres. 

Today my testimony will focus on just one aspect of our interest and experience on the Farm 

Bill: forestry. I attach a short summary of our overall Farm Bill priorities at the end of this 

statement. We will provide additional detailed recommendations and experiences on other Farm 

Bill agriculture and conservation issues in other forums. 

Our conntry's forests are a vital natural resource, and a strong Farm Bill ensures that our national 

and private forests remain healthy and productive. Our forest lands-whether federal, state, tribal 

or private--are huge economic drivers in many communities. We all benefit from healthy forests 

and the clean air and water, habitat, recreation, timber and other forest products they provide. 

The Conservancy's work across North America is guided by an ambitious vision that involves 

developing nature-based solutions to some of humanity's most pressing global challenges. 

Among our primary North American priorities is our Restoring America's Forests program, 

through which we aim to foster a dramatic increase in the proactive, science-based restoration of 

our nation's federal forests, thereby reducing the tremendous human and environmental costs 

associated with unnaturally large and damaging megafircs. 

A specific example of the way we use science and timber harvest for conservation is our 23,800 

acre Two-Hearted River Forest Reserve in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Like many 
120 

hardwood forests in the Lake States, this reserve has been managed for a century to maximize 

the production of a few commercially valuable tree species. The result is a forest that is 80% 

hard maple of about the same age. If our next forest pest or disease attacks hard maple, the 

economic and environmental impacts will devastate millions of acres of forests and the 

communities that depend on those forests. TNC is actively harvesting in the Two-Hearted River 

Reserve to develop and demonstrate management regimes that increase age and species diversity 

to reduce pest and disease risk while maintaining economic returns to landowners, timber supply 

to forest dependent communities and clean water and recreational opportunities for all of us. 

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/michiganiexplore/forestto-tloor.xml). 

Our Farm Bill views are based on detailed internal assessments that have involved all of our state 

chapters, and are informed by science and interactions with a host of forest landowners, 

industries and entities that benefit from healthy and productive forests. We are also active in 

several relevant coalitions working on Farm Bill matters, such as the Forests in the Farm Bill 

coalition and the Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group. Some of our suggestions today will 

be consistent with coalition positions that are still being developed. 

Forests are vital to America for many reasons so forest health is important to landowners, 

industries and over half of Americans that get their water from forested water sources. Forest 

threats are real, including climate related stresses of drought and fire, and also land use 

conversion to non-forest uses. America's forests are 56% privately owned, so the work of the 

Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee is especially vital to support technical 

assistance and provide economic assistance for meritorious practices that improve production 

and enhance environmental quality, allowing nature's benefits to continue to flow to society. We 

believe these core functions of the Farm Bill need to be our primary focus on this legislation. We 

realize that the Farm Bill legislation is also a chance to affect other related matters, such as 

specific federal forest management issues, so we will comment on some of those past Fatm Bill 

items and suggest some for the next Farm Bill. Yet, the core conservation and forestry assistance 

and research functions are so important in the long run that we hope other side-bar issues do not 

distract too much from the need to continue commendable past Farm Bill programs and 

activities. 

II. Forestry- Comments on the past Farm Bill 

We believe that the 2014 Agricultural Act had many outstanding aspects that enhanced private 

landowner's abilities to manage forests and to do so in a way that helped their work roll-up with 

others and with public forests to have large scale, lasting impacts, while benefitting the 

landowners and supporting rural jobs. You will see below that it is essential to maintain key 

conservation funding that was provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. We also commend and support 
121 

the inclusion of forestry practices in a variety of Farm Bill programs since the production of 

wood and fiber are vital to the nation and to the forest landowners who facilitate the production. 

These practices are also essential to maintain or enhance water supply and flow, water that we 

can't live without and water that is absolutely essential to cities as well as to American 

agriculture. 

The last Farm Bill also should be commended for allowing and encouraging strategic application 

of technical and funding assistance to large landscape efforts that really add up. Specifically, the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) has provided the authority to bring many 

projects together that increase the impact of federal funding by partnering with a whole host of 

landowners, industries, and NGOs to bring more money and talent to bear on vital forestry and 

watershed projects. The NRCS landscape conservation initiative has been successful at forging 

benefits to water, wildlife and to forest landowners. TNC staff in many states are directly 

involved with science, collaboration and technical assistance in these landscape projects. 

The Farm Bill funding and authorities, such as EQIP and RCPP, also aided the Joint Chiefs 

Landscape Restoration Partnership to create a whole new cross boundary conservation effort in 

which private forests, through the NRCS, and the National Forests can work together to improve 

conditions on both public and private forests, and in the process, create many jobs, increase 

forest product harvest, and secure wildlife and water benefits. TNC has been involved.in at least 

twenty of these projects. We see this as an important way to increase the buying power of federal 

money by partnering with many groups and private landowners to get larger projects done, 

faster. 

The 2014 Farm Bill included essential support for science, research and forestry universities. We 

also believe the Farm Bill easement programs are important to both conservation and to private 

landowners who need assistance to make the most of their properties. 

The 2014 Farm Bill also included some provisions that aid better management of federal forests. 

I want to call out in particular the Good Neighbor Authority and the Stewardship Contracting 

Authority. The Good N eighbnr Authority provides for greater state participation in federal forest 

stewardship and has improved work in a number of places. This authority gets larger projects 

done that can cross boundary Jines and therefore be more efficient and have greater benefit to 

neighboring communities. 

We remain pleased that stewardship contracting was given permanent authorization in the last 

bill. Stewardship contracting has now been in force since the fiscal year 1999 Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and is having many positive results. This administrative 

tool is used to achieve key land-management goals on Federal land that improve, maintain or 

restore forest or rangeland health through a trade of goods (timber value) and services 
122 

(stewardship activities). Simply stated, more work gets done on the ground, more jobs arc 

provided locally to improve communities and local tax revenues, and the funds and projects stay 

local. 

We attach in an appendix short example case studies showing how TNC staff and partners are 

using the stewardship contracting and agreement authority to improve forest health and local 

community resilience. TNC is just one of a great number of institutions and forest product 

companies using these authorities. Please see this appendix for more on these projects that 

demonstrate the importance of stewardship contracting and agreements: 

Florida and Longleaf Pine on the Osceola National Forest: 

Michigan and Ottawa National Forest 

Oregon, Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project (Southern Oregon fire risk 

reduction) 

Arizona Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) 

Oregon, Klamath Tribal and Forest Service Partnership effort with a Master Stewardship 

Agreement since 20 I 1 

The Insect and Disease Infestation provision in the last Farm bill (Section 8204) was a good 

attempt to provide for better interaction between counties, states and the federal management of 

national forests. W c remain hopeful that its implementation will go faster and accelerate 

accomplishments of the desired treatments. TNC recommends that such proposals are selectively 

utilized, and we recommend emphasizing collaborative, science-based restoration to address 

large forest landscapes challenges. 

III. Forestry- Comments on the next Farm Bill 

As stated above, we see the Farm Bill as a vital tool for America, providing needed assistance 

and authority to improve the vast agricultural, range and forest lands of our nation, and provide 

the food, fiber and nature we all depend on. First, we are very concerned that funds are already 

being cut disproportionately for our critical working lands. The Farm Bill must provide adequate 

resources for conservation so our farmers, ranchers and forest landowners can ensure our food 

security and economic stability, and bolster rural economies in the process. Voluntary 

conservation works: The Farm Bill is essential to keep our people and our nature healthy. The 

Forestry community should focus on these important needs and public services and not get sidetracked with contentious efforts to alter US F ores! Service public land decisions by eliminating 

environmental reviews. 

Principles to consider with respect to Forestry 

Bolster Conservation Rewards and Incentives. 
123 

The bill needs to continue to encourage best practices as well as provide funds for investments 

that improve stewardship practices, technical assistance and cost-share programs on working 

private forest lands. 

Prioritize Key Resource Issues. 

The bill should be strategic and a direct higher percentage of resources to conservation issues of 

special significance using the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and through 

the continuation of National NRCS Landscape Initiatives such as Longleaf Pine to achieve local 

and landscape-scale environmental benefits. 

Forest Service land management- Environmental Safeguards 

The Congress should resist the temptation to use the Farm Bill as a way of preventing public 

participation and review of federal forestry projects by short cutting the National Environmental 

Policy Act procedures that allow transparency and local participation in decision making. We 

firmly believe that better forestry decisions ~e made when public discourse, collaboration and 

participation are encouraged through the NEPA process. The NEP A process ensures that local 

citizens, counties and others, as well as the best available science, are used to inform decisions 

that can have lasting impact on our forests. 

Forest Service land management- Negotiated Agreements 

Similarly, if legislation is considered that encourages the use of arbitration to detennine US 

Forest Service forestry decisions, the process must allow the deciding officers to engage the 

participants in negotiations to come up with new and better decisions than those that may have 

been previously offered by proponents or the agency. Negotiation, especially when built on 

collaboration, can allow for better decisions, and these decisions may be able to span much 

larger forest areas to increase efficiency. 

Encourage Conservation of Significant and Sensitive Habitat. 

Maintain conservation compliance to prevent conversion of significant and sensitive habitats. 

Improve Water Quality and Supply. 

Encourage forest practices that reduce the amount of pollutants entering our waterways and 

promote sustainable water management for people and nature, especially in drought-prone areas. 

Promote Climate Action. 

Forests are vital for so many purposes, and that includes the natural carbon sequestration and 

water filtering that are vital to mitigate climate stresses. Maintaining productive and profitable 

forests helps our Nation keep forests as forests, so they are not converted to other pwposcs that 

lose these properties. Such investments provide many benefits to landowners, to water and 
124 

wildlife users, and are cheaper than other forms of climate mitigation. 

Improve Conservation Outcomes. 

Strengthen conservation outcomes of Farm Bill programs by refining implementation of those 

programs based on monitoring results and science-based assessment methods. 

Maintain Healthy and Resilient Forests. 

Increase the long-term protection of forest resources and their benefits from threats such as 

catastrophic wildfire, insects, and diseases, and promote the use of fire as an important forest 

management tool with the goal of maintaining healthy and resilient forests. 

Support Research and Science 

The Farm Bill provides some essential forest science support, and it also has programs and 

practices that rely on good science to foster efficient and useful forestry. Science support is a 

vital federal function. 

Private Forests-- Specific Recommendations: 

1. Create incentives for increasing prescribed burning and other forest management on state and 

private forests and grasslands by formally addressing challenges to using prescribed burning. 

Prioritize projects that use prescribed burning and other forest management activities funded 

through Conservation Title programs, including EQIP, HFRP, CRP, among others. 

2. Enhance water sources by enhancing forest health and resilience: 

There are many federal departments and agencies, as well as other governmental levels, 

many industrial sectors, and more, that all have a role to play in improving water sources. 

Provision of water quality and quantity are two critical benefits provided by wellmanaged forests, and are thus a key justification to keeping forests on the landscape. 

There is need for dedicated programs and policy to be built around combining federal and 

bringing non-federal financial resources to bear in assisting those who manage forested 

water resources that impact the public at large. The overarching goal would be to 

incentivize maintenance of forest cover on the landscape, including implementation of 

silvicultural best management practices, while reducing potential impacts to water 

resources through fire and disease risk reduction. We believe that the Farm Bill should 

require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a federal government-wide technical and 

policy working group, with key science, economics, industry and citizen participation, to 

produce a plan within 18 months that identifies existing, and recommends additional, 

federal and private sector funding and cost share efforts that provide forest land owners 

resources to implement management actions that protect downstream water quality and 

enhance regulated flows of flood waters. The report will evaluate costs and benefits of 

forest treatments, and evaluate potential impacts on water users, including agricultural 

producers and municipal consumers. 
125 

Amend Fann Bill authorities to allow aggregation oflandowners or municipal water 

organizations to participate in forestry that enhances water sources. We recommend 

amending conservation program authorities, including RCPP, to allow NRCS to pilot test 

the concept of aggregating financial assistance payments in priority landscapes to a 

landowner cooperative or similar non-governmental entity, where the aggregation allows 

leveraging of non-governmental organization and/or water utility funds for practices that 

enhance or maintain water quality and quantity from forested landscapes 

Investigate ways to enhance Rural Development authorities to include improvements to 

forest practices and stimulate forest related businesses that are a major part of many rural 

economies. Practices that improve water quality and delivery, and increase rural jobs, 

should be encouraged. 

Develop a Forest and Water Fund (modeled offRCPP) to support forest watershed 

restoration and conservation projects with the objective of protecting drinking water and 

mitigating the risks of water extremes (flooding/drought) for downstream users. Funding 

can be made available with support from the Conservation, Forestry, Rural Development, 

and Research Titles and be leveraged with non-federal funding sources. This fund could 

additionally support outreach, education and enrollment of targeted landowners, and for 

community planning to identify high-priority watersheds for investment. 

3. Reauthorize HFRP and amend the program to 1) dedicate mandatory annual funding, 2) 

allow third party easements, 3) allow donated easements to serve as matches, 4) expand to 

include threatened and endangered species, and 5) identify water protection as a specific 

objective for HFRP funding. 

4. Develop a 5-year dedicated National Reforestation Initiative to incentivize reforestation 

within priority areas experiencing forest loss 

5. Include an LWCF provision allowing third parties to receive Forest Legacy grants to 

purchase, hold and manage conservation easements within federally-designated project areas. 

This new approach will create efficiencies in collaborating with third parties, by reducing 

costs for easement management and monitoring, and enhance states' role in federal 

conservation efforts, among many other benefits. 

6. Fully consider commercially viable forest land within the NRCS Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program (ACEP) and the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. Forest products are an 

important use that should be encouraged, so we support removal of the 2/3 forested acreage 

limitation that currently exists for the ACEP program, which has limited forest enrollment. 

'i)u-'Natun: ~'-~.~ Lun.,.:natk'Y V 
126 

National Forests --Specific Recommendations: 

While the intent of the Farm Bill is to primarily focus on non-federal land policies, the bill also 

can be used to advance national forest policy. The Conservancy supports the following 

1. Create an Accelerated Landscape Scale Restoration authority through a pilot program that 

would accelerate the pace of forest and watershed restoration, improve the resiliency of forest 

ecosystems, and better manage the threat of large fires in fire-prone western forests and 

address other forest challenges. 

2. Extend and expand the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) program. There 

are 23 signature CFLR restoration projects in 14 states covering over 17 million acres. The 

Conservancy would like to see this program extended to 2024 and expanded to allow up to 

5% of funds for planning, encourage private investments, encourage coordination with 

opportunities for cross-boundary impact (possibly by leveraging the Good Neighbor 

Authority or other cross-boundary authorities) where appropriate, and increase the authorized 

funding level to $80 million. 

3. Improve the U.S. Forest Service Good Neighbor Authority, by allowing road access, and 

Stewardship Contracting authority, by allowing at least 5% of retained receipts for planning 

and NEPA for future stewardship projects within the same region/forest, with an appropriate 

tracking mechanism. 

4. Any fire funding solution in a Farm Bill package must be comprehensive by including the 

following three criteria: I) address the continued erosion of agency budgets that results from 

the increasing ten-year average, and stabilize the level of funding for suppression within the 

agencies; 2) access disaster funding for extraordinarily costly fires, including those that may 

be calculated as part of the ten-year average; and 3) significantly reduce the need to transfer 

from non-suppression accounts and programs. 

TNC additionally supports a legislative remedy to disconnected and isolated parcels of land in 

Georgia's Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, by including the Chattahoochee-Oconee 

National Forest Land Adjustment Act (S. 571, H.R. 1434) to establish a "modified land 

exchange," whereby the USFS can sell these isolated parcels (30 totaling 3,841 acres; as 

identified in the legislation). Proceeds from the sale of these parcels will go into a federal 

account that the agency may use only to buy critical inholdings from willing sellers. The funds 

could only be spent inside the existing USFS proclamation boundary in Georgia - they could not 

be used to "grow" the forest beyond that boundary. 
127 

IV. Conclusion 

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this bearing and in the open, thoughtful 

legislative process the Committee has provided. We know that investments in conservation 

provide the Nation with many benefits. Nature's solutions are important for nature, but they are 

also fundamental to our agricultural, ranching and forest industries and cultures. 

Summarv ofTNC main points regarding Forestry: 

I. Maintain funding for conservation and related programs that help forests and forest 

landowners, as well enhance the lasting benefits that forests provide, including rural jobs, 

quality water, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space that helps mitigate climate change. 

2. Allow forest landowners continued and enhanced participation in Farm Bill programs like 

other producers. 

3. Support strategic programs that can provide large landscape-scale benefits through focused 

activity, especially the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and related landscape 

efforts, including the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership. 

4. Maintain and enhance vital forestry research and science capacity and their roles in sound 

management of America's lands and waters. 

5. Support legislative provisions that enhance collaborative forestry, maintain NEPA and other 

bedrock environmental legal procedures, and provide for continued and enhanced 

participation of the public, industries, and local governments. 

6. Pass a comprehensive federal fire suppression funding fix that includes 3 critical properties: 

(a) addresses the continued erosion of agency budgets that results from the increasing tenyear average; 

(b) accesses disaster funding for extraordinarily costly fires; 

(c) end the need to transfer funds from non-fire suppression accounts and programs. 
128 

Appendix 

Stewardship Contracting and Agreements 

Case Study Examples TNC usc of Stewardship Contracting and Agreements 

We attach short example case studies showing how TNC staff and partners are using the 

stewardship contracting and agreement authority to improve forest health and local community 

resilience. TNC is just one of a great number of organizations and institutions using these 

authorities. 

Florida and Longleaf Pine: 

In a landscape where industry attitudes have considered federal lands as inaccessible and merely 

"in the way" of their route to private lands with a stable wood supply, contractors and loggers are 

beginning to have a different view in Florida. The Nature Conservancy's Stewardship 

agreements on the Osceola National Forest have resulted in multiple active logging crews 

working simultaneously throughout each of the past four years. Use of stewardship has allowed 

the forest to reach its annual board feet targets, while at the same time concentrate on areas most 

vulnerable to wildfire on the forest. Stewardship agreements have been a tool that have assisted 

wildfire mitigation programs such as the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) 

program, with the most highly vulnerable areas being prioritized for stewardship and wildfire 

mitigation activities. 

In summary, stewardship has: 

Allowed for increased harvest and thus access for the private forestry sector to federal 

timberlands 

Increased employment for loggers, timber contractors, road construction, and other 

contractors that are performing vegetation management and other services that are part of 

the stewardship agreement. 

Allowed for accelerated restoration oflongleaf pine as well as fish habitat enhancement 

and erosion control activities. 

Supported the development of a job training program that recruits underserved youth to 

implement management activities on the Osceola. 

Expanded the footprint of prescribed fire and supporting mechanical vegetative activities 

Increased habitat for targeted endangered and species of conservation concern such as 

red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise. 

These activities have been possible due to the approval of a forest-wide NEPA and without the 

need for additional federal appropriations due to use of revenue from stewardship sales. 

Michigan and Ottawa National Forest 

The Nature Conservancy's Michigan Chapter entered into its first Stewardship Agreement with 

Ottawa National Forest in July 2016. The largest project is aimed at larger scale restoration and 

planting of 1200 acres of degraded riparian areas along cold and cold transitional streams to 
129 

protect cold water refugia for cold water species like brook trout. This project that TNC plans to 

complete in three years might take the F orcs! Service 20 years to complete in-house. Other 

projects include natural regeneration of a Jack Pine stand, maintenance and rehabilitation of7.5 

miles of wilderness area trails, and the replacement of a foot bridge stream crossing along the 

North Country Trail. 

Ashland, OR Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project (Southern Oregon fire risk reduction) 

Use of the Stewardship Authority on the Ashland Forest Resiliency project, through the Rogue 

River- Siskiyou National Forest, has fostered a high functioning partnership with the City of 

Ashland, Lomakatsi Restoration Project, and TNC. Early collaborative implementation successes 

helped attract an additional $7.5 million in Forest Service investments, along with a designation 

as a Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership, which leveraged $4 million in funding from 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service to create a public-private partnership working cross 

boundary. More recently, the partners secured an award of $6 million from the Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board, taking the all-lands project to nearly 14,000 acres of treatment 

to reduce forestland/fire community risks across the 54,000-acre planning area. The City of 

Ashland has also delivered an ongoing annual commitment of$175,000 in City restoration funds 

from a new water service surcharge spent on the USFS lands. The project has treated 6,600 

acres to date, delivered 14 MMBF of timber to mills, generating S5.9 million in wood value, 

while sustaining -17 FTE jobs, and as many as I 00 FTE annually considering indirect and 

induced work supporting restoration and milling. 

Arizona Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) 

The stewardship contracting authority is being used to implement the largest restoration effort in 

Forest Service history- The Four F ores! Restoration Initiative, a project funded under the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program. Over 500,000 acres of ponderosa 

pine forest have been cleared for thinning in Arizona through the NEP A process, and another 1.2 

million acres will be cleared within two years. The project enjoys considerable public support 

with more than 40 stakeholder groups collaboratively developing recommendations to the Forest 

Service. 

Continued losses of forest from large, catastrophic fires will have real economic and ecological 

impacts on water supplies and jobs. There is an urgent need to increase the pace and scale of 

restoration. The stewardship contracting authority provides the certainty and flexibility needed to 

attract private investment, which is critical for rebuilding industry, creating jobs, and 

accelerating restoration. 

Under a 20,000-acre stewardship agreement signed in March of 2017, The Nature Conservancy, 

Forest Service, and industry are working to catalyze fundamental change. We are bringing 
130 

together strategic partnerships, advanced technology, and new business practices to attract new 

investment, sustain existing investments in wood products, and create a more reliable flow of 

wood at a reasonable cost and at a scale large enough to make a difference. We are working to 

develop technological innovations that increase agency capacity; remove agency disincentives to 

innovation that reduce costs and streamline processes; and are working with industry to reduce 

costs so that small-diameter wood can be removed economically. There is an urgent need to 

modernize the agency model for managing our forests. Tools such as CFLR and Stewardship 

Contracting authority provide unique and valuable vehicles for collaborative innovation and 

developing a new model of forest management that leverages strategic partnerships to increase 

the pace and scale of forest restoration. 

Klamath, OR Tribal and Forest Service Partnership effort with a Master Stewardship 

Agreement 

The established, strategic partnership among the Klamath Tribe, Lomakatsi Restoration Project 

and The Nature Conservancy uses collaboration to restore forested ecosystems in south-Central 

Oregon. The partners are building additional capacity within the Klamath Tribe's Natural 

Resources Department, creating sustainable job opportunities with a focus on tribal members, 

and implementing ecological forestry and ecosystem restoration on the Klamath Reservation 

Forest and ancestral lands. The Master Stewardship Agreement, executed in September of2011, 

put into place a ten-year framework for landscape restoration activities through the planning and 

development of Supplemental Project Agreements. The area of focus is the approximate 1.7 

million acres of the Fremont-Winema National Forest, which includes the 1.1 million acres of 

former reservation land and ancestral lands. 

Since the spring of2011 through the spriug of2017, 29 Klamath tribal workers have been 

involved in a variety of ecological restoration training and employment opportunities working 

across private and federal lands. Over the past five years, tribal workers have engaged in peer 

and mcutor training, learning the skills to conduct a variety of ecological restoration 

prescriptions - forest thinning, prescribed fire application, native grass seeding, tree and shrub 

planting, riparian restoration, cultural monitoring, and project layout, marking and design. The 

partnership has leveraged over $2.2 million to support this training and employment program 

across private, municipal and federal lands. 
131 

The Farm Bill is the nation's largest investment supporting the voluntary and successful 

conservation, restoration and management of America's private lands. These activities are 

critical to a strong economy, healthy and productive rural lands, and thriving communities. 

Seventy percent of the land in the lower 48 

states is privately owned. Nearly 900 million 

acres (roughly half of the land in the contiguous 

United States) are cropland, rangeland or pastureland and eligible for Farm Bill programs. 

The Farm Bill is the most important legislation 

for conserving private lands in America. It provides farmers, ranchers and forest landowners 

with the tools necessary to protect and conserve not only the land, but also their way of life. 

These practices result in cleaner water, healthy 

soils, enhanced wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities and increased flood controL 

Our country's forests are a vita! natural resource, and a strong Farm Bill ensures our national and private forests remain healthy and 

productive. Our forest lands-whether federal, 

state, or private-are huge economic drivers in 

many communities. We all benefit from healthy 

forests and the clean air and water, habitat, recreation, timber and forest products they provide. 

The Nature Conservancy has a long history of 

working directly with farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners. We partner together 

across America to create conservation opportunities to build safer local communities and 

stronger rural economies. 

Farm Bill Funding 

Funding for America's critical working lands has already been disproportionately cut. The next Farm Bill 

should increase funding so that the Conservation Title 

can continue meeting the needs of our farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to ensure our country's 

food security and economic stability. 

It is critically important that we restore the baseline 

funding for easement programs-the Agricultural 

lands Easement (ALE) program and Wetlands Reserve 

Easement program (WRE)-to at least $500 million a 

year. 

Farm Bill conservation programs account for just 6 percent of Farm Bill funding. Congress should create and 

pass a Farm Bill that increases funding to the Conservation Title and avoids further cuts to the Forestry and 

Research Titles. 

With more than $6 billion already cut from conservation programs compared to authorized funding, conservation has already answered the call with more 

than its fair share for meaningful deficit reduction. Further cuts would gravely compromise the ability of conservation programs to accomplish their objectives and 

deliver multiple economic, conservation, and quality of 

life benefits to every region of America. Voluntary conservation works, and the results speak for themselves 

as the Conservation Title helps landowners maintain 

their legacy as stewards of America's working lands. 
132 

The Nature Conservancy's Top Farm Bill Priorities 

Bolster Conservation Rewards and Incentives. Encourage farmers 

to conserve wetlands, grasslands and private forests. Congress can further incentivize these practices by increasing 

funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 

(ACEP), Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) and Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), and by maximizing 

investments in those programs through more efficient program delivery. Congress should also increase the acreage cap 

for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and improve 

stewardship practices, technical assistance and cost-share 

programs on working agricultural and private forest lands. 

Prioritize Key Resource Issues. Direct a higher percentage of 

Farm Bill resources to conservation issues of special significance via the Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

(RCPP) Program and the National NRCS Initiatives such as the 

Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) and the Mississippi River Basin 

Initiative (MRBI) to achieve local and landscape-scale environmental benefits. 

Encourage Conservation of Significant and Sensitive Habitat. Maintain conservation compliance to prevent conversion of significant and sensitive habitats, with a special emphasis placed on 

removing incentives to convert native prairie or grasslands to 

cropland. 

Improve Water Quality and Supply. Reduce the amount of pollutants entering our waterways and promote sustainable water 

management for people and nature, especially in droughtprone areas. 

Promote Soil Health. Create incentives for producers to adopt 

soil health practices that mutually benefit farmers, resource 

production and the ecosystems on which such productivity 

depends. 

Improve Conservation Outcomes. Strengthen conservation outcomes of Farm Bill programs by refining implementation of 

those programs based on monitoring results and sciencebased assessment methods. 

Maintain Healthy and Resilient Forests. increase the long-term 

protection of forest resources and their benefits from threats 

such as catastrophic wildfire, insects and diseases, and promote the use of fire as an important forest management tool. 
(133) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 29, 2017 
134 

~!:tOnal Associate"on of ~eat Growers 

/J 415 Second St. NE, Suite 200 • Washington, D.C. 20002 • (202) 547-7800 • www.wheatworld.org 

/ 

June 29, 2017 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry 

United States Senate 

328 A Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Roberts: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement for the Conservation and Forestry: 

Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill. 

My name is David Schemm and I am the current President of the National Association of Wheat 

Growers and a farmer near Sharon Springs, Kansas. I raise wheat, com, grain sorghum and 

sunflower on my operation. The National Association of Wheat Growers (NA WG) is a 

federation of 20 state wheat grower associations that works to represent the needs and interests 

of wheat producers before Congress and federal agencies. Based in Washington, D.C., NA WG is 

grower-governed, grower-funded, and works in areas as diverse as federal farm policy, trade, 

environmental regulation, agricultural research and sustainability. 

Wheat is grown in many states and is grown both as a continuous cropping system or as part of a 

multi-year rotation. On my operation, I have a four-year rotation of wheat, com, sorghum and 

summer fallow. These different rotations and the regions of the country in which wheat are 

grown require us to look at a variety of conservation programs and conservation practices as the 

right tools for individual wheat farmers. No one program works for everyone, and conservation 

practices and conservation options for growers must change just as the landscape across the 

country changes. 

Wheat growers are having a positive impact on the environment, as new traits and crop 

protection tools are introduced, production practices change. According to the report, 

Environmental and Socioeconomic Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of On Farm Agricultural 

Production in the United States (2016) from Field the Market: The Alliance for Sustainable 

Agriculture, over the last 35 years, U.S. wheat producers have increased resource efficiency in 
135 

land use, soil conservation, irrigation water use, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. We 

are also producing more bushels per acre. These production efficiencies are important to feed a 

growing population and are the result of conservation efforts by producers and through the use of 

USDA conservation programs. 

Wheat growers are focused on productivity and profitability and an important element of 

maintaining both productivity and profitability is managing our operations for long term success, 

managing productive healthy soils and being good stewards of the land. For a farmer, without a 

successful crop each year and our long term financial viability, we cannot purchase new 

equipment, test new practices and experiment with new cropping systems. We don't operate on 

margins that allow us to take the risk of an unsuccessful crop. Farm Bill Conservation programs 

provide a backstop that allows us to make investments in new technology and try new 

conservation practices. 

I am a participant in Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP). Under my CSP contract, l have been able to focus on irrigation water 

management, and important issue in my area. I have also been able to improve wildlife habitat 

by providing a food source and water. These different approaches to water management allow 

for efficient irrigation water use, and providing benefits to wildlife. Through CRP I have utilized 

both continuous and general sign-up options. Enrolling a larger area through a general sign up 

and a smaller buffer strip through continuous sign-up were options that worked well for my farm. 

Having that flexibility allows someone like me to make the best use of the program and 

providing benefits for improvement water quality, controlling erosion and improving the soil. 

NA WG supports the continuation of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs in the 

next Farm Bill. NA WG members have prioritized working lands conservation programs in our 

discussions about the next Farm Bill. We believe these programs should work with farmers to 

integrate conservation practices and techniques into their farming operation. Part of that 

conservation assistance may be a buffer or filter strip, and these practices should be taken into 

consideration across the entire farming operation. There must be balance in the types of 

programs offered and flexibility to meet local needs. 

For instance, in western Kansas, there are many acres in CRP. As I mentioned, I too have land 

in a CRP contract. But the operation on my farm is much different than what was typical in 1985 

when CRP was created. CRP fit the needs of that time, and I want to be clear, we feel there is 

still a need, but what we know and how we manage our operations is different now compared to 

30 years ago. Certain land that is coming out of CRP can be farmed, and we have better 

techniques for managing tillage, nutrient application and the application of crop protection tools 

and we have different seed varieties. Conservation programs should provide a variety of types of 
136 

assistance to producers, and recognize the different needs in different parts of the country and for 

different crop rotations. 

We had a serious drought in the Midwest several years ago and the soil didn't blow and we 

didn't experience the same problems from the 1930s. And I credit farmers' management 

practices, improved seed varieties, adoption of new technology and conservation practices for 

keeping the soil on the ground during the drought. In semi-arid regions of the country, like 

western Kansas, we need to have conservation programs that work for our soils and climate. The 

needs for my crop rotation are different than the needs of my fellow wheat farmers in North 

Carolina, Maryland, Texas, North Dakota, Montana and the Pacific Northwest. We need a 

variety of programs and conservation practices to the diversity of agriculture and cropping 

systems. 

The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) helps producers adopt conservation practices 

across their operations. Wheat growers have been participating in the program and have 

integrated practices and enhancements such as variable rate application of nutrients, replacing 

spray nozzles to control crop protection tool application, converting to direct seeding/no till 

farming, irrigation water management, and stalk testing for appropriate fertilizer application. 

NA WG members support continuation of CSP and allowing additional opportunities to enroll in 

CSP and would like to allow for an additional contract renewal. The financial incentive 

payments provided by CSP help producers off-set the cost of adopting a new practice, 

purchasing new equipment and providing habitat. These practices improve soil health, improve 

water quality, result in more efficient irrigation water use and benefit wildlife. 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is another conservation program that is 

important to wheat growers. EQIP provides fmancial incentives for growers to undertake a 

certain conservation practice and provides for a shorter-tetm contract. EQIP also helps those 

producers that aren't quite ready for CSP. EQIP allows them to work toward meeting the 

requirements for eligibility in CSP. EQIP also provides assistance to producers seeking to 

undertake a specific conservation project on their operation. Farm Bill Conservation Programs 

have also been used to help producers comply with regulations. Specifically, EQIP provides 

assistance for producers to come into compliance with requirements of the Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure regulations for on-farm fuel storage. Conservation programs also 

help producers meet requirements under federal and state water quality regulations. 

We are concerned about the provisions of the President's budget proposal that call for the 

elimination ofCSP and halting general sign-ups ofCRP. This approach is short-sighted and 

doesn't look comprehensively at the balance of the different conservation approaches. Working 

lands incentive programs help farmers transition operations to new management practices and 
137 

adopt technology. CRP enrollments should be balanced and allow for management of acreage 

under the cap through general sign-up and continuous enrollments. 

NA WG encourages the committee to exempt farmers from obtaining a Dun and Bradstreet 

number and a Systems of Award Management number. These requirements have been an added 

paperwork burden and headache for growers. Frequently, we hear of numbers being 

automatically generated, without request from growers, and growers who are then seeking a 

number end up with duplicate numbers, causing eligibility issues on their conservation program 

contracts. 

NA WG remains concerned about linking conservation compliance to crop insurance. The 

changes that were made during the last farm bill added stress to a system that was already 

overloaded. The backlog of wetland detetmination in the Prairie Pothole region still exists. 

NA WG appreciates that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reaffirmed their 

process for certain wetland dete1minations earlier this year and we believe that farmers that went 

through the process to obtain a determination in accordance with the Farm Bill provisions should 

not be required to go through another evaluation or re-determination. 

We encourage NRCS to continue to make improvements in consistency of conservation program 

delivery. As a national organization, we hear from our state members about different 

experiences with they have with program application and implementation. Frequently this leads 

to grower frustration, especially when the program delivery is substantially different across 

county lines. 

I also have the opportunity to represent NA WG on the board of Field to Market: The Alliance for 

Sustainable Agriculture. NRCS conservation models, information, and expertise have been 

instrumental in shaping the Field to Market Fieldprint Calculator Platform. This tool looks at the 

conservation outcomes on row crop farms, and a farmer's participation in USDA conservation 

programs can help him or her make improvements on their sustainability journey. NA WG hopes 

that this support from NRCS continues, but we believe that sustainability efforts are taking place 

through the marketplace and industry partnerships and there should not be a formal role of the 

government to establish a sustainability standard for agricultural production. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. NA WG members are very supportive of 

Farm Bill Conservation Program and we encourage the committee to retain the variety of 

conservation programs the Farm Bill offers. Cropping systems, climate, and soils are different 

across the country for all of our wheat farmer members, and our conservation programs need to 

be able to help farmers manage their resources in a manner that is specific to their cropping and 

resource needs. Working lands programs are the most beneficial in helping grower manage their 

operations to address natural resource concerns and maintain a viable crop. The working lands 
138 

programs, such as CSP and EQIP, should be balanced with CRP that can also play an integral 

part of a conservation plan on a farmer's operation. 

Sincerely, 

David Schemm 

President 

National Association of Wheat Growers 
139 

MIDWEST 

ROW CROP COLLABORATIVE 

June 12, 2017 

The Honorable Mike Enzi 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Budget Committee on the 

Budget 

624 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Bernie Sanders 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the 

Budget 

624 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Diane Black 

Chairman, U.S. House Committee on the Budget 

B-234 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable John Yarmuth 

Ranking Member, U.S. House Committee on the 

Budget 

B-234 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Members of Congress, 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on 

Appropriations 

Room S-128, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on 

Appropriations 

Room S-128, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen 

Chairman, U.S. House Committee on Appropriations 

H-305, The Capitol 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Nita Lowey 

Ranking Member, U.S. House Committee on 

Appropriations 

H-305, The Capitol 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Midwest Row Crop Collaborative (the Collaborative) is a diverse and unique private-sector/NGO coalition 

working to expand agricultural solutions that support air and water quality and enhance soil health. The 

Collaborative would like to share our concerns about the Administration's FY2018 proposed budget for the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

American farmers play an essential role in producing the food, fiber, and fuel our growing world needs. They 

also are pioneering innovative ways to protect our nation's vital natural resources. With the 2014 Farm Bill, 

Congress created the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which relies on existing USDA 

authorities to invest in agricultural conservation efforts and leverages private-sector financial and technical 

resources, resulting in a multiplying effect unparalleled in other federal programs. The Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates that, to-date, $590 million in federal dollars have been matched by over 

$900 million dollars of technical and financial support from the private sector. The RCPP is projected to invest 

$2.4 billion in federal and matching private-sector funds in rural communities through 2018. 

USDA support for voluntary approaches is having positive environmental and economic outcomes across rural 

America. The Administration's proposed cuts to USDA to eliminate the RCPP will impact thousands of farmer-led 
140 

MIDWEST 

ROW CROP COLL.I\BORATIVE 

conservation efforts in the Midwest and across rural America. Without this critical program, we are concerned 

that many of the efficiencies of NRCS services and incentives for matching funding would be lost. 

The Collaborative is actively investing in scaling up conservation practices in Nebraska, Illinois, and Iowa, 

including funding 20 soil health demonstration farms in those states. Its members- Cargill, Inc., Environmental 

Defense Fund, General Mills, Kellogg Company, Land O'Lakes, Inc., Monsanto, PepsiCo, The Nature Conservancy, 

Unilever, Walmart, and World Wildlife Fund -have experienced firsthand the vital role the RCPP can play in 

supporting farmer-led efforts to improve soil health, reduce nutrient losses into the rivers and streams of the 

Mississippi River Basin, and maximize water conservation. 

In addition to the many RCPP projects that our individual members are funding, the Collaborative has directly 

invested in the following RCPP projects: 

The Midwest Agriculture Water Quality Partnership has matched $9.5 million in federal funding with 

more than $38 million in private investment from more than 40 partners. The Partnership promotes 

science-based, non-regulatory approaches to reducing nutrient loss and improving water quality, soil 

health, and habitat for at-risk species. It aims to scale up conservation planning and delivery by 

leveraging partner-farmer relationships and precision agriculture technology to improve 

environmental outcomes and farmland productivity at the same time. 

The Precision Conservation Management program (PCM) combines farm business financial planning 

with precision conservation technology to inform decision making on conservation practices. PCM's 

30 partners aim to quantify the farmer's bottom line benefit from adopting conservation practices, 

from efficiency gains to risk mitigation, in a data-driven approach. This information is then used to 

help growers apply enterprise-scale changes through the Conservation Stewardship Program. PCM 

seeks to engage farmers in Illinois, Iowa, and Kentucky. 

We respectfully ask you to continue your support of RCPP as an essential tool in scaling up conservation and 

economic outcomes for rural America as you consider the Fiscal Year 2018 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for USDA. 

If you require additional information about the Collaborative, its work in the Upper Mississippi River Basin or if 

you want to visit one of the many farm and watershed-level projects which demonstrate the Collaborative's 

investments, please contact Sarah Stokes Alexander, Vice President, Keystone Policy Center at 970-513-5846, 

salexander@keystone.org. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

The Midwest Row Crop Collaborative 

cc: U.S. House Committee on Agriculture 

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Sonny Perdue, Secretary, USDA 

Leonard Jordan, Acting Chief, NRCS 
141 

~LLl\\CE Pu;!~·~s ~~l'-"~St"'-~~<'-:. 

ThcNature (.J f& '"\( Conscn·ancv , 

COUNCIL -<'fs10ciati~ Pmt!L,"\<'lj, "?.'<1'<' i"<P~~'>''~ ,!~ 

'> K ~-~--~--' -- ~,) '0:t Irrigation EDF'- ~ ASSOCIATION " TROUT ~-~l!!et~~~~~~ ~.','i/~i;tt.\':~ :\uduhon UNLIMIT!:D 

,., ~ 

~'""'g,.,,., "' - V. ~-~ ~IJ<S 

~- v -~-~-- __ 1:,>1K'<!I(>"-

The Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition 

June 20, 2017 

The Honorable John Hoeven, Chair 

The Honorable Jeff Merkley, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related 

Agencies 

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Importance of Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) 

Dear Chairman Hoeven and Ranking Member Merkley: 

The Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition (WAC C) writes to you today in support of the 

RCPP program, and urges you to provide not less than FY 2017 funding for this program in light of 

the Administration's proposal to zero out funding for this successful program. The WACC was 

formed over five years ago from the on-the-ground partnerships among agricultural producers and 

conservation organizations, including those that delivered agricultural benefits through irrigated 

infrastructure improvements and increased system reliability, while also restoring streams and 

improving watershed health. 

Throughout the western United States, family farms and ranches have facilitated the conservation 

and stewardship ofthe region's natural resources while anchoring the region's rich cultural 

heritage and identity. It is a landscape and a way of life that works for rural economies and resource 

conservation. In the West, private land stewardship is key to continued conservation innovation, 

resource and habitat enhancements, and sustainable working land partnerships. 

The West's Irrigation Infrastructure Sets Western Producers Apart and Requires WatershedScale solutions. The West has one thing in common across all producers-water scarcity. The 

human ingenuity and resourcefulness to bring irrigation water to water-short fields and pastures 

means that western producers are often linked by common irrigation canals, diversion structures, 

and reservoirs in ways that their Mid-Western and Southern counterparts are not RCPP ensures 

that government funding for water quantity and quality projects will focus on the appropriate scale 
142 

to achieve meaningful results. It is also designed so that producers and partners on the ground 

design the projects rather than agency officials in Washington. Local engagement with 

conservation is among the most important means for promoting success of the effort. 

RCPP has been successful. RCPP has been successful in delivering conservation benefits at scale, 

and reaching more producers in a target watershed focused on particular limiting factors that 

would not otherwise be addressed in a coordinated fashion. In the West, for example, WACC 

members have worked in these RCPP's: 

• High-Desert, Drought-Resilient Ranching in the Owyhee River basin, crossing Idaho, 

Nevada, and Oregon state lines. A $1.3 million RCPP investment matched through 17 

partners, is working with ranchers who have experienced severe drought for the majority of 

years in the last 30-year cycle. This project is reducing drought impacts to wildlife and 

livestock in the Owyhee watershed and adjacent communities in two lesser watersheds, 

which have been historically underserved. Project partners are working together to develop 

on-the-ground projects that keep water in streams longer for both livestock and wildlife. 

• Irrigators in Oregon's Klamath Basin have been hit bard by many years of drought, 

and water scarcity and nutrient loading are key factors limiting watershed health. A $7.6 

million RCPP investment matched through five partners is working to address drought and 

external nutrient loading into Upper Klamath Lake, problems that persist downstream 

through the mainstem Klamath River. WACC member Trout Unlimited is working with a 

number of ranchers on projects that include piping to improve water delivery and pasture 

condition, while also reducing out-of-stream diversions from designated critical habitat for 

ESA-listed bull trout and Klamath redband trout 

Salton Sea. Since the early 2000s, inflows to the Salton Sea, California's largest lake located 

in Imperial and Riverside counties, have been decreasing due to drought, decreases in water 

inflow from Mexico, and agriculture-to-urban water transfers, resulting in significant 

negative public health, agricultural, ecological, cultural, and economic impacts. The Sea 

receives the majority of its inflows in the form of drainage waters from two agricultural 

areas of national importance, the lmperiallrrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water 

District. The RCPP, which is currently being implemented, will provide water quality, 

habitat, air quality and wetland benefits to the public. Some of the conservation practices 

implemented through the program are serving as a demonstration project for generating 

better air quality and wildlife habitat on the Sea's rapidly exposing playa. 

Agriculture and birds both benefit from RCPP's California's Waterbird Enhancement 

Program (WHEP). With $10 million in federal funding, 100,000 acres of California's Central 

Valley ricelands have been enhanced to benefit wildlife while sustaining agricultural 

production. WHEP works with farmers to ensure shallow water wetlands, mudflats and 

nesting areas for many species of migratory, wintering and breeding birds, for less than 

.01% of the cost of establishing a shorebird habitat refuge. The Central Valley supports as 

many as seven million wintering waterfowl, and rice fields in this area provide 60% of all of 

their food resources. In the Central Valley, wetland habitat has undergone substantial 

habitat loss and this program ensures an alternative for this crucial habitat. 
143 

The Fann Bill's RCPP Serves Agriculture and Conservation Interests. The WACC members 

recognize the importance of landscape-scale projects, planning, and collaboration to tackle pressing 

issues in the West. One of the leading issues forthe Coalition coming together was to create a Farm 

Bill program building on EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) that would deliver 

more agricultural and conservation benefit in achieving measurable water quantity and water 

quality results at the watershed scale. The most recent Farm Bill's Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program (RCPP) is the latest expression of this effort. 

RCPP Should be Fully Funded in F¥2018. The recently-released Administration F¥2018 budget, A 

New Foundation for American Greatness, proposes to zero out RCPP. The WACC urges you to 

provide not less than F¥2017 funding levels for the RCPP in the coming fiscal year. Rather than 

cutting or eliminating the RCPP, the Administration should be working with Congress and 

stakeholders to improve the operation of that program and streamline contracting. The concept of 

allowing trade associations, non-profits or other qualified entities to help farmers and ranchers 

aggregate projects to bring more scale to conservation dollars spent is an idea worthy of refinement 

and expansion, not elimination. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter or WACC's activities, please feel free to contact Jeff 

Eisenberg, coalition director, or any of the members of the coalition. Jeff can be reached at 

jeffeisenberg@rockspringrs.com or 571.355.3073. 

Sincerely, 

Members of the Western Agriculture and Conservation Coalition 

Steering Committee: Arizona Cattle Growers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, 

Environmental Defense Fund, Family Farm Alliance, Irrigation Association, The Nature 

Conservancy, Public Lands Council, Trout Unlimited, Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Members: California Agricultural Irrigation Association, Montana Stock Growers Association, 

National Audubon Society, Farmers Conservation Alliance, Oregon Water Resources Congress, 

Western Growers Association 

Business Advisory Council: K·Coe lsom, LLP 

Cc: 

Senator Pat Roberts, Chair 

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Agriculture 

328 Senate Russell Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Daines, Chair 

Senator Bennet, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, and Natural Resources 

328A Senate Russell Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 
144 

January 24, 2017 

To Whom It May or Should Concern: 

My name is Mike Kelley. We have a family farm operation in Monona Co. Iowa. I am writing in 

regard to the current Conservation Reserve Programs. As a 5th generation family farmer, I would like to 

express my deep concerns about what these current programs have done and what they will continue to 

do to not only my family farm operation but the agriculture community as a whole. I have been farming 

all my life and now have 2 sons that are farming with us. I have enrolled in the past 14 years some areas 

of my own farms or leased land into some of the wetlands programs which made total sense from an 

economic perspective as they were unproductive and also helped for environmental reasons and with 

wildlife habitat. These were on a very small scale. For whatever reason that l cannot fathom, these 

multitudes of programs seem totally out of control. The majority of the land going into these programs 

currently is very productive farmland. One of my sons lost 80 acres of leased land in 2016 to one of 

these programs which he had a center pivot irrigation system recently installed on at a tremendous cost 

assuming he would have the ability to farm this land on a long term basis. The owners received a bid 

from USDA at a rental rate of over $100/Acre more than he was paying or could afford to pay at a cost 

to the government of over $300,000 over 10 years. 

I in turn in 2017 have lost a 1SO acre farm to another USDA Pollinator program. I was currently 

paying $286/Acre for this farm. Three years ago, I installed a center pivot, drilled a well and installed 

wiring on this farm at a cost of over $40,000 again with the hope that I would be able to keep this land 

for many years. This farm is the most productive, high quality, irrigated land that I farm with no 

additional wetlands, non-erodible without any conservation benefits whatsoever outside of honey bees. 

I was trying to negotiate a lower rent based on the current commodity prices when the owners came to 

me and told me the government offered them nearly $380/Acre with a $150/Acre signing bonus. Myself 

and the owners where shocked. Obviously I was unsuccessful at getting the rent lowered so I could 

remain profitable because I was outbid by the government by well over $100/ Acre. Not only have !lost 

this part of my base acres of my farming operation for 10 years if not forever, I have a pivot to sell and 

remove by March 1, 2017 and am out the cost ofthe well and wiring. Again for a total cost to the 

taxpayers of nearly $600,000 and cost share for seed of up to $22,500 and further administration cost. 

Not only the costs to the taxpayer but its loss in revenue to the local grain elevator of 30,000 bushels of 

grain/year or $100,000+, the seed company that one of my sons is a part time sales manager, chemical 

and fertilizer suppliers, machinery dealers, insurance salesmen, fuel supplier, local bank and on and on. 

Not only is it a travesty to the taxpayer, but is anyone as I just stated putting a dollar amount on the lost 

long term revenue to the local community? 

Never in my 30+ years of farming did I feel the government was going to be a threat to me and 

my young son's farm operation. I am confident and terrified that the loss of more land to the USDA is 

forthcoming based on these ridiculous programs and the asinine rental rates. 

These programs are a gravy train for people fortunate to own a lot of land and a lot of these 

owners are absentee so the revenue is gone from the local area. There is a huge trend for landowners 

looking to retire or change tenants to look at the USDA first rather than offering it to a producer. 

I am a strong believer in conservation and believe a lot of these programs are good on a much 

smaller scale and a price that is not competitive with the people out here in production agriculture. This 

is not only happening to our operation but also our friends and neighbors. At a time with huge deficits 

where are these 100's of millions if not billions coming from? You can be assured that when we do have 
145 

a production shortfall, consumers will be up in arms over the price of food in which these runaway 

government programs will be a contributing factor. 

I also found there has been a precedence set in a court case in the 8'" District Court that if you 

are a landowner, not actively involved in farming; the CRP payments are not subject to Social Security 

tax. This is another huge incentive to take land away from a producer and a loss to the taxpayer. 

As 1 understand there is currently over 100,000 additional acres wanted by USDA to be enrolled 

in CRP alone in Iowa of which I have found our area of the state has a bull's eye on it. The local FSA is 

encouraging this enrollment because ifthe county quota is not achieved these acres and dollars will be 

lost to another county or counties. I recently saw a spokesman for USDA describe this new 

announcement for additional acres to be a stimulus for the currently depressed Ag economy. Are you 

kidding me! 

I have been told that Monona County, Iowa had the highest payment rate per acre in 201S of all 

the Corn Belt states and also 9"' out of all2,534 U.S. counties that received payments that year. CRP 

rental rates are supposed to be based off of cash rental rates. We do not by any stretch have the 

highest cash rental rates in the Midwest and certainly not 9"' highest in the United States. 

In summation: 

#1 CRP rental rates should be below current cash rental rates so as not to compete against the 

producer. 

#2 Whole farms should not be allowed in these programs (maybe only a very small percentage 

of each farm) 

#3 Do we really need to take more land out of production for Pollinator Programs? It seems as if 

wild flowers could be over seeded into some current CRP acres easily and effectively at little 

cost to the taxpayer. 

#4 Payment limitations on the dollar amount of income earned are easily bypassed and even 

suggested by FSA simply by enrolling various family members as operators on that farm. 

#S Non-payment of Social Security tax loophole needs to be closed. 

#6 Inevitably when the next Farm Bill is considered. Federal Crop Insurance funding will be 

contentious. Doesn't it seem more rational to use some of this CRP funding to continue to fund 

a program that puts solid support under every producer and benefits all? 

Please take a look at these CRP programs for the cost to the taxpayer, true benefits and revenue 

loss to the local and state economy. Someone please rein in this program that was originally well 

intended and did not displace the producers out here trying to feed the world and doing what we do 

best. 

I love my job, as my sons do and ancestors before me. My biggest fear is no longer the weather 

or commodity prices, it is the Federal Government in which alii can do is express my deep concerns. 

Sincerely, 

~),__ )~· 

Mike Kelley/KeUey Family Farms 

2S399 Hickory Avenue 

Onawa lA 51040 

email ]seiley@onawave.net 

(147) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

JUNE 29, 2017 
148 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Jimmy Bramblett 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. Mr. Bramblett, how does a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan assist Confined Animal 

Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to address air quality impacts? Specifically, how are these management 

plans developed and implemented? What other conservation programs at NRCS assist CAFOs with 

addressing air quality? 

Response: Mr. Chairman, NRCS helps CAFO producers minimize potential air and water pollutants from 

storage facilities, confinement areas, and land application areas through technical and financial 

assistance, as appropriate. Development of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) 

generally begins with a comprehensive resource inventory of a CAFO. An NRCS conservation planner 

meets with the producer onsite and identifies air quality resource concerns for emissions of particulate 

matter, ozone precursors, greenhouse gases, and objectionable odors. NRCS also identifies manag~ment 

options and structural alternatives during the planning process. NRCS trained staff develop CNMPs 

based on comprehensive engineering and resource assessments and these CNMPs are all approved by a 

Certified Conservation Planner. During implementation, a producer adopts and documents the CNMP's 

practices and management activities. 

NRCS has many manure management conservation practices which address air quality concerns. The 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the primary program through which NRCS provides 

financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers. Several states are using National Air Quality 

Initiative (NAQI) funds, authorized under EQIP, to address specifically agricultural air quality issues at 

CAFOs and other agricultural operations. Other conservation programs which provide assistance to 

address air quality concerns include the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Additionally, the NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) 

program has been used to develop and demonstrate additional technologies and techniques for 

addressing agricultural air quality issues. 

2. Many of the Farm Bill conservation programs are highly oversubscribed. Specific to the Voluntary 

Access Program and Habitat Incentive Program, can you explain state agencies' and tribal 

governments' level of interest and demand for the program, and NRCS' ability to meet that 

demand? In addition, can you explain the many ways states and tribes are using the program to 

assist landowners, to provide recreational access, and to improve fish and game habitat? 

Response: The purpose of the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) is to 

make grants available to State wildlife agencies and Tribal governments to encourage private 

landowners to make some of their land available to the public for wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., 

hunting, fishing, nature photography, canoeing) and to enhance the wildlife habitat quality ofthe land 

and water involved. 
149 

NRCS published two Announcements for Program Funding (APF) providing applicants the opportunity to 

compete for the $40 million Congress authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill. State wildlife agencies 

demonstrated a high level of interest, submitting 53 proposals requesting a total of over $94 million. 

For most of the State wildlife agencies, the requested VPA-HIP funds were to supplement funds from 

other in-state partners to maintain the very popular State programs that make private lands available to 

the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, generally referred to as "Open Access" programs. NRCS 

awarded funds to 10 State wildlife agencies in FY 2014 and 15 State wildlife agencies in FY 2016, for a 

total of 25 separate VPA-HIP agreements with 22 State wildlife agencies. 

Through March 2017, the 22 State wildlife agency awardees have used VPA-HIP funds to enter into 

approximately 650 contracts with private landowners for a duration ranging from 2 to 30 years, making 

approximately 1.7 million acres available to the public for wildlife-dependent recreation. The VPA-HIP 

State wildlife agency awardees have improved the wildlife habitat on approximately 340,000 acres of 

the 1.7 million acres made available. The majority of the approximately $40 million VPA-HIP funds have 

been used to lease private lands for direct public access and use. The most prevalent recreational uses 

of the private lands are hunting and fishing. These hunting and fishing activities are varied and 

innovative, and can complement other State-level initiatives. One State, for example, is targeting leases 

to provide public access for hunting and to address wildlife-related issues like deer damage, an example 

of the synergistic potential of a well-administered VPA-HIP. 

Unlike State wildlife agencies, the level of interest for VPA-HIP funds among Tribal governments, based 

upon the number of proposals received, is low. NRCS received proposals from only two Tribal 

governments in response to the FY 2014 APF, and did not receive any Tribal government proposals in 

response to the FY 2015 APF. NRCS awarded $374,584 to the Yakama Nation to assist with their 

implementation ofthe Yakama Nation's Valley Restoration Areas Wildlife Viewing and Environmental 

Management Plan to expand access for non-consumptive uses (e.g., day-use hiking, bird watching, 

photography). Their kick-off grand opening of an improved hiking trail and observation kiosks in the 

Satus Wildlife Area near Toppenish, Washington, was well-received and well-attended by local residents. 

3. How many total acres currently enrolled in the Conservation Stewardship Program will not be 

eligible for renewal? 

Response: In the current renewal cycle of FY 2013 contracts to be renewed in FY 2018, NRCS received 

5,153 applications, representing an estimated 77 percent of the initial FY 2013 contracts. These 

applications are being reviewed for eligibility and therefore, NRCS is unable to provide a count of 

ineligible requests for renewal at this time. The data will be available when the renewal cycle is 

completed in FY 2018. 

NRCS can project the renewal rate based on historical information from the three renewal cycles 

conducted for the FY 201S through FY 2017 renewal contracts. Overall, 59 percent of all initial contracts 

have been awarded renewal contracts. In the program's third renewal cycle of FY 2012 contracts to be 

renewed in FY 2017, the renewal rate was 61 percent. Of the renewal applications received, NRCS 

determined 292 as ineligible applications, for an ineligibility rate of approximately 4 percent. There 
150 

were also 1273 renewal applications that were cancelled, and some of these may also have been 

ineligible but were cancelled by the applicants prior to an ineligibility determination. 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. Conservation Compliance: On March 10" I wrote a letter to USDA regarding NRCS' implementation 

of swampbuster and sod buster provisions in light of two OIG reports, one published in June 2016 

titled USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Violations and one 

published in January 2017 titled NRCS: Wetland Conservation Provisions in the Prairie Pothole 

Region. In response to these OIG reports, I understand that NRCS has updated its procedures to 

address the issues raised by OIG. As I have not yet received a response to the questions I asked in 

this letter, I would request a response to the following questions about the changes in NRCS policy 

as it relates to conservation compliance: 

• How many farms and acres of land will be impacted by the policy changes implemented by NRCS 

on both HEL and wetlands? 

Response: In response to the 2016 OIG report, USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland 

Conservation Violations, NRCS issued policy which clarified the identification and required treatment of 

ephemeral gully erosion on highly erodible land (HEL), detailed instruction on how to complete the 

wetland part ofthe compliance status review, and enhanced guidance on the requirement of quality 

assurance for the compliance status reviews. NRCS expects that the clarification regarding the 

identification and treatment of ephemeral gully erosion carries the most potential impact to producers, 

and believes the guidance on wetland reviews and quality assurance to have little impact. 

NRCS has had the policy requirement to treat ephemeral gully erosion since 1991. However the 2016 

OIG report identified two states, Missouri and Nebraska, which had in place State-specific guidance that 

relaxed the requirement for ephemeral erosion treatment in some instances. NRCS expects the impact 

in these two states may be significant, affecting up to thousands offarms and acres; however, the full 

extent is difficult to estimate. In these two states, NRCS has put measures in place which can allow 

producers a reasonable time period to phase additional practices required to address ephemeral erosion 

into their operations, while also being eligible for USDA technical and financial assistance. NRCS does 

not expect the national impact to be significant. 

In response to the January 2017 OIG report, NRCS: Wetland Conservation Provisions in the Prairie 

Pothole Region, NRCS issued policy clarifications regarding the certification status of previouslycompleted wetland determinations. NRCS National policy clarified policy issued in 2010 regarding 

determinations completed prior to 1996. 2010 policy identified that these determinations are 

considered certified if they met the procedural (appeal rights) and quality mandates of the 1990 Farm 

Bill, but it did not provide details on how these two standards were to be evaluated. The OIG report 

identified that states in the Prairie Pothole Region (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota) 

were not consistent in their evaluation of previously-completed wetland determinations, with some 

states incorrectly automatically rejecting the certification status of all pre-1996 determinations. Of 

these four states, the impacts are expected to be greatest in North Dakota and South Dakota. NRCS is 
151 

aware that inconsistencies also previously existed nationally; however, obtaining estimates of number of 

farms or acres impacted is extremely difficult. 

The new policy on wetlands clarifies that wetland determinations on maps issued prior to 1996 

will be considered certified. How reliable are these determinations and how much does the 

quality of these determinations vary from state to state? 

Response: Following Congressional direction in the 1990 Farm Bill, NRCS began completing and issuing 

certified wetland determinations. Since that time, there have been many technological innovations, 

including more comprehensive and accurate digital remote resources which have improved the accuracy 

and precision of wetland determinations. In the 1996 Farm Bill, Congress specifically addressed the 

issue of changing wetland determinations by removing the agency's ability to replace a final certified 

determination. Since the 1996 legislative change, certified wetland determinations are only subject to 

change when requested by the affected USDA participant. By law, participants can rely on all final 

certified wetland determinations issued after November 28, 1990. The January 2017 policy clarifications 

provide basic criteria to ensure that those determinations were issued as certified with appeal rights 

provided, and that they meet a quality mandate such that the maps can reasonably be used by a 

producer to identify wetland locations. NRCS acknowledges that the quality of older determinations in 

all states may be different than those completed using more recent digital remote resources and 

procedures. However, this difference in quality does not impact their certification status. 

By relying on the older wetland certifications, will the new policy guidance result in more 

wetlands being drained? If no, why not? 

Response: By law, all certified wetland determinations issued after November 28, 1990 can only be 

replaced when a review is requested by the affected USDA participant. Producers who rely on these 

determinations and avoid adverse impacts to all identified wetland areas will not result in draining 

wetlands subject to the USDA wetland compliance provisions. The 2017 OIG report identified several 

examples where more recent maps identified more wetlands than the earlier maps did. However, this 

varies widely nationally, by State, and even within a State depending on the wetland identification 

procedures that were utilized at the time. 

Provide clarification on how the NRCS' national guidance on gully erosion will be enforced. 

Response: NRCS uses the following methods to enforce the conservation compliance provisions, 

including soil erosion reduction requirements and ephemeral gully erosion treatment. As identified 

above, NRCS has required ephemeral erosion treatment in national policy since at least 1991: 

o USDA conducts annual compliance reviews on a random selection of approximately 1.4% of all USDA 

identified tracts that have either an identified Highly Erodible Land (HEL) field or at least one 

potential wetland area. This results in approximately 22,000 annual compliance checks each year on 

an average of 3.28 million acres. 
152 

o USDA also conducts investigations of potential compliance violations reported by other agencies and 

members of the public through a formal whistleblower complaint procedure. 

o Outside of the whistleblower and annual compliance review process, when providing technical 

assistance, NRCS employees who notice a potential HEL violation are required to notify the affected 

USDA participant. By regulation, these participants are provided an opportunity to revise their HEL 

plan and implement any soil erosion treatment within one year. 

o In an ongoing fashion, all USDA participants must keep their self-certification of compliance updated 

and notify USDA of any planned changes that could impact their compliance. 

• What stakeholders did USDA consult with over the revision to the policies on HEL and wetlands? 

Response: It is important to note that, in these cases, NRCS simply clarified existing national policy and 

such clarifications primarily impact a limited number of States where deviations from policy were 

identified. By issuing updates to its national policy, NRCS is providing a consistent national 

interpretation for the future implementation regarding these issues. The NRCS State Conservationists in 

Nebraska and Missouri consulted with their State Technical Committees concerning the clarifications to 

the gully control requirements on HEL. At the national level, NRCS met with conservation and 

agriculture stakeholders to explain these policy clarifications. NRCS began the discussions with partners 

regarding the certification status of previously conducted wetland determinations in the Prairie Pothole 

Region as early as 2012. 

How many farmers today are considered out of compliance with wetland and HEL requirements 

and what is being done to reduce the number of farmers on this list? 

Response: Below is a table showing NRCS compliance status review violation data for C'( 2012 to C'( 

2016. Note that that these are preliminary technical findings which are subject to change through the 

appeal process. Variances, rather than findings of violations, can be granted for a variety of reasons 

including minimal effect, personal hardship, severe weather, pest, or disease. When a variance is 

granted, the tract is reviewed the next year to ensure that any deficiencies have been addressed. All 

USDA agencies involved with conservation compliance (the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management 

Agency, and NRCS) work together to inform and remind USDA participants of their compliance 

responsibilities. 

Year #Violations % Violations States Reporting Violations Variances Granted 

2012 743 3.0 30 1081 

2013 680 2.9 34 1352 

2014 606 2.7 38 1121 

2015* 358 3.3 29 487 

2016 487 2.2 37 783 

Average 629 2.7 35 1084 

• 2015 IS cons1dered an outlier due to reduced sample s1ze and was not Included 1n the calculation of 

averages. 
153 

Do the policy changes proposed by NRCS on both HEL and wetlands change the number of 

producers who are considered out of compliance? If so, how? 

Response: These policy clarifications do not immediately result in changing the number of producers 

out of compliance. For the HEL provisions, producers can rely on their existing approved conservation 

plans. If additional gully erosion treatments are required, NRCS will work with these producers to revise 

their existing conservation plan and will provide them a reasonable amount oftime, usually one year, to 

implement needed conservation practices. 

What is the overall effectiveness of the agency's enforcement of conservation compliance and 

what metrics does the agency use to make that determination? 

Response: NRCS and FSA share responsibility for the conservation compliance enforcement process, 

with NRCS addressing the technical aspects of identifying HEL and wetland violations and FSA making 

determinations regarding compliance penalties and producer eligibility for USDA programs. NRCS 

believes that the existing compliance monitoring processes provide a strong incentive for producers to 

accept and implement their conservation responsibilities. Statistics on the number of violations have 

remained relatively stable for many years, which is also an indicator of consistent compliance 

enforcement. 

2. Budget: In his FY18 budget proposal, the President recommended eliminating the Conservation 

Stewardship Program and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and increasing funding 

for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program. can you please provide the rationale for eliminating some programs and increasing 

funding for others? 

Response: The President's Budget proposal sought to streamline and focus the delivery of conservation 

resources through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as the primary financial 

assistance program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) as the primary 

conservation easement program. 

3. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program: Can you discuss how ACEP fits into the Department's 

strategy on helping beginning farmers and ranchers? Given that an increasingly high number of 

farmers are at or nearing retirement age, how will you be prioritizing this program as a way to help 

new farmers access land? 

Response: The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) provides financial and technical 

assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. Under the 

Agricultural land Easements (ALE) component, NRCS helps Tribal, State and local governments and nongovernmental organizations protect working' agricultural lands and limit non-agricultural uses of the 

land. Under the Wetlands Reserve Easements (WRE) component, NRCS helps to restore, protect and 

enhance enrolled wetlands. 
154 

ACEP creates opportunities for new and beginning farmers either to purchase agricultural land at a 

reduced cost or to reduce financial liabilities by selling an easement on newly acquired land. In 

particular, the placement of an easement on a parcel decreases the development pressure on that 

parcel and eliminates the competition for non-agricultural uses on the property, allowing a beginning 

farmer or rancher to purchase the land at agricultural value. In turn, the retiring farmers may be able to 

receive full or near full compensation for their long-term investment in the land through the easement 

compensation they receive for the ACEP easement and the compensation they receive from beginning 

farmer or rancher for the remaining value of the land. A WRE easement may provide a source of 

diversified income to a beginning farmer or rancher. 

To help prioritize ACEP's ability to help new farmers and ranchers access land, NRCS provides eligible 

entities the flexibility to engage in buy-sell-protect projects using ACEP-ALE funds. In a buy-sell-protect 

scenario an eligible entity can move quickly to secure a parcel of agricultural land prior to the land being 

sold for non-agricultural development. Once the land is secured through a purchase agreement or an 

outright acquisition, an entity could identify a new and beginning farmer or rancher, and agree to 

convey the land to this new owner. At this point, the entity would apply for ACEP-ALE funds and begin 

the process of acquiring the agricultural easement and transferring the ownership of the land to the 

new farmer or rancher. The entity would complete the buy-sell-protect project at closing by transferring 

the land to the new farmer or rancher and immediately acquiring the agricultural easement from 

them. 

4. Conservation Stewardship Program: Given the changes that NRCS made to the program last year, 

can you provide an update on how the changes worked with this year's sign up? Specifically, for 

FY17, how many applications you submitted, how many was NRCS able to fund, will you fully enroll 

the 10 million acres for FY17? Will you continue to apply the new requirements only to new 

contracts, or will you be applying them to renewing contracts as well? Can you also please provide a 

list of the top 10 states with the highest rate of applications? 

Response: The new CSP process applies to all new enrollments during fiscal year 2017 and thereafter. 

Additionally, NRCS will use the new CSP process for the renewal applications currently under 

consideration which NRCS will contract in FY2018. These changes reduced program complexity, 

streamlined application evaluation and processing, and increased overall transparency. NRCS continues 

to make improvements to CSP based on the feedback received from these external and internal 

stakeholders. 

NRCS has received 17,695 applications for consideration in FY 2017, which is 11 percent higher than FY 

2016. This increased demand is also reflected in an increased number of applications received from 

nontraditional and small farmers, as well as from areas with historically low participation rates. States 

are currently evaluating these applications and entering into contracts. NRCS will make available the 

final sign-up report when all FY 2017 sign-up activities have been completed. NRCS projects the 

program enrollment goals will be met, since demand exceeds the 10 million acres allocated for FY 2017. 

The following states received the highest number of applications (in order from highest to lowest) in FY 

2017: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, Georgia, South 

Dakota, and Illinois. 
155 

5. EQIP: Please provide a breakdown of funding that goes towards wildlife practices and how this 

compares to funding under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program? 

Response: The table below outlines the Financial Assistance (FA) obligated to wildlife practices in EQIP 

(2014-2016) and under WHIP (2009-2013). 

EQIP 

Financial Assistance (FA) Obligated to 

Wildlife lnitiatiws and Practices 

FA 

Year Obligations 

2016 $63,755,195 

2015 $61,311,742 

2014 $60,538,856 

WIDP 

Financial Assistance (FA) Obligated 

FA 

Year Obligations 

2013 $44,516,866 

2012 $33,919,744 

2011 $60,810,383 

2010 $62,862.480 

2009 $51,998,722 

6. EQIP: Please provide a breakdown of the practices that are currently funded through the 60% 

livestock set-aside in EQIP, the cost for those practices, and the states where those practices are 

being implemented. 

Response: The majority of currently active contracts were obligated since the 2008 Farm Bill. During 

the 2009-2016 time period, nearly 879,000 practice occurrences for approximately $4.5B have been 

obligated to livestock-related operations under EQIP across the country. Below are the top ten practices 

based on financial assistance obligated, the top ten practices based on number of occurrences, and the 

top ten states with the most practice occurrences and associated financial assistance obligations. 
156 

Top Ten Uvestock Practices Obligated under EQIP (2009-2016)-

Financial Assistance Obligated 

Financial Assistance 

Practice Name Obligated 

1 Waste Storage Facility $ 457,950,118 

2 Fence $ 455,204,474 

3 Brush Management $ 356,438,499 

4 Pipeline $ 250,84S,067 

5 Heavy Use Area Protection $ 214,654,889 

6 Pasture & Hayland Planting $ 189,318,960 

7 Irrigation System, Sprinkler $ 186,478,917 

8 Trough or Tank $ 163,248,378 

9 Waste Facility Cover $ 148,735,806 

10 Prescribed Grazing $ 128,398,001 

Top Ten Uvestock Practices Obligated Under EQIP (2009-2016)-

0ccurrences 

Practice Name 

1 Fence 

2 Trough or Tank 

3 Pipeline 

4 Brush Management 

5 Prescribed Grazing 

6 Heavy Use Area Protection 

7 Pasture & Hayland Planting 

8 Nutrient Management 

9 Cover Crop 

10 Pumping Plant for Water Control 

Occurrences 

104,208 

80,158 

66,240 

51,523 

47,108 

46,256 

44,635 

34,898 

29,677 

25,675 

Top Ten States with Uvestock Practice Occurences and Associated Financial Assistance 

Obligated Under EQIP (2009-2016) 

Financial Assistance 

State Occurrences Obligated 

1 Texas 83,601 $ 448,756,432 

2 Oklahoma 44,510 $ 134,355,044 

3 California 32,614 $ 277,035,553 

4 Arkansas 32,366 $ 129,758,107 

5 Tennessee 31,469 $ 94,527,799 

6 Mississippi 29,891 $ 74,937,961 

7 North Dakota 27,984 $ 104,549,907 

8 Georgia 25,373 $ 96,868,308 

9 South Dakota 25,016 $ 107,126,981 

10 Wisconsin 24,808 $ 139,772,616 
157 

7. Regional Conservation Partnership Program: Please provide a breakdown of the percent and 

number of contracts that have been awarded through each of the covered programs under RCPP. 

Response: Please see the tables in Attachment One for a breakdown of the percent and number of 

contracts that have been awarded through each of the covered programs under RCPP. 

8. RCPP: How does NRCS determine the amount of technical assistance {TA) that the agency needs to 

implement RCPP projects and does the agency have recommendations for how to improve this 

process in the 2018 Farm Bill so that partners applying for RCPP can know up front the amount of 

funding available for TA for their project? 

Response: NRCS requires that a partner under RCPP identify the requested technical assistance costs in 

their project proposal and NRCS and the partner then identify theTA amount in their negotiated 

partnership agreement. Technical assistance can include natural resource assessment, planning, design, 

practice implementation or other technical activities, and the services are provided either by NRCS, the 

Partner, or a combination of both. All technical assistance implementation activities must be presented 

in the partnership agreement since NRCS must fund all RCPP FA and TA activities via the program to 

ensure the agency and partners both adequately consider the level of technical effort needed for 

successful implementation of projects. This approach keeps Partners in the "drivers' seat" since they 

determine how much, if any, TA they wish NRCS to provide in support of implementing their project. 

NRCS State Conservationists work with their partners to negotiate partnership agreements to 

implement partner-led RCPP projects with the designated funding available for each project. NRCS 

cannot augment RCPP with FA or TA funds from other NRCS program sources beyond the 7 percent 

covered program contribution made available to the program under the Farm Bill. 

NRCS programs are delivered via direct charge, so all activities connected with delivering a program 

must be charged to that program. However, partners remain in charge of deciding if they wish to use 

NRCS technical help for RCPP project implementation or if they prefer to implement with other technical 

resources. Under the statute, NRCS cannot provide RCPP funding for the administrative expenses or 

indirect costs of partners. While partners cannot use RCPP TA to cover administrative costs, they can 

account for those expenses as part of the partner contribution to the project. 

9. Conservation Practices: Can you please discuss the process for approving new conservation 

practices and why it is that the government often lags behind the private sector in utilizing the latest 

conservation technologies and innovations? 

Response: NRCS utilizes Federal funds to advise and assist with implementing conservation 

technologies and innovations, and thus must ensure that the standards for their use are appropriate and 

their benefits proven. Therefore, conservation practice standards {CPS) evolve in accordance with 

advancement in farming and ranching techniques and technology as documented by research, 

conservation field trials, and accumulated experience. CPS are reviewed and maintained on a five-year 

cycle to stay current with changes in technology and to ensure that they address multiple resources. 

CPS contain information on why and where the practice is applied and they set forth the minimum 

quality criteria that must be met during the application of that practice in order for it to achieve its 
158 

intended purpose(s). Moreover, NRCS has the authority to develop interim CPS to enable the use of 

cutting edge technology, as described more fully below. 

National Conservation Practice Standards can be used within a State without modification, or they can 

be rewritten to include additional requirements to meet State or local needs. Because of wide 

variations in soils, climate, and topography, States may need to add special provisions or provide 

additional details in the conservation practice standards. State laws and local ordinances or regulations 

may dictate more stringent criteria. Once a national standard is created or revised, States have up to a 

year to adopt or revise State standards. 

New technology or innovations that address soil, water, air, plant, animal, and energy resource concerns 

can be used in conservation planning through the creation of interim conservation practice standards. 

Interim conservation practice standards are prepared to enable the use of new technology and to field 

test these new technologies. Interim standards are based on requests from the State University, 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), a landowner, an industry representative, employees at the field 

office, or other such sources. 

Interim standard requests are reviewed and approved for development by the State Technical Guide 

Committee then forwarded for National level review. Once the interim practice has been determined to 

be appropriate, the State Conservationist will direct the State discipline specialist to oversee use and 

evaluation of the interim standard. At the end of a 3-year evaluation period, a final evaluation report is 

completed with specific disposition recommendations (either a new national conservation practice 

standard; incorporation into existing standard; or discontinuation). 

Once recommended for inclusion as a national standard, a national discipline leader will draft a national 

standard with information on why and where the practice is applied, and sets forth the minimum quality 

criteria that must be met during the application of that practice in order for it to achieve its intended 

purpose(s). The draft practice standard will then go through a rigorous review process which includes 

posting for comment on the Federal Register before becoming finalized and published as a national 

conservation practice standard. 

10. We all know that farming is inherently risky. Many conservation practices can help farmers reduce 

risk on their operations by improving soil health, reducing fertilizer and water use, and reducing 

impacts of severe weather like drought. Increasingly there is an interest in understanding more 

specifically how conservation practices can improve the long-term resiliency of farms and how that 

may impact the crop insurance program. Can you please discuss if there is data that you currently 

collect linking conservation practices to crop yields? If not, can you provide recommendations for 

how you could collect this data going forward? 

Response: While some relevant yield data has been collected over the years by NRCS and partners, a 

more strategic nationwide effort is currently being launched to leverage NRCS, other federal agency, 

and partner resources to collect a nation-wide dataset that effectively links implementation of soil 

health management systems and yield benefits. There is great potential to coordinate across a broad set 

of partners with shared interest in soil health to develop rapidly a comprehensive and informative 

dataset to facilitate transformational producer and agency decision making. 
159 

Past and current data callectian: CEAP data collection and modeling studies on which NRCS and the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) collaborate have quantified some of the positive effects of specific 

conservation practices on soil health status, yield, input needs, and resilience to severe weather. 

Additionally NRCS has started a focused review of the body of scientific literature (including CEAP 

studies) that has assessed the impacts of soil health promoting practices on yield. A summary of the 

preliminary review concluded that yields and/or yield stability were increased by soil health promoting 

practices in 76% of reviewed papers. Studies identifying no or negative impacts on yields were 

specifically only where the soil health promoting practices had been recently implemented or were not 

yet properly adapted to the climate, soil, and cropping system. 

Future data collection efforts and opportunities: NRCS is currently launching a more targeted project to 

truly integrate and advance the Science of Soil Health by leveraging decades of research with decades of 

grassroots innovations by producers who have been developing effective soil health management 

systems (SHMS). SHMSs are systems of multiple NRCS conservation practices that focus on maintaining 

and enhancing soil health by addressing all four of the soil health planning principles: minimize 

disturbance, maximize soil cover, maximize biodiversity, and maximize presence of living roots. A SHMS 

is cropping system specific and creates a synergistic effect as practices are adapted to each other to 

leverage benefits of each. 

11. Can you discuss efforts to support beginning farmers through the conservation programs you 

oversee? Can you share recommendations for improving access to conservation programs for 

beginning farmers, including veterans? 

Response: The 2014 farm bill provided NRCS with several authorities to better support beginning 

farmers and veteran farmers and ranchers. NRCS is able to target at least 5% of EQIP funding and CSP 

acreage solely to beginning farmers, and within this funding pool, prioritize veteran farmers and 

ranchers (former members of the military who have been honorably discharged). NRCS is also able 

under EQIP to provide increased payment rates and advanced payments to assist these producers in 

purchasing supplies or hiring the labor needed to implement conservation practices. In addition, NRCS 

continues to improve outreach efforts to reach more beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers. 

These authorities have helped NRCS support beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers in the financial 

assistance programs. However, these special considerations for beginning farmers and ranchers and 

veteran farmers and ranchers do not extend to other NRCS programs; including the Agricultural 

Management Assistance Program or the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. Additionally, 

under the current statutory definition of veteran farmer and rancher must also meet the definition of a 

beginning farmer or rancher in order to qualify for these additional program benefits, yet veterans 

which meet this definition already qualify for these benefits simply because they are beginning farmer 

or ranchers. Therefore, other than prioritization within the beginning farmer or rancher or socially 

disadvantaged farmer or rancher funding pools, a veteran does not receive any special consideration 

simply based on their status as a veteran. 

12. Please provide a summary of how the programs you oversee are helping organic producers or 

helping producers transition to organic production, including any relevant data about how many 

organic producers are accessing these tools. 
160 

Response: The Organic Initiative is a nationwide special initiative that provides assistance to organic 

producers, producers in the process of transitioning to organic production, and those organic producers 

who are exempt from certification. A critical benefit of the Organic Initiative is sustaining the natural 

physical, biological, and chemical properties of the soil, which is vital to organic production. Technical 

and financial assistance are available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the 

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). 

Additionally, a producer may request services through a Technical Service Provider (TSP) who is an 

individual or business that have technical expertise in conservation planning and design for a variety of 

conservation activities. Producers are eligible to be reimbursed for the costs of obtaining technical 

services from TSPs certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Each certified TSP is 

listed on the NRCS TSP online registry, Tech Reg. 

Producers work with TSPs to develop a Conservation Activity Plan (CAP) for transitioning to organic. 

Through this effort producers identify conservation practices needed to address a specific natural 

resource need. This "Conservation Plan Supporting Organic Transition" documents decisions by a 

producer who agrees to implement a system of conservation practices to transition from a conventional 

farming or ranching system to an organic production system. 

Table 1. Financial Assistance for Organic, In-transition to Organic, and Exempt from Organic 

Certification Participants 

Fiscal Year Obligation ($) Contracts (No.) Acres Treated 

FY2014 $4.9M 388 20,187 

FY2015 $5.0M 339 21,100 

FY2015 $5.4M 375 25,700 

Additionally, NRCS provides training webinars for organic producers or those interested in transitioning 

to organics through the NRCS Science and Technology training library webinar portal. Currently, 47 

organic-related webinars are available, from an overview of the organic certification process, to specific 

resource topics such as biodiversity, soil health, and water quality, to a direct market model for 

community-supported agriculture. New webinars are posted regularly on a variety of topics. 

Senator Steve Daines 

1. As you know, state conservationists play a critical role in assisting farmers and ranchers participate 

in conservation programs and improve the efficiency operations while ensuring their land can 

continue to be productive for generations to come. What can be done to provide state 

conservationists and state staff additional flexibility to approve local, site-specific variations in deed 

requirements? 

Response: There are multiple avenues for NRCS State Conservationists to work with eligible entities to 

incorporate local, site-specific variations in the deed language. First, the standard minimum deed terms 

themselves contain multiple options intended to be tailored to the entity preferences and specific site 

conditions. Second, in every deed, the eligible entity uses their own deed terms and conditions specific 

to their own requirements or site-specific conditions. The eligible entity deed terms are in addition to 

any NRCS provided minimum deed terms. 
161 

Third, NRCS provides non-certified eligible entities the option of developing an entity-specific deed 

template, wherein NRCS works with the entity to develop an agreed-upon template that addresses the 

needs of both parties in a specifically tailored set of deed terms. Once an entity-specific template is 

approved, the review of the individual deeds can occur at the State level for each easement transaction 

on which the approved template language is used. 

Fourth, with the publication of the ACEP Final Rule on October 18, 2016, NRCS included additional 

options for a State Conservationist to develop, in consultation with their State Technical Committee, 

additional minimum deed terms that address State-specific issues. The procedures for developing these 

State-specific deed terms was outlined in the preamble of the ACEP final rule and, since that time, has 

also been incorporated into agency policy and training provided to the States and outreach conducted 

with potential eligible entity participants. 

Fifth, entities have the option to submit a request to become a certified eligible entity. These 

certification requests are submitted to, and reviewed, by the State Conservationist of the State in which 

the entity primarily operates. They are then are submitted to the Regional Conservationist for final 

approval. Once an eligible entity becomes certified, they use their own deed language. NRCS requires 

only that the deed language developed by the entities addresses the ACEP regulatory deed 

requirements {7 CFR § 1468.25{d)) and include the required United States Right of Enforcement 

language. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. In your testimony you mentioned that the NRCS was over 65 percent of the way through the 

creation of a national Easement Support Services {ESS) Branch that will perform real estate 

acquisition functions and the associated administrative tasks for the Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program {ACEP) that is administered by NRCS. I hope that the proposed changes will allow 

for more of the NRCS staff and appraisal reviewers to spend additional time making ALE easements 

a top priority and also allow states and producers the necessary flexibility in easement and deed 

terms. 

a. How will this new ESS branch address lengthy delays that our constituents have raised with 

us in the ACEP-Agricultural Lands Easement {ALE) and the unpredictability of decisionmaking at the NRCS that imposes further hardships on producers and partner groups? 

b. Will this new ESS Branch move any appraisal services in-house that the NRCS had previously 

been contracting out to low bid providers, which some partner groups on the ground in 

several states have pointed to as the cause for lengthy appraisal delays that continue to be a 

huge problem for farmers? 

Response: The full implementation of the Easement Support Services (ESS) model will allow NRCS State 

and field office staff to spend more time working directly with landowners and cooperating with entities 

on agricultural conservation easements. ESS allows entities to continue to use their own terms and 

conditions for agricultural land easements whether that is in the entities' approved template, in a novel 

deed drafted by a certified entity without any review by NRCS, or an entity-drafted deed with an 

attachment containing the NRCS minimum terms and conditions as required by the authorizing statute. 
162 

The ESS Branch will improve the delivery of NRCS easement programs by centralizing the real estate 

acquisition functions and related administrative tasks. These improvements will include: 

• Providing landowners with consistent, professional easement acquisition services that will improve the 

accuracy and timeliness of easement closings; 

• Allowing NRCS State offices to increase the amount of time spent with landowners and producers on 

ACEP outreach and project selection, identifying local resource concerns, implementing conservation 

practices, and monitoring the long term Federal investment that is our easement portfolio (currently 

over 22,000 easements); and 

• Reducing NRCS' legal and financial exposure by consolidating the specific high-risk tasks that have 

challenged the agency's accountability and the Office of Inspector General audit outcomes. 

Your question correctly identifies how crucial it is for NRCS to have in-house appraisal expertise. NRCS 

currently has a National Appraiser who helps NRCS to ensure that landowners are receiving the 

appropriate value for their real property interests, and to interface efficiently with private sector 

appraisers contracted to conduct appraisals and technical reviews. While ESS will increase NRCS' inhouse realty expertise and that will in turn increase the over-all efficiency and predictability of easement 

closings, it does not currently include an increase in-house appraisal services. 

2. I am quite concerned that the NRCS appears to be ignoring the authorization for ACEP-ALE that 

allows an eligible entity to use its own terms and conditions for agricultural land easements. Section 

1265B(b)(4) of the Food Security Act of 1985 clearly states that: 

(C) MINIMUM TERMS AND CONDITIONS. -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-

(i) are consistent with the purposes of the program; 

(ii) permit effective enforcement of the conservation purposes of such easements; 

(iii) 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; 

(iv) subject the land in which an interest is purchased to an agricultural/and easement 

plan that-

(1) describes the activities which promote the long-term viability of the land to 

meet the purposes for which the easement was acquired; 

(II) requires the management of grasslands according to a grasslands 

management plan; and 

(Ill) includes a conservation plan, where appropriate, and requires, at the option 

of the Secretary, the conversion of highly erodible cropland to less intensive uses; 

and 

(v) include a limit on the impervious surfaces to be allowed that is consistent with the 

agricultural activities to be conducted. 

Yet, for easement templates the NRCS appears to be on a perpetual drive for standardization and 

"one size fits all" management that has created numerous problems for states, conservation 

partners, and farmers some of whom I have been told have even lost their eligibility for a federal tax 
163 

deduction for their donation of a part of the value of the easement because the NRCS template did 

not qualify under the Internal Revenue Service regulations. 

While I recognize the need for accountability and some degree of consistency, the additional 

minimum terms imposed by NRCS do not reflect or allow for the diversity and landscape-based 

nuances of agriculture that we see around the country, nor do they appear to recognize that 

Congress intended for this program to offer flexibility to eligible entities to use their own terms and 

conditions for agricultural land easements. The NRCS Policy Manual goes far beyond the statutory 

list in establishing minimum deed terms and it does not allow noncertified eligible entities to modify 

the required minimum deed terms. I am concerned that this will have a negative impact on the 

program's ability to protect the agricultural use and future viability, and related conservation values, 

of eligible land. 

Will the NRCS and this new ESS branch, as intended by Congress and in statute, allow eligible 

entities, whether certified or not, to use easement terms that vary from the NRCS template 

minimum deed terms? And will the NRCS empower the State Conservationists to certify that such 

deed terms comply with the statue and regulations? 

Response: Eligible entities can currently use their own terms and conditions for agricultural land 

easements. The majority of the deed language is provided by the eligible entity's own language, 

wherein the entity can tailor language to regional and site-specific issues. NRCS does provide the 

standard set of minimum deed terms that the eligible entity can append to or incorporate into their own 

deed terms. This NRCS standard set of minimum deed terms is intended to ensure the statutory 

program requirements are met on each easement, the investment of Federal funds is appropriate, to 

expedite the deed review process, to address perceived 'delays' in the process, to provide transparency 

in the deed terms, to ensure the equitable treatment of all participants receiving Federal funds under 

this program, and to ensure the agricultural uses are adequately protected. 

There are multiple mechanisms already in place to allow eligible entities to address regional and sitespecific needs. These mechanisms include establishing individual entity-specific deed templates, 

establishing State-specific minimum deed-terms, or authorizing entities to develop their own full set of 

deed terms through the entity certification process. If an entity elects to use the pre-prepared standard 

minimum deed terms, less review is required by NRCS and thus the process is faster. If the entity elects 

to use individually-negotiated deed terms that vary by each individual project, then additional NRCS 

review time is required to ensure that the terms of the deed meet ACEP's statutory purposes. 

Individual NRCS State offices do not have sufficient realty expertise to review and approve individual 

conservation easement deeds to ensure those deeds comply with program requirements. NRCS has 

increased its in-house realty and easement acquisition capacity with the development of a national 

strategy and Congressional approval of the new national Easement Support Services (ESS) branch. The 

ESS branch provides a dedicated team of qualified staff to provide direct assistance to the States and 

eligible entities in the acquisition of conservation easements. 

3. Some of the best farmers in the country are helping USDA to evaluate the effectiveness of 

conservation practices with edge-of-field monitoring. Unfortunately, the monitoring costs count 
164 

against each farm's payment cap under the Farm Bill. This can severely limit the conservation 

practices a farm can complete on the ground and is a serious problem in Vermont, in the Mississippi 

basin, the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay. Without a fix in the 2018 Farm Bill this could be a 

big disincentive for our best farmers who would otherwise be able to help USDA to evaluate the 

effectiveness of conservation practices that aim to reduce nutrient loss that can threaten the health 

of streams, rivers, and lakes. 

What suggestions or ideas does the NRCS have solving this problem with the EQIP payment cap and 

how it applies to farms working with NRCS on edge-of-field water quality monitoring? If you don't 

have any ideas on paper now that the NRCS can share with the Committee can I get your 

commitment to work with me and this Committee to find a solution? 

Response: Under EQIP, NRCS only has authority to make financial assistance payments under EQIP to 

producers for the implementation of conservation activities that further the purposes of the program. 

NRCS has funded edge-of-field monitoring under EQIP as a conservation activity that furthers the 

purpose of the program because monitoring informs the planning process, and the monitoring activity, 

when conducted by the producer, furthers the evaluation of the effectiveness of the EQIP plan of 

operations. 

However, as mentioned, the use of EQIP for implementation of edge-of-field monitoring activity has had 

some unintended consequences for participants, since as a financial assistance practice, it counts 

against the producer's EQIP payment limitation of $450,000. NRCS has heard from producers of their 

wish to participate in edge-of-field monitoring to show others the positive results that can be achieved 

from conservation, but who have not participated for the specific reason of the payment cap limitation. 

NRCS has identified several alternative options, some of which would require additional authority or 

resources, including: 1) exempting payments for edge-of-field monitoring and related activities from a 

producer's payment cap; 2) using technical assistance conservation activity implementation; or 3) using 

EQIP FA for costs associated with installation of the equipment and EQIP TA for costs associated with the 

actual monitoring actions. Of these options, NRCS believes that exempting edge-of-field monitoring 

from the payment cap would best meet the needs of participants. 

4. For 30 years, lands in the Conservation Reserve Program have contributed tremendously to soil and 

water protection and wildlife and pollinator habitat. These lands represent a substantial investment 

of federal funds to protect highly erodible and other sensitive lands that can provide resource 

benefits such as wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and water sequestration, even once they have left CRP, 

as long as they are not converted back to cropland. For farmers that are looking to transition their 

retiring CRP land to grazing lands, typically water and fencing are the two biggest limitations for 

using CRP lands for grazing by any livestock species. The NRCS has had an EQIP Grazing Lands Special 

Project and has supported farmers whose land is retiring from CRP to transition to grazing. 

a. Rather than continually reenrolling these same lands in CRP, how can the next Farm Bill 

further encourage farmers to transition their lands out of CRP to working pastureland and 

grazing lands that will enhance livestock production and maximize environmental benefits? 

Response: Currently the Farm Service Agency (FSA) offers the Transition Incentives Program (TIP) to 

encourage beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers to work with CRP landowners on a 
165 

transition plan to returning CRP lands to production. TIP offers technical assistance from NRCS 

conservation planners and TSPs. This program, along with NRCS programs such as the Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

{RCPP) offer conservation planning and financial assistance to install conservation practices to support 

grazing operations. More specifically, ACEP currently prioritizes the enrollment of expiring CRP lands 

into a conservation easement to ensure more long-term protection, and with minor adjustments to 

eligibility, could enroll more CRP lands. Additionally, local employees, conservation districts, and other 

agencies and organizations work with FSA to provide outreach to landowners with expiring CRP 

land. The landowners are encouraged to work with a conservation planner to write a new conservation 

plan for the expiring CRP land. All of the conservation alternatives are discussed with the landowner 

and they are encouraged to keep healthy stands of vegetation in permanent cover. As part ofthis 

planning process, support for using standardized laboratory soil health assessments to document 

baseline soil health status, along with financial assistance for maintenance practices, would facilitate 

quantitative evaluation of ability to maintain these acres at a high level of soil functioning. Furthermore 

payments for sharing of soil health assessment, management, and yield data to contribute to a national 

dataset would facilitate rapid improvements in practice recommendations. 

Through LPCI, NRCS has made proactive conservation of this species and landscape since 2010 by 

providing assistance to help agricultural producers restore and protect habitat for prairie-chickens while 

also improving the long-term sustainability of associated agricultural operations. Addressing loss of 

grasslands due to cultivation is a primary threat targeted through LPCI, with special priority placed on 

applications where CRP grasslands will be retained. NRCS is preventing cultivation of expiring CRP 

grasslands by assisting producers with incorporating expired CRP acres into their grazing systems, 

including the installation of associated infrastructure of fences and watering systems. NRCS is also 

helping offset the loss of CRP grasslands to cultivation by working to seed marginal croplands back to 

herbaceous vegetation. 

b. Are there ways that the next Farm Bill can further support the NRCS' efforts to help farmers 

with retiring CRP acreage to address water and fencing needs that are typically the two 

biggest limitations for using CRP lands for grazing? 

Response: Currently the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP) offer producers several practices and enhancements to applicants who are 

transitioning out of CRP and transferring the land back into working lands. Practices such as prescribed 

grazing, watering facilities, fencing, and supporting practices are highly-used and available through NRCS 

programs, and are available to producers with land coming out of CRP. Additionally, NRCS can protect 

grasslands from conversion through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and 

expiring CRP lands are already priority for ACEP enrollment. State Conservationists work with local 

working groups and State Technical Committees to identify and establish conservation program 

priorities and can focus program resources when needed to address the resource concerns and practice 

needs of producers using former CRP lands for grazing. 
166 

Senator Michael Bennet 

1. In the 2014 Farm Bill, we provided that Regional Conservation Partnership Projects (RCPPs) in critical 

conservation areas, such as the Colorado River Basin could undertake infrastructure improvements 

through PL-566 authorities (called "Watershed Act" authority) to promote water conservation and 

improve water quality. This type of work, in places like the lower Gunnison River, improves 

agricultural productivity while increasing resilience to drought across the Colorado River Basin. 

a. How many RCPPs are now using this authority, provided for projects in critical conservation 

areas, to improve off-farm water infrastructure? 

Response: There are 16 projects utilizing the PL-566 authorities representing 6 of the 8 CCA- specific 

boundaries. These projects using PL-566 authorities are across the country in 12 lead states as identified 

below. Six of these projects have measures that will improve off-farm water infrastructure, including the 

Upper Columbia Irrigation Enhancement Project, the Lower Gunnison River Basin Project, the BayouMeta-Lower Arkansas River Project, the Colorado River Headwaters Project, the LCRWCA Project, and 

the Uintah County Water Efficiency Project. 

Proje(l;Name CCAName 

2017 1538 Black Rascal Creek Project California Bay Delta CA 

2014 388 The Lower Gunnison River Basin Project Colorado River Basin co PL-566 

2017 1550 Colorado River Headwaters Project Colorado River Basin co PL-566 

2017 1600 LCRWCA- RCPP Colorado River Basin A2 PL-566 

2017 1658 Uintah County Water Efficiency Project Colorado River Basin UT PL-566 

Upper Columbia Irrigation Enhancement Columbia River 

2014 513 Project Basin WA PL-566 

Lower Columbia Watershed Partnership Columbia River 

2016 1429 Project Basin OR PL-566 

Low Grand River Watershed Habitat 

Restoration I Farmland Conservation 

2017 1603 Project Great Lakes Region Ml PL-566 

Bayou Meta-Lower Arkansas Regional Mississippi River 

2014 549 Conservation Partnership Project Basin AR PL-566 

West Fork White River Watershed Mississippi River 

2016 1337 Initiative Basin AR PL-566 

Mississippi River 

2017 1561 Departee Creek Flood Prevention Plan Basin AR PL-566 

Prairie Grasslands 

2014 469 Little Otter Creek Watershed Project Region MO PL-566 

Red River Basin of the North Flood Prairie Grasslands 

2014 669 Prevention Plan Region ND PL-566 
167 

2017 

2017 

2017 

Prairie Grasslands 

1566 Elm Creek (1250) Watershed RCPP Region TX PL-566 

LCRA Regional Conservation Partnership Prairie Grasslands 

1599 Program Region TX PL-566 

Prairie Grasslands 

1661 Wahoo Creek Water Quality Sites 26 & 27 Region NE PL-566 

b. Will you work with us to streamline and improve the process for off-farm conservation funding 

in the future? 

Response: Yes, NRCS will work with the Committee to streamline and improve the process for off-farm 

funding in the future. NRCS intent is to maintain the priority of implementing RCPP projects that utilize 

PL 83-566 authorities. NRCS provided training and outreach to potential project partners to improve 

participation of projects that seek RCPP assistance utilizing PL 83-566 authorities. If a proposed project 

already has an NRCS-approved PL 83-566 plan, the applicant states the name of the plan and date 

completed in their RCPP application. By NEPA policy, plans older than 5 years are required to be 

updated to evaluate current conditions, and therefore the need for a new or updated watershed plan 

should be accounted for in the applicant's proposal and budget. Applicants are strongly encouraged to 

thoroughly review the specific requirements of the program before they begin the application process. 

NRCS will continue training and outreach that will support the process for funding RCPP projects that 

seek to implement measures that address off-farm conservation. 

2. As you know, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY17 provided $150 million in new funding for 

off-farm conservation through the Watershed Act. 

a. How do you plan to allocate the 2017 Watershed Act funding? What criteria will NRCS apply 

when receiving such requests? 

Response: This appropriation for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO), P.L. 83-566, 

was provided recognizing the critical challenges facing rural water resource management and protection 

and supports needed investments in watershed operations. NRCS has identified more than $1.0 billion 

in watershed projects that are on the current backlog list. In selecting projects for funding, NRCS will 

balance the needs of addressing the project backlog, remediation of existing structures, and new 

projects. NRCS State Conservationist are encouraged to work with Project Sponsors to gather any 

additional new project needs. States submitted any remedial needs and supporting documentation by 

July 24,2017. For new and backlog projects, States have until August 28,2017, to submit a project 

proposal for funding. NRCS will rank and fund the proposals in order of priority to provide funding to 

the projects that can commence promptly and address the intentions of the appropriations. 

b. How could Congress improve conservation authorities in the next Farm Bill to address off-farm 

water infrastructure needs in the Colorado River Basin? 
168 

Response: In the FY 2015 appropriations process, Congress directed the Agency to establish a longterm, multi-year plan to guide needed investments in watershed surveys and planning and watershed 

operations as authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P .L. 83-566. NRCS 

has completed and delivered this plan to Congress. Through this process, NRCS identified 220 projects, 

addressing a variety of purposes from flood prevention and watershed protection to agricultural water 

management and municipal and industrial water supply. The total cost of these projects was estimated 

at nearly $1.4 billion from FY 2016 through FY 2020. The FY 2017 appropriations was $150 million for 

WFPO. Additionally, RCPP authorizes NRCS to use watershed authorities in critical conservation areas. 

NRCS can use these existing authorities to emphasize watershed-scale planning and land treatment 

efforts that will help communities plan and implement measures that address regional watershed 

priorities, including water infrastructure needs in the Colorado River Basin. 

3. Collaborative conservation through state and local partnerships is important across the West. It was 

particularly important in avoiding an endangered species listing for the Greater Sage Grouse, and we 

worked to ensure that voluntary conservation efforts, that the farm bill supported, were considered 

in the determination. This model of landowner and stakeholder engagement, and state and local 

collaboration, with funding directed to threatened habitat and important landscapes, provides a 

strong return on our conservation investments. 

a. Will collaborative conservation programs, such as Working Lands for Wildlife, continue 

to be a priority for NRCS under the new administration? 

Response: Yes. The highly collaborative and partnership-based approach to conservation is a 

cornerstone of the effective NRCS model for delivering voluntary assistance. Consistent landowner and 

stakeholder engagement maintains the trust and credibility required to develop beneficial win-win 

solutions that not only address priority conservation needs but also support vital rural communities and 

hardworking farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners. This has been true since the inception of 

the Agency and should remain the case as NRCS moves into the future. 

b. How could Congress target spending through voluntary conservation programs to better 

protect important wildlife habitat for high priority species? 

Response: The conservation model exemplified by Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) has delivered 

concrete outcomes for both targeted wildlife species and the working landscapes they depend upon. By 

partnering with thousands of producers to support voluntary conservation actions on more than 7 

million acres, WLFW has not only helped proactively to conserve many imperiled species, but has also 

reduced the risk of increased regulation for producers across the country. This has certainly been the 

case for both the greater and bi-state sage grouse where proactive conservation actions were given 

'credit' for helping proactively conserve the species negating the need to list the species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other WLFW efforts targeting Montana's fluvial arctic grayling, the 

Louisiana black bear, the New England cottontail, and the successful restoration ofthe Oregon Chub 

have also reduced the risk of increased ESA regulation while proactively conserving threatened species. 
169 

4. The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) continues to be in high demand across 

Colorado. Agricultural easements in Colorado improve wildlife habitat and protect water resources, 

while also sustaining productive agricultural lands. We continue to hear about how ACEP and other 

voluntary conservation programs within NRCS could be tailored to support new and beginning 

farmers. 

a. Is NRCS able to meet demand for ACEP in FY17? What is the expected demand for ACEP 

in FY18 and how will the 50"k cut to funding for ACEP in FY18 affect enrollment? 

b. What can Congress do to ensure that the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and 

landowners have access to voluntary conservation programs, such as Agricultural land 

Easements? 

Response: NRCS will continue to provide assistance and evaluate applications to ACEP in FY 2018, but as 

in FY 2017 the number of applications will significantly outweigh the available funding. ACEP-ALE has 

only been able to fund 14 percent of the applicants in past years and the decrease in available ACEP 

funding in FY 2018 will likely decrease that to only 7 percent of the interested applicants. 

Through its conservation programs, including Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS customers can 

support the long-term preservation of lands in agricultural use, develop healthy viable agricultural 

communities, protect the natural resources needed to maintain the agricultural lifestyle, and use 

voluntary private lands conservation as a means to decrease the need for government regulation. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

New and Beginning Farmers 

1. The NRCS High Tunnel System Initiative has proven very popular in New York since it helps farmers 

extend their growing season and become more profitable. In FY 2015, 86 percent of high tunnel 

contracts went to historically underserved farmers, including 62 percent to beginning farmers. 

a) Does the NRCS give special consideration to an EQIP application based on beginning farmer 

status? 

Response: Under the farm bill, NRCS targets at least 5 percent of EQIP funding and 5 percent of CSP 

acres for beginning farmers and ranchers. NRCS accomplishes this by requiring all states to establish a 

funding pool under each program in which only beginning farmers and ranchers can compete. Please 

note, this does not limit the opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers to compete for other 

funding pools targeting other priorities. As such, the NRCS typically exceeds the 5 percent minimum 

each fiscal year. 

b) Would it be reasonable to give beginning farmers a boost when ranking their applications given 

that practices they adopt when starting out are likely to yield long-term conservation benefits? 
170 

Response: As mentioned above, rather than providing additional ranking points, NRCS sets aside at least 

5 percent of the EQIP funds and 5 percent of the CSP acres in separate program funding pools in which 

only beginning farmers and ranchers compete. This ensures that beginning farmers and ranchers are 

able to compete and receive program funding. Additionally, NRCS already prioritizes applications which 

include use of conservation practices that provide long-term conservation benefits. 

With respect to the adoption of high tunnel systems by beginning farmers and ranchers, high tunnels 

have very valuable benefits for productivity and from a standpoint of energy use per product consumed. 

However, it can be challenging to manage these systems for natural resource conservation in-location. 

Therefore, beginning farmers and ranchers also benefit from receiving additional technical assistance 

and soil health baseline assessments to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to maintain high 

functioning soils for long-term high tunnel productivity. 

2. The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, paired with state funding, has helped to conserve 

thousands of acres of New York farmland from development. We have a number of outstanding 

organizations that work with landowners to create easements that keep land in production. 

Does NRCS specifically target funding towards working agricultural land through easements with 

affordability provisions, such as the Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value (OPAV), which may 

make it easier for beginning farmers to purchase land? 

Response: NRCS at the national level does not provide priority for funding easements that have 

affordability deed provisions, but provides flexibility at the State level for tailoring the delivery ofthe 

conservation easement programs by allowing local ranking criteria to be developed in consultation with 

the State Technical Committee. The ACEP-ALE policy provides for half of the ranking evaluation criteria 

to consist of State developed criteria in order to allow local priorities to be targeted. The ACEP ranking 

criteria can be adjusted and changed each fiscal year in order to ensure current needs and most at-risk 

landscapes are prioritized and take into consideration resources such as OPAV and other mechanisms to 

facilitate the purchase of agricultural lands by new and beginning farmers. 

3. By 2030, more than 1.7 million acres of New York farmland will transition to the next generation. I 

am concerned that without the right programs in place, many of these acres will be consolidated 

into ever-larger farms that become permanently inaccessible to beginning farmers. This could have 

a significant negative affect on the health and strength of our rural communities. 

How are your Services working together to ensure that all conservation programs are coordinated 

and work well for beginning farmers? 

Response: In FY 2016, NRCS committed $5,072,000 in outreach partnership agreements with 

community based organizations (CBO's) to assist NRCS in providing on the ground outreach assistance to 

all categories of historically underserved groups, including new and beginning farmers and ranchers. 

These projects assess and connect historically underserved groups across the United States with NRCS 

conservation programs. 
171 

Additionally, NRCS is taking affirmative steps to remove barriers for groups with low participation in 

NRCS conservation programs. NRCS is working with 10 community-based organizations to identify 

program participation barriers for historically underserved farmers and ranchers in over 25 states, 

including input from over 300 Federally-recognized Tribal Nations. To date, four organizations have 

provided written findings and recommendations for NRCS to consider in working with historically 

underserved groups and in developing future program policies. 

Oversight 

4. The NRCS, FSA, and RMA have joint responsibility for carrying out the Highly Erodible Land (HEL) and 

Wetland Conservation (WC) provisions of the Farm Bill. During a standard compliance review, NRCS 

evaluates whether adequate conservation treatments are in place for the protection of HEL. 

Between 2003 and 2015, ten states reported zero compliance violations and 14 additional states 

reported ten or fewer violations. That's nearly half of the country reporting ten or fewer violations 

over more than a decade. That seems unlikely, particularly where there is a significant amount of 

highly erodible land or wetlands. 

a) How would you explain these numbers and are there gaps in compliance enforcement that we 

need to be addressed going forward? 

Response: Below is a table showing compliance violations as reported by NRCS from the national 

compliance status review database for 2012 to 2016. Note that that these are preliminary technical 

findings which are subject to change through the appeal process. In lieu of finding a producer in 

violation, variances can be granted for a variety of reasons, including minimal effect, personal hardship, 

and severe weather, pest, or disease. When a variance is granted, the tract is reviewed the next year to 

ensure that any deficiencies have been addressed. 

Year #Violations %Violations States Reporting Violations Variances Granted 

2012 743 3.0 30 1081 

2013 680 2.9 34 1352 

2014 606 2.7 38 1121 

2015* 358 3.3 29 487 

2016 487 2.2 37 783 

Average 629 2.7 35 1084 

• 2015 ts constdered an outlier due to reduced sample stze and was not •ncluded m the calculatiOn of 

averages. 

The conservation compliance provisions have been in place for over 30 years. This, along with the 

producer need for USDA benefits that are subject to conservation compliance, encourages high rates of 

compliance. In addition, changes in agricultural technology and high energy prices have increased the 

adoption of no-tillage and reduced-tillage conservation practices for annually-tilled crops. Many acres 

of HEL where water erosion is prevalent meet the conservation compliance requirements with no-till 

and almost all HEL acres where wind erosion is prevalent are adequately protected when no-till 

practices are used. Finally, there are a few states where there are not many agricultural commodities 

(produced by annual tilling of the soil) being produced on HEL and where there is not a high pressure on 
172 

wetlands to be converted to agricultural production. Therefore, it is not remarkable that there may be 

high compliance rates in these states. 

b) What types of solutions are there for these gaps? 

Response: There may be differences between FSA data which has been distributed and the NRCS data 

which is presented here. NRCS and FSA can pursue better violation reporting coordination that includes 

all violations (including those violations that are minor and technical in nature and those for which good 

faith relief was granted). 

Compliance gaps may also be addressed through a different type of solution. In particular, NRCS has 

been promoting educational materials and demonstrations related to improving soil health through its 

Soil Health campaign. This campaign has inspired producers across the nation to take action to improve 

the quality of their soils. They recognize the on-farm benefits such as increased productivity, economic 

stability and profits, and resilience to weather extremes. Currently HEL is managed simply to minimize 

erosion and the approach focuses on maintaining eligibility for USDA program benefits. However, great 

opportunity exists to encourage regeneration of soil health on HEllands. Through the inclusion of 

conversation about soil health concepts and simple in-field assessments in HEL protocols, more 

producers may be inspired to see opportunity in better soil health management which goes above and 

beyond requirements for HEL. Compliance gaps would be inherently addressed as more producers' shift 

to managing their operation for healthy soils. 

Pollinators 

5. The 2008 Farm Bill made pollinator health a priority in all USDA conservation programs. The 2014 

Farm Bill maintained those provisions and added an emphasis on expanding and improving 

honeybee habitat. After more than a decade of conservation work, our wild pollinators and 

honeybees continue to struggle. 

A survey of New York beekeepers showed that this past winter, nearly 48 percent of our honeybee 

hives failed. The problems of pesticides, mites, disease, and limited forage were compounded by a 

terrible drought during the summer. 

a) Can you describe which NRCS programs have been most effective in improving pollinator habitat 

and health? 

Response: NRCS has increased pollinator habitat and health by offering farmers, ranchers, and private 

forest landowners financial and technical assistance programs opportunities, through the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Beginning in FY 2014, NRCS's targeted $4 million EQIP funds 

annually to assist farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners in Michigan, Minnesota, North 

Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin make pollinator-friendly conservation improvements to their land 

through the Honeybee and Monarch Butterfly Habitat. These conservation improvements have included 

planting cover crops, wildflowers, or native grasses, and improving management of grazing lands. 

Over the last two years, NRCS and landowners have boosted available food for honey bees on nearly 

35,000 acres in five States, and in FY 201S, NRCS obligated over $2 million and expanded the focused 

effort into Montana. In FY 2016, NRCS provided nearly $6 million in funding to support this effort 
173 

through partnership efforts, including through RCPP. In FY 2017, NRCS offered more flexibility through 

CSP to existing enhancements that targets pollinator habitat. These conservation improvements and 

enhancements not only benefit the bees, they also strengthen agricultural operations, support other 

beneficial insects and wildlife, and improve other natural resources. 

b) What additional steps can you take to ensure that more farmers adopt conservation practices 

that support pollinator health? 

Response: NRCS offers more than three dozen conservation practices and enhancements that can 

provide benefits to pollinators. Appropriate cover crops and better rangeland and pasture management 

reduce erosion, increase soil health, inhibit the expansion of invasive species, and provide food and 

habitat for insects and wildlife. In FY 2017 and FY 2018, NRCS is projecting to provide over $7 million in 

funding to support, sustain, and enhance the honeybee population across America. 

c) What more should the Committee do to help NRCS and the other Services assist farmers who 

depend on pollinators? 

Response: The Committee can continue to support pollinators in the 2018 USDA Farm Bill by providing 

conservation programs and tools that encourage producers and landowners to address pollinator 

habitat. 

Senator Robert P. Casev. Jr 

1. Mr. Bramblett, in examining the effectiveness of the NRCS conservation programs, how does the 

agency measure success? To what extent do environmental outcomes, such as pounds of 

phosphorus, nitrogen or sediment reduced from a given project, factor into the agency's 

assessment? 

Response: 

For Working Lands for Wildlife target species, NRCS measures success with data-driven outcome 

measurements and sets goals based on identified threats to the species. For example, through the 

WLFW Golden-winged Warbler partnership, NRCS funded an evaluation of the species use of newly 

established WLFW forestry projects, and also the nesting success of golden-winged warbler. This work 

found increased warbler use each successive year following project completion as well as good nest 

success rates. For the lesser prairie chicken, NRCS has developed a strategy specifically addressing five 

identified threats to the species, such as invasive conifers or degraded rangeland health. With this sort 

of strategy developed for WLFW species, NRCS has can better understand and communicate how to 

effectively target program resources. 

Through the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), NRCS models reductions in phosphorus, 

nitrogen, and sediment losses due to conservation practices on cropland. Using the National Resources 

Inventory statistical sampling frame, these impacts are modeled for specific points, and incorporate data 
174 

on soils, weather, crop rotations, management practices, and all conservation practices currently in 

place. However, to provide statistically valid estimates (and to ensure farmer confidentiality is 

protected), these estimates are aggregated and reported at regional and national scales. Field level 

estimates are then simulated in a process-based watershed model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool, to 

produce estimated instream reductions of sediment and nutrients from the cultivated cropland 

conservation within a watershed. For example, CEAP has estimated that conservation practices applied 

between the 2003-2006 national survey and the 2011 regional survey reduced the cumulative in stream 

loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay by 8 percent for sediment, 6 percent for nitrogen, and 5 percent 

for phosphorus. These percentage reductions equate to annual reductions of 15.1 million tons of 

sediment and 48.6 million pounds and 7.1 million pounds of nitrogen and phosphorous, respectively. 

USDA recently completed data collection for the second national CEAP cropland survey, which will allow 

us to estimate the impacts of conservation implemented between 2003-2006 and 2015-2016. Data and 

modeling results that can help guide conservation program investments and practice implementation 

are expected to be available in FY 2019. 

2. Mr. Bramblett, in setting priorities, to what extent does the agency look to or take into account EPA 

TMDLs or state-level regulatory requirements? I understand that statute as well as the EQIP manual 

state that projects that help producers meet or avoid regulatory requirements are to be prioritized. 

Can you please elaborate on how this actually plays out at the state and local level? To what extent 

do projects that avoid or meet regulatory requirements receive priority ranking? 

Response: The NRCS ranking process is divided into three ranking categories: National, State, and local. 

This allows NRCSto evaluate applications and target funding towards those applications that will 

provide the greatest conservation benefits. To help determine what ranking criteria to use, the NRCS 

collects information from local work group meetings and State Technical Committee advisory meetings. 

Currently, the national ranking questions do provide points for applications that address impaired water 

bodies, includingTMDL, 303(d), and other State-designated water bodies. In addition to the national 

ranking question, the state or local ranking questions may provide additional ranking consideration for 

impaired water bodies as needed. 

In particular, NRCS State offices use their State Technical Committee public meetings to solicit input 

from Federal and state agencies and from farm and environmental organizations on how to help more 

effectively producers address resource concerns associated with regulatory requirements. State water 

quality agencies participate in these meetings, and provide NRCS with scientific water quality data that 

NRCS uses to help target its own technical and financial assistance programs and services. 

Pennsylvania NRCS has been very involved in targeting where its financial resources provide the most 

environmental gain and thus help the Commonwealth address its TMDL goals. In 2009, Pennsylvania 

NRCS designated geographic priority areas in the Chesapeake Bay with supporting state ranking 

questions to target conservation practices where they are most needed. In FY 2015, a subcommittee of 

the State Technical Committee, including the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA 

DEP), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and 

several non-profit entities, revisited the priority area designations under the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program. With the help of this subcommittee NRCS compiled statewide data including Clean 
175 

Water Act 303(d) listed streams, USGS Sparrow data identifying streams with high nutrient and 

sediment loads, PFBC data identifying streams with decreasing Eastern brook trout populations, and PA 

DEP source water protection maps. This data was merged to create new statewide priority areas for 

conservation assistance, again with corresponding statewide ranking questions. 

NRCS uses recommendations from Local Working Groups to help develop the local EQIP ranking 

questions. Local questions provide additional consideration for impaired water bodies as needed. Many 

local working groups have created screening tools to prioritize the ranking of applications that occur 

within a certain distance to a stream body. 

3. Mr. Bramblett, farmland in Pennsylvania is under considerable pressure from urban and suburban 

development. Farmland preservation has been a vital program for Pennsylvania. l.n fact, as Governor 

of Pennsylvania, my father signed into law the Pennsylvania State Farmland Preservation Program. 

However, I have heard from several farmland and conservation groups in Pennsylvania that it has 

been very difficult to use the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) in Pennsylvania. 

The process for application approval at NRCS headquarters has been quite long. 

Pennsylvania had been very successful in preserving farmland despite strong development pressures 

from urban and suburban areas. However, Pennsylvania's ability to preserve farmland is greatly 

decreasing because of delays in the process and difficulty getting Federal support. 

We're losing farmland fast in Pennsylvania. We need USDA's assistance in streamlining the 

application process so farmland owners do not give up or do not bother to apply. 

a. Is streamlining the application process a priority for NRCS7 

b. How can NRCS provide additional flexibility for landowners who may want to make adjustments 

to their land, such as additional structures or land uses, to adapt to a changing farm economy? 

Response: NRCS is always willing to consider improvements to its application process. The current ACEP 

application process attempts to streamline and capture in one place much of the information that needs 

to be provided by eligible entities and landowners interested in participating in the program. The 

purchase of a conservation easement is a complex real estate transaction, and before NRCS expends 

limited taxpayer funds on completing that process it needs to ensure that an applicant or proposal will 

be eligible for the program. 

Additionalfy, NRCS works to complete as much due diligence and evaluation as early as possible to 

determine that offered parcels meet program requirements, address program priorities, and ultimately 

will result in a successful easement transaction. During these initial title and environmental reviews, 

NRCS may identify issues such as potential contamination, existing liens, mortgages, judgements, rightsof-way, or other issues affecting the ability to place an easement on an individual property. By 

identifying these issues early in the process, NRCS, the eligible entity, and affected landowners can 

develop a strategy about how best to resolve these issues and facilitate the easement acquisition 

process. 
176 

NRCS provides flexibility to landowners who may want to make adjustments to their land, such as 

additional structures or land uses, to adapt to a changing farm economy. In particular, NRCS allows for 

additional agricultural structures to be built on the easement area with approval by the eligible entity, 

provided that such additional structures do not cause the landowner to exceed the impervious surface 

limitation identified in their deed. NRCS also accommodates land use changes desired by a landowner 

through modifications of the agricultural land easement plan for the property, provided the land will 

remain in agricultural use and in compliance with the terms of the easement. NRCS recognizes changes 

will occur over the lifetime of an easement which is why NRCS ensures that easement deed terms are 

clear, enforceable, and adaptable to meet both current and future agricultural needs. 

4. Mr. Bramblett, plain Sect farmers (Amish and Mennonite) are often reluctant to participate in 

government programs. Can you discuss some ways to engage non-traditional farmers who may not 

want to receive a cash payment, but would benefit from participation in voluntary conservation 

programs? 

Response: There is some enrollment in NRCS financial assistance programs from Plain Sect communities 

where group leaders have determined that individual members can decide whether to participate or 

not. There may be peer pressure but it's ultimately an individual choice. With the rising cost to install 

practices and systems such as waste storage and barnyard improvement, there is a sentiment that if the 

government is mandating the clean-up of environmental problems, there may be some allowance to 

participate in government programs. 

Most non-traditional and Plain Sect farmers place a high value on conservation and maintaining their 

land because family engagement in farming is a big part of their culture and tradition. Many of these 

Plain Sect farmers accept NRCS conservation technical assistance to help them evaluate natural resource 

problems and opportunities for their farms, develop conservation plans, and implement practices. They 

are very open to learning about conservation practices and receiving educational information on how to 

implement them. For example, NRCS provides technical assistance for agronomic practices such as 

prescribed grazing systems, and engineering assistance for practices such as manure storage and 

barnyard improvements. 

Because this assistance is voluntary, and because NRCS keeps information about individual farms private 

and confidential, farmers who are concerned about what they need to do to comply with environmental 

regulations, such as for the Chesapeake Bay, are willing to work with NRCS to identify problems and plan 

solutions. And, slowly, these farmers have become more willing to participate in USDA and NRCS 

financial assistance programs for needed practices that they cannot afford to implement on their own. 

NRCS periodically meets with leaders of the Amish community to better provide assistance to them. In 

Pennsylvania NRCS has for several years worked with the Lancaster County (PA) Conservation District to 

work with plain sect farmers. NRCS provides technical assistance dollars to finance the conservation 

district employees and also non-profit entities like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Pheasants Forever, 

Capital Resource Conservation and Development Council, and Grazing Lands Initiative Coalition, who 

have made it a point to conduct outreach to Amish and Mennonite Communities. 
177 

Senator Chris Van Hollen 

1. Some RCPP partners in Maryland have said that RCPP funding is not always awarded to the projects 

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed region where there is the most need. How can the Congress 

help NRCS improve its current selection criteria to more explicitly encourage projects that lead to 

resolving multi-state environmental problems where agriculture is a major contributor? 

Response: RCPP is a voluntary, competitive program. The demand for, and interest in, RCPP has 

exceeded the available funding since the program's first year. NRCS continues to outreach to partners 

and state and local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed about opportunities available to 

develop RCPP proposals for funding within the National, CCA and state funding pools. Our six State 

Conservationists work and coordinate closely with all Chesapeake Bay partners to develop annual 

proposals. 

There are 20 RCPP projects from FY 2014-2017 with planned activities in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed. These include eight Critical Conservation Area projects that cover all six Bay states, one 

National project that covers four states, and eleven State projects. The Federal share of these projects is 

over $51 million, leveraged by partner contributions at an estimated $80 million. 

2. Does NRCS target conservation programs managed by the agency to specific high pollution areas? 

Response: Yes. NRCS programs are managed to assist producers in complying with local, State, and 

national regulatory requirements concerning soil, water, and air quality. National priorities are 

established in regulation and policy to help NRCS target program resources to reduce non point source 

pollution including nutrients, sediment, pesticides, and excess salinity consistent with total daily 

maximum loads (TMDLs) in impaired watersheds. 

State resource assessments are used to target financial and technical assistance offered by NRCS at the 

State level. Each NRCS state office is directed to allocate general program funds within a state using 

prescribed procedures that document local and regional baseline conditions, priority environmental 

concerns, and statutory requirements. The impact of different funding scenarios on agency 

performance is analyzed to optimize environmental outcomes for landscape and programmatic 

initiatives in the context of available agency assets. The assessments examine local circumstances, 

including levels of pollution that may require targeted or accelerated funding, and consider 

environmental outcomes and metrics, partner engagement, and the time frame for actions as a basis for 

concentrating assistance. 

In addition to general program allocations, national and State initiatives are established to increase 

implementation of conservation practices to address agriculture management that may contribute to 

the impairment of priority regions or watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay. NRCS considers: (1) the 

extent and significance of environmental concerns and the opportunity for environmental improvement; 

(2) state assessments of priority environmental concerns, conservation targets, and assistance needed 

to address identified environmental concerns; (3) opportunities to help farmers and ranchers comply 

with environmental laws; (4) the amount of agricultural land in different land use categories; and (5) 

other relevant information to meet the purposes of the programs. 
178 

Recent analysis conducted by NRCS's Geographic Information Systems lab shows that NRCS is 

effectively targeting conservation practices to reduce pollutants coming off of cropland. In the 

Chesapeake Bay, NRCS estimates that 35% of the cropland soils have high inherent vulnerability to 

sediment and nutrient runoff, and that after taking tile drainage into account, 30% have high 

vulnerability to nutrient leaching. NRCS examined where the conservation practices that are designed 

to avoid, control, or trap (ACT) nutrients are actually being adopted. Since most cropland fields contain 

areas and soils that need some level of conservation treatment, NRCS would not expect to only be 

treating the most vulnerable soils. However, given the targeting mechanisms discussed above, NRCS 

would expect to find a greater share of ACT practices being applied on the most vulnerable fields. Our 

analysis found that over 53% of acres treated with runoff ACT practices between FY 2005-2015 were in 

the highest inherent vulnerability category, and 52% of acres treated with leaching ACT practices were 

in the highest vulnerability category. This analysis confirms that conservation programs are targeting 

water quality, rather than committing random acts of conservation. 

3. There is a clear understanding among states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and confirmed by 

EPA assessments of progress, that agricultural runoff from Pennsylvania is a major challenge to 

improving water quality in the Bay. Does NRCS take this analysis from EPA into account when 

determining the areas the agency will support with financial resources and technical assistance? 

Response: In FY 2016, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, USDA (NRCS, Rural Development, and the 

United States Forest Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a joint strategy 

to enhance nutrient reductions by helping farmers implement targeted agricultural conservation 

practices in priority watersheds located in south-central Pennsylvania. 

In addition to the annual State and Federal investments, Pennsylvania, USDA, and EPA identified 

supplemental resources to accelerate progress to address the nutrient reduction gap in Pennsylvania's 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan in 2016 and 2017. This short-term strategy will 

accelerate nutrient reductions in Pennsylvania, and serve as a stepping stone to the Commonwealth's 

longer-term plan for meeting its 2025 goals. These additional joint investments that total $28.8 million, 

are designed to reduce nutrient loadings to local waters and the Chesapeake Bay by: 

implementing more agricultural conservation practices that reduce nutrients on farms in 

south-central Pennsylvania; 

providing technical assistance to help farmers implement agricultural conservation 

practices that are effective at reducing nutrients; and 

leveraging innovative private sector partnerships, private capital, and markets to magnify 

the benefits of these investments. 

4. Some stakeholders believe RCPP could be improved by including clearer outcome goals to ensure 

that every dollar is spent effectively. What outcomes does NRCS see as the most important to 

achieve from RCPP initiatives? 

Response: RCPP enables the NRCS, partners, local producers and private landowners to invest in 

innovative, voluntary conservation solutions that benefit natural resources, agriculture and the 

economy. NRCS has identified in its Announcements for Program Funding (APFs) four pillars by which 
179 

projects are evaluated, which are: innovation with science-based objectives and solutions; solutions that 

utilize NRCS conservation practices in new ways; a wide variety of diverse partnerships; and financial 

and in-kind support from external resources. Program outcomes important to NRCS go hand-in-hand 

with these four pillars, and include yielding sound and lasting solutions to conservation issues through 

strategic partnerships and generate near-term results that are environmentally, economically, and 

socially measurable. 
2014/2015 

Program 

EQIP 

CSP 

CSPAcres 

HFRP 

ACEP 

PL-566 

Attachment One 

Farm Bill Program Dollars Donated and Allocated for Selected 

RCPP Proposals By Fiscal Year 

6/22/17 

CCA(35%) National (40%) State (25%) 

Donated Final Selection Proportion of Full Proportion of Proportion of Amount Full Proposal Full 

(7% of Funds Awarded Donated Dollars Proposal Donated Dollars Selected Donated Dollars for Sele

Available) amount for Program Selected for Program Program 

$126,368,822 $282,746,515 $44,229,088 $77,355,966 $50,547,529 $110,905,645 $31,592,206 $9

$9,753,660 $7,348,275 $3,413,781 $1,000,240 $3,901,464 $5,772,941 $2,438,415 

$0 $17,919,137 $0 $14,290,287 $0 $3,628,850 $0 

$53,219,530 $34,666,254 $18,626,836 $10,785,474 $21,287,812 $14,004,168 $13,304,883 $

$0 $21,288,983 $0 $21,288,983 $0 $0 $0 

*CSP For 2014/2015 year was not completed in Acres, it was done in dollars. 

2016 CCA(35%) National (40%) State (25%) 

Program Donated Final Selection Proportion of Full Proportion of Proportion of 

Amount Awarded Donated Dollars Proposal Donated Dollars Full Proposal Donated Dollars for Full 

(7% of Funds) amount for Program Selected for Program Selected Program Sele

EQIP $93,030,000 $126,655,396 $32,560,500 $33,284,782 $37,212,000 $50,351,041 $23,257,500 $43

CSP $11,743,200 $10,891,782 $4,110,120 $2,701,782 $4,697,280 $5,040,000 $2,935,800 $3

CSPAcres 700,000 605,099 245,000 150,099 280,000 280,000 175,000 

HFRP $0 $13,908,800 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $8,908,800 $0 

ACEP $29,358,000 $54,960,396 $10,275,300 $26,100,400 $11,743,200 $21,520,496 $7,339,500 $7
2017 

Final 

Selection 

EQIP 

CSP 

CSPAcres 

HFRP 

ACEP 

Pl-566 

Attachment One 

Farm Bill Program Dollars Donated and Allocated for Selected 

RCPP Proposals By Fiscal Year 

6/22/17 

CCA(35%) National (40%) State (25%) 

Donated Final Selection Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Amount Awarded Donated Dollars Full Proposal Donated Full Proposal Donated Dollars for Full 

(7% of Funds) amount for Program Selected Dollars for Selected Program Sele

Program 

$110,708,786 $33,001,500 $21,250,142 $37,716,000 $46,036,079 $23,572,500 $4

94,290,000 

$9,384,480 $7,997,651 $3,284,568 $2,190,000 $3,753,792 $3,273,000 $2,346,120 $

560,000 444,184 196,000 121,666 224,000 197,387 140,000 

$0 $17,995,317 $0 $8,000,000 $0 $8,615,000 $0 $

$32,585,000 $52,945,037 $11,404,750 $592,000 $13,034,000 $33,333,925 $8,146,250 $1

$0 $43,508,261 $0 $43,508,261 $0 $0 $0 

Notes: 

1. CSP- The dollars vary, as CSP is an acre-based program that utilizes all the allocated acres and may exceed the dollar allocation. In 

FY 2014/2015, CSP dollars were spent and used in other programs. 

2. Each year the three donor programs-EQIP, ACEP, and CSP donated 7% of the funds to RCPP. Typically, the donor program is spent and 

any additional funds come from RCPP funding dollars. There are some cases, where donor programs have been used for other 

programs. 

3. Each of the Funding Pools has a percentage based on RCPP Statute (CCA 35%, National40% and State 25%) and proportions were 

maintained by the Programs 7% donation. 

4. According to the RCPP Statute, $100 million dollars are annually allocated as RCPP Dollars. RCPP Dollars are in conjunction with Dono

Program dollars to implement the programs requested by partnership agreements. HFRP and Pl-566 do not donate to RCPP, but are 

funded using RCPP Dollars. 

a. FY 2014/2015 Funding $ 183,114,000 
Attachment One 

Farm Bill Program Dollars Donated and Allocated for Selected 

RCPP Proposals By Fiscal Year 

6/22/17 

b. FY 2016 RCPP Funding $ 93,200,000 

c. FY 2017 RCPP Funding $ 93,100,000 
183 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Paul D. Dees 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. Mr. Dees, can you elaborate further how the working lands approach can be incorporated 

into the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)? With regard to the delivery 

of ACEP funding for agriculture land easements (ALE) and wetland reserve easements 

(WRE), do you believe that NRCS should administer and deliver funding based upon 

demand or should there be a minimum amount of funding devoted to each type of 

easement? 

ANSWER: The Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE) of the Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program (ACEP) is generally considered to be a land retirement 

program as cropland is taken out of production. The cropland is restored to its 

historical land cover, which is bottomland hardwood forests and semipermanent wetlands in the Mid-South. 

Up to 30% of the acres in these easements can be restored to semi-permanent 

wetlands and must be actively managed annually to prevent encroachment of 

non-desirable wetlands species, including invasive, and provide the designed 

wetland functions to ensure native wetland plants and habitats are provided for 

migratory birds. Such active management includes disking, mowing, and water 

manipulation within the wetland. While allowances are currently provided to 

landowners to conducted adequate maintenance and management activities, 

there is not enough incentive for many landowners to perform these tasks as 

they can be costly and logistically difficult for absentee landowners. When these 

lands are managed properly, they could be considered working lands now. 

However, monitoring data shows that a vast majority of these wetland areas are 

NOT being managed adequately, and therefore cannot be considered working 

lands. 

Unlike the wetland areas, there are very few provisions to allow landowners to 

adequately manage young bottomland hardwood forests established on these 

easements. Young forests on WRE lands will fall short in achieving their intended 

purpose if they are not actively managed as most other young forestlands, 

including forestlands in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are currently 

managed. Forest inventories, thinning, and other forestry management practices 

must be more aggressively encouraged on WRE lands to convert these "protected 
184 

forests" into "working forests." The results will yield a higher return for wildlife, 

the landowner and local economies that will benefit from new forestry industry 

jobs. 

As for ACEP program funding, we are most familiar with WRE. Importance and 

utilization of agriculture and wetland easements vary throughout the country. 

Much of the variability is driven by commodity prices. Discretion for use of ACEP 

funding towards easement types should remain flexible and be based historical 

allocations to states. 

2. Mr. Dees, I imagine there are ongoing challenges facing producers in the Delta region of 

the country with regard to pests and diseases. Crop protection tools like pesticides and 

insecticides are certainly valuable in dealing with these types of threats. Are there any 

challenges surrounding the use of these effective tools facing farmers, including 

administrative challenges related to FIFRA at agencies like EPA? 

ANSWER: Under FIFRA, EPA registers (permits) pesticides after a thorough evaluation and 

review of extensive scieritific data set as required by Congress. Initial permitting 

takes years and approximately 250 scientific studies. All pesticides are reregistered every 15 years on rolling cycle. This translates to EPA conducting 

comprehensive reviews of thousands of environmental and human health 

studies on more than 700 active ingredients (Ais) used in more than 17,000 

formulated products registered under FIFRA. As part of this permitting process, 

EPA is required to ensure their actions will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species with listed status through consultations with the 

Services under the ESA. 

The current process for ESA consultations is occurring through the Interim 

Approach under the new framework by National Academy of Science (NAS). EPA 

and the Services are tasked with extraordinary workloads given scientific, 

procedural and scope issues for the number of FIFRA registrations and 

registration reviews and considering more than 1400 animal and 900 plant listed 

species. 

According to Crop life America, EPA has committed to completing registration 

review for 1,166 pesticide active ingredients in the next 6 years, which includes 

an ESA review of each AI. It will take EPA and the Services over 2 years to 

complete an ESA review on just 3 A Is. The Services would require at least $4 74 

million and hundreds of new staff to complete their ESA evaluations associated 

with registration review for currently listed species (over 1,600) using the 

Interim Approaches consultation process. Also, the Services have committed to 
185 

making listing decisions for over 700 additional species by the end of 2016, 

adding to the already heavy resource burden on EPA and the Services. 

Many important pesticide registration actions have been subject to duplicative 

review of environmental risk leading to severe delays in registrations without 

any added benefit to threatened or endangered species and major delays in 

access to innovation for America's agricultural producers. Additionally, pervasive 

lawsuits have bogged down the government, for example, nearly every new 

pesticide active ingredients has resulted in lawsuits against government 

agencies. The additional review and legal wrangling relating to respective 

obligations under ESA and FIFRA place added burdens on tightened government 

resources. The ESA consultation process should not include a duplicative 

ecological risk assessment conducted by different government bodies if the 

action agency, in this case EPA, makes a determination on best available 

science. 

3. What regulatory challenges, or what regulatory uncertainty, do you and other farmers in 

the Delta region face from agencies like EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency? 

ANSWER: The full implementation of WOTUS would have limited conservation efforts and 

had catastrophic effects on production agriculture. Fortunately, we understand 

that the formal process to resend and repeal WOTUS has begun. We are grateful 

for the steps that have been taken to this point to resend and repeal WOUTS and 

are hopeful that a final repeal is eminent. 

The debate over what the full implementation of WOTUS could have been 

brought to focus many other uncertainties created by the Clean Water Act. One 

of these includes the protection of exemptions granted to certain agricultural 

practices including the maintenance of drainage ditches for flood protection in 

Section 404. This and all other agriculture exemptions must be protected. 

As for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, their banning of genetically modified 

seeds, neonicotinoid-treated seed and other Ag production tools on National 

Wildlife Refuges has caused significant problems and created unjustifiable 

concerns by the public. These same tools are allowed on the rest of the nearly 1 

billion acres of farmland in the US. Without these tools, cooperative farming on 

National Wildlife Refuges can no longer provide the food resources once 

provided as 25% of these croplands are left for wildlife. Furthermore, Refuge 

staff cannot use these products to grow food exclusively for wildlife. These 

products have been thoroughly tested, deemed safe, and registered by EPA and 

approved by the USDA. The directive to ban these products on National Wildlife 

Refuges by the former Director of the Service should be rescinded immediately. 
186 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. The Farm Bill authorizes conservation programs that focus on both "working lands" 

conservation and on "land retirement." In your opinion, which type of USDA conservation 

programs, working lands or land retirement, provide taxpayers with the biggest bank for 

their buck? That is, which of these types of conservation programs get the most 

environmental benefit for the cost? 

ANSWER: Most conservation advocates would say that we must maintain all programs as 

they all serve a purpose. Delta Wildlife agrees with this statement. However, 

we are confident that working lands conservation programs provide a greater 

return on the federal investment, in terms of both environmental and economic 

benefits. We must continue to advance conservation on working lands to ensure 

food security in the United States through sustainable practices. Land 

retirement conservation provides many environmental benefits, but it does not 

produce the food and raw materials needed to support growing demands on 

them due to population growth. Nor does land retirement support local jobs 

and economies to the same extent working lands conservation programs do. 

2. Do you or producers you work with through your organization use cover crops? If yes, can 

you talk about any issues you have had with your crop insurance eligibility related to your 

use of cover crops and whether you think that the crop insurance eligibility rules are making 

it more difficult to implement cover crops? 

ANSWER: Thank you for asking about cover crops. Our sister organization, Delta F.A.R.M., 

promotes sustainable agriculture practices and believes that improving soil 

health is one of the most important things we should be doing in row crop 

agriculture. Wholesale adoption of cover crops as an annual practice would 

improve soil health dramatically. We also believe that cover crops could be used 

creatively to improve Ag landscape biodiversity and provide additional wildlife 

habitat for many different species, including pollinators. Currently, Delta 

F.A.R.M. is working with 48 producers in our region who are planting cover 

crops. To my knowledge, none have had any issue with crop insurance eligibility 

due to their use of cover crops. However, if there are any provisions that would 

limit crop insurance eligibility due cover crops use, we would hope those 

provisions could be adequately amended or exemptions provided that would not 

restrict or discourage the adoption of cover crops. 
187 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACE P-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to 

beginning farmers? 

ANSWER: Access to land is a big barrier for beginning farms. However, I believe 

access to capital is the biggest challenge beginning farmers face. Young and 

beginning farmers rarely have any assets to offer to secure adequate loans for land 

payments or rent, seed, equipment, crop protection tools, fertilizer, labor and all 

other aspects of farming. 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement 

program to help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also 

protecting that farmland that is threatened by development? 

ANSWER: I consider myself first to be a businessman and capitalist, second, a 

landowner, and third, a farmer. If the highest and best use of any parcel of land is 

something other than agriculture, the businessman in me would concede that that 

land may not need to be farmed. However, agricultural easements do provide an 

opportunity for some, in certain situations, to access land to farm they could not 

otherwise afford to farm. Therefore, we do support agricultural easements and the 

protection of all conservation tools currently offered in Title II. 
188 

2. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment 

limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next 

Farm Bill? If so, to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you 

support reducing the time frame under which a farm is held to the current 

payment limitation for EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having 

that limit apply to only two years or three? 

ANSWER: EQIP Payment Limits can be a limiting factor for conservation. Some EQIP 

contracts can be quite costly and can push a producer to meet their payment limit in 

one year. These large contracts also provide for large, long-term conservation 

benefits. However, many producers choose not to implement any additional 

conservation measures that require large capital outlays until their payment limits 

have been reset. For these reasons and others, increasing the payment limit would 

be beneficial to further advance conservation on those lands operated by producers 

who are committed to doing more. And the benefits that accrue benefit far more 

than just the producer and landowner. I also agree that EQIP payment limits should 

be set on a regular, but multiple year cycle. 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there 

scenarios under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should 

be given a waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some 

conservation activities or projects? 

ANSWER: Wavers to set higher payment limits should be allowed, under very 

specific conditions. Once such condition may be for pooling agreements where 

multiple landowners benefit from an EQIP contract, but the construction takes place 

on one landowner, who receive the full burden of the payment limit. Another 

scenario could be to address very specific resource concerns in multiple states. 
189 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Ms. Barb Downey 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. What regulatory challenges, or what regulatory uncertainty, do you and other livestock 

producers face from agencies like EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency? 

At the risk of sounding dramatic, the possibility of regulation of smoke from controlled 

burns of native range could mean the end of the tallgrass prairie. The conditions needed 

to conduct a safe burn of large acreages are so specific, they occur maybe only one or 

two days per year. Usually, those conditions are right for many on the same day. Thus, 

the preservation of the exceedance event allowance is essential for ranchers to safely 

use prescribed burning. It is universally accepted that fire is essential to the tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem. 

In regards to regulatory uncertainty in general, regulations from any agency tend to 

come with very specific rules. When you're dealing with complex & fluid natural systems 

(like grazing rangelands), conditions are so different year-to-year, what might be right 

one year, is totally wrong the next. Thus, those that live intimately with the ecosystem 

day to day, like us ranchers, can easily be prevented by regulations from doing what's 

right & necessary to preserve the ranch and the ecosystem. 

2. While you might not have been directly impacted, how have livestock producers in 

Kansas utilized programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, the Emergency 

Conservation Program, and other emergency disaster programs during events like the 

recent wildfires in Kansas? With regard to the Conservation Reserve Program, what 

additional flexibilities or working lands aspects would benefit livestock producers in 

Kansas and across the country? 

Allowing grazing of CRP land after the wildfires had a multitude of important benefits. First off, it 

made feed immediately available for cattle. While hay started rolling in very quickly, hungry 

cows can't wait a week for the hay truck to arrive. Secondly, it allowed ranchers to move cattle 

off of burned range so that the grasses could rest & recover, which they did beautifully. Finally, 

the action of cattle on CRP has benefits to the grass and wildlife. As ranchers, we see CRP 

ground that is bunchy. Hoof action helps break clumps and create a turf (just like the bison did), 

thus making an erosion resistant prairie. Also, wildlife depends on a complete ecosystem, of 

which large grazing animals are an important part. They bring nutrients, insects, healthy soils, 

trampling of heavy cover, escape paths, and much more. It is a SYSTEM. Every time we remove a 

part of the system (like grazing), we do harm. 

While emergency access to CRP is hugely important, if action to release the acres can't be taken 

immediately, much of the benefit is lost. Timing is everything. 
190 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. The Farm Bill authorizes conservation programs that focus on both "working lands" 

conservation and on "Ia nd retirement." In your opinion, which type of USDA conservation 

programs, working lands or land retirement, provide taxpayers with the biggest bank for 

their buck? That is, which of these types of conservation programs get the most 

environmental benefit for the cost? 

Working landscapes benefit everybody, including the taxpayer. Ecosystems like the tallgrass prairie 

are just that- systems. When you remove one element, you affect all the others. Large grazing 

animals (formerly bison, now cattle) are part of the ecosystem. In addition, when lands are retired, 

then land resources are not available for the families that live in the area. When that happens, we 

lose the most important resource- a community of people who know and love the land better than 

anyone because they've lived with it their whole lives. Good for the ecosystem, good for 

communities, good for the economy, thus good for all Americans. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACEP-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to 

beginning farmers? 
191 

I am the 3'' generation cattle rancher to whom you refer, hoping to bring my 2 daughters 

into the operation. Land access is a huge barrier to new farmers, and existing farmers such 

as myself. The sale price of rangeland in my area is 3-4x the economic value of the land. 

When land comes up for sale, those in ranching often can not compete with those seeking 

the land for development, ranchettes, hunting retreats, etc. I will face the issue personally 

as I have 3 siblings who have no interest in ranching. They have little incentive to hold on to 

a very valuable asset, and I can't afford to buy them out. 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement 

program to help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also 

protecting that farmland that is threatened by development? 

Possibly. Personally, for our operation to consider a conservation easement, it would have 

to have significant monetary value. The "competition" (developers and non-ag interests) has 

deep pockets. Whatever the program, the "voluntary" part would be absolutely essential. 

2. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment 

limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next 

Farm Bill? If so, to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you 

support reducing the time frame under which a farm is held to the current 

payment limitation for EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having 

that limit apply to only two years or three? 

I have not used EQIP extensively, but when I have, I have not run up against any 

limitations. In general however, the type of conservation projects EQIP addresses 

(we've built ponds and terraces) can be expensive. Also, those of us doing 

conservation work tend to do a good amount of it. 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there 

scenarios under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should 

be given a waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some 

conservation activities or projects? 
192 

Yes, If the Chief is getting input from the "boots on the ground," meaning the 

county or regional level NRCS. Whenever you have local control and input, you 

build in the flexibility that broad rule & regulation writing stifle. And when that 

happens, we often miss unique and valuable opportunities that lets farmers and 

ranchers innovate within their unique situation and environment. 
193 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Steve Homing 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

I. Mr. Horning, you mentioned at the hearing that you would support increasing the total 

acreage enrollment cap for the Conservation Reserve Program to 40 million acres. Any 

proposed increase to CRP acreage cap will inevitably have a significant cost attached to 

it. Do you have any recommendations for a proposed offset to pay for the cost associated 

with an acreage increase to 40 million acres, or any acreage increase to CRP? 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. Do you or producers you work with through your organization use cover crops? If yes, 

can you talk about any issues you have had with your crop insurance eligibility related to 

your use of cover crops and whether you think that the crop insurance eligibility rules 

are making it more difficult to implement cover crops? 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACEP-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to 

beginning farmers? 
194 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement 

program to help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also 

protecting that farmland that is threatened by development? 

2. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment 

limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next 

Farm Bill? If so, to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you 

support reducing the time frame under which a farm is held to the current 

payment limitation for EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having 

that limit apply to only two years or three i' 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there 

scenarios under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should 

be given a waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some 

conservation activities or projects? 
195 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Answers for the Record 

Mr. Steven T. Horning 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

Question Chairman Roberts: I believe that we need to reallocate cost share and midmanagement payments to producers so that we can take the reduction in these payments to 

increase the CRP acres to 40 million. By that I mean the following: 

Horning mid-management #1. instead of paying the cost share of $48.00 an acre for a 

prescribed burn, and $12.50 per acre to mow, bail and destroy the CRP grass, give the producer 

the option to do a prescribed burn with no cost share reimbursement, or mow, bail and keep 

the CRP grass with a reduction of $25.00 per acre on their CRP acres. 

Also the FSA representative is required to observe the mow, bail and destroy of CRP grass. I 

don't know how much that cost is, but we could take those cost savings in addition to the 

changes in the above paragraph and it could be added on to increase the CRP acre cap. 

So instead of paying $48.00 and $12.50 per acre we would receive a $25.00 per acre reduction 

on all mid-management contracts. 

Horning mid-management #2. similar to above, instead of doing mid-management every five 

years, I would propose that we would hay 1/3 of the CRP grasses each year. The producer 

would pay $25.00 per acre of the CRP payment by reducing his annual payment. So of the 24 

million acres, I estimate we would have 20 million acres to manage annually if we take the trees 

and other practices that do not require a mid-management practice out. Dividing that by 1/3 

would give us approximately 6 million acres to manage each year in that the producer could do 

prescribe burn at their own cost, or take a reduction of $25.00 per acre in their CRP payments. 

Six million times $25.00 per acre would bring 150 million dollars to apply to new CRP acres plus 

the savings of not paying the $48.00 per acre or the $12.50 per acre for mid-management, and 

also not requiring FSA personal to observe the destruction of the CRP grass. 

The other thing that we could do would be to reduce the incentives for continuous CRP. Since 

we have plenty of demand for CRP, we could lessen the incentives for continuous CRP and still 

have the necessary demand for CRP acres. As you know with continuous CRP you receive a 20% 

bonus payment per acre, no bidding and you qualify for the SIP and PIP payments. I propose we 

cut the SIP and PIP payments in half or drop them completely and take those funds to increase 

our CRP acres. 

I need Secretary Jones to calculate the amount of saving that I have proposed in the above 

scenario. Also, she could have the value of the CRP grass determined by region. I have paid 
196 

$25.00 in my region and that could be determined by a formula that she approves. For 

example, the lesser of 25% of CRP payment or $25.00 per acre. 

When a land owner decides to offer land in the general or continuous CRP application, midmanagement is not a high consideration. They check the CRP annual payment rate, so we are 

still going to get plenty of applications and save mid-management and incentives that are not 

necessary to still get the necessary applications for CRP. 

So In summary Chairman Roberts, if you get me the 40 million dollar cap, I believe I can get the 

funding by modifying the cost share reimbursement and the mid-management practice. 

Therefore no additional federal funds would be needed to fund the 40 million dollar cap. 

Ranking member Debbie Stabenow 

Question Stabenow: I am not sure where the dividing line is, but if the producers in the south 

have a double crop they can insure both crops. If a producer in the mid west including South 

Dakota and Michigan can plant a cover crop, such as rye or winter wheat for example and if 

they decide they want to hay it off and plant soybeans behind it. They can't insure both crops, 

they can only insure one crop. This does not appear to be fair and this does make it more 

difficult for a producer to put a cover crop knowing that they will only be able to insure the 

cover crop or the crop behind it. I would like you to check to insure that I understand this crop 

insurance correctly and consider a change. 

Senator Leahv 

Question Leahy: 

1a) Regarding beginning farmers. The biggest hurdle for beginning farmers is the 

machinery. The second most important factor is acquiring land. The biggest 

obstacle is the large farm operations outbidding the beginning farmer for these 

acres. I have not seen where CRP rental rates have not been high enough to 

compete for the rental rates. 

1b)This would help. 

2a) The new farm bill should increase the CRP payment limitation or eliminate it 

altogether. The 1985 farm bill established a $50,000 payment limitation that has 

not been changed since. It should be indexed or dropped. In South Dakota the 1985 

annual payment averaged $50.00 per acre in my area. Now that average payment is 

$150.00 per acre. Therefore, we can only have 1/3 of the acres to reach the $50,000 

payment limitation. This applies equally to EQLP payments. 

2b) I do not have enough expertise to answer this 
197 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Ms. Misty Jones 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. You mention in your testimony the new component of grassland enrollment within the 

Conservation Reserve Program. How has the demand for grassland applicants 

compared with the 2 million acreage cap for grassland enrollment? 

Robust demand for CRP Grassland acres has been demonstrated thus far. Since 

grasslands signup was opened, we have received over 1.9 million acres in offers. From 

the three CRP Grasslands ranking periods USDA conducted, approximately 922,000 of 

offered acres were accepted, a 48.52 percent rate. Only the most competitive offers 

were selected for enrollment based on six ranking factors: (1) current and future use, (2) 

new farmer/rancher or underserved producer involvement, (3) maximum grassland 

preservation, (4) vegetative cover, (5) environmental factors, and (6) pollinator 

habitat. Offers not selected in a ranking period are rolled over into the next ranking 

period. 

Cumulative CRP Grassland Acceptable 

Offers/ Acreage 

.. Total Acceptable 

State Offers Ac:ret 

AlABAMA 100 5,486.16 

ARIZONA - - ARKANSAS 34 2,282.36 

CALIFORNIA 8 1,749.20 

COLORADO 244 77,336.56 

CONNECTICUT 3 82.36 

FLORIDA 14 661.50 

GEORGIA 39 1,719.63 

HAWAII - -

IDAHO 10 17,846.72 

ILLINOIS 48 1,883.33 

INDIANA 27 1,306.97 

IOWA 201 10,954.31 

KANSAS 168 19,222.17 

KENTUCKY 130 5,614.92 

LOUISIANA 26 2,904.38 

MAINE 1 6.52 
198 

MARYLAND 36 2,545.79 

MASSACHUSETTS 3 56.49 

MICHIGAN 106 8,395.85 

MINNESOTA 109 4,581.99 

MISSISSIPPI 30 1,571.56 

MISSOURI 88 4,939.56 

MONTANA 364 62,990.98 

NEBRASKA 1,449 250,002.27 

NEW JERSEY 2 34.76 

NEW MEXICO 225 93,963.29 

NEW YORK 109 4,586.56 

NORTH CAROLINA 83 2,579.93 

NORTH DAKOTA 218 37,877.10 

OHIO 180 7,062.10 

OKLAHOMA 183 29,954.21 

OREGON 58 24,252.95 

PENNSYLVANIA 58 2,471.68 

SOUTH CAROLINA 6 128.69 

SOUTH DAKOTA 782 147,704.79 

TENNESSEE 63 4,840.90 

TEXAS 205 40,589.32 

UTAH 13 1,022.06 

2. Has demand far exceeded 2 million acres? 

To date, producers have offered approximately 1.9 million acres for CRP Grasslands 

enrollment, and offers continue to be received on an ongoing basis. It is likely that the 

demand will exceed 2 million acres. 

To further encourage diversity geographically and participation by all types of livestock 

operations, the most recent ranking period included for the first time a CRP grasslands 

practice specifically targeted for small-scale livestock grazing operations. 
199 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. Budget: In the FY18 budget proposal, the President proposed some changes to the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that are estimated to save about $1.9 billion. 

However, while the proposed changes were included in the list of legislative priorities, 

most of them could actually be done administratively. Does USDA plan to implement 

these changes in FY18? 

The Secretary will be working to manage within the President's Budget but also 

acknowledges that Congress also has an important role. We are happy to make 

ourselves available for any technical assistance in preparation for any policy changes you 

are considering. 

2. CRP: How does USDA plan to target the approximately 2.S million acres that are expiring 

in CRP later this year? Are there efforts to move these acres into either a working lands 

conservation program or to permanently protect the sensitive land through the 

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program? If not, can you provide recommendations 

to Congress on how to improve transition of expiring CRP acres into either working lands 

programs or permanent protection? 

Currently, the Administration is actively considering options. We are happy to make 

ourselves available for technical assistance in preparation for any policy changes you are 

considering. 

3. CRP: Please provide the most recent data on how any acres of prime farmland are 

currently enrolled in CRP, broken down by state? 

*The table below provides the most recent data on acres of CRP classified as prime farmland. 

**NRCS defines Prime Farmland as: "Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these 

uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically 

sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, 

including water management." NRCS estimates there were 316 m.a. prime farmland in the U.S. in 2012. 

Prorated 

CRPAcres Acres 

Excluding Classified as 

Marginal "All Areas are 

Pastureland Prime 

Soils(May Farmland" 

State 2017) (May2017) 
200 

ALABAMA 219,898 123,282 

ALASKA 16,957 0 

ARKANSAS 212,741 101,055 

CALIFORNIA 73,880 0 

COLORADO 1,758,040 0 

CONNECTICUT 58 29 

DELAWARE 4,089 1,110 

FLORIDA 30,047 17,704 

GEORGIA 236,520 163,548 

HAWAII 16 0 

IDAHO 554,645 1,916 

ILLINOIS 888,641 237,675 

INDIANA 230,134 54,013 

IOWA 1,738,213 371,434 

KANSAS 2,052,771 714,793 

KENTUCKY 241,168 93,749 

LOUISIANA 284,791 234,797 

MAINE 7,761 1,775 

MARYLAND 55,158 17,578 

MASSACHUSETIS 10 0 

MICHIGAN 128,963 22,981 

MINNESOTA 1,099,376 230,311 

MISSISSIPPI 664,281 285,518 

MISSOURI 949,885 96,590 

MONTANA 1,347,439 11,564 

NEBRASKA 771,143 98,190 

NEVADA 146 0 

NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 5 0 

NEW JERSEY 1,948 1,128 

NEW MEXICO 430,940 4,774 

NEW YORK 23,476 4,877 

NORTH 

CAROLINA 64,522 28,851 

NORTH DAKOTA 1,511,814 406,192 

OHIO 254,936 77,257 

OKLAHOMA 682,564 365,893 

OREGON 441,459 466 

PENNSYLVANIA 148,979 30,205 

PUERTO RICO 836 15 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 77,171 38,366 

SOUTH DAKOTA 926,147 162,276 

TENNESSEE 134,589 59,910 

TEXAS 2,868,097 1,133,366 

UTAH 164,061 0 

VERMONT 444 209 

VIRGINIA 27,597 15,048 
201 

WASHINGTON 1,184,245 24,516 

WEST VIRGINIA 916 503 

WISCONSIN 221,713 51,863 

WYOMING 183,153 0 

TOTALS: 22,916,382 5,285,324 

4. Transition Incentives Program: Please provide a breakdown of TIP funding since the 

2014 Farm Bill was enacted. Does the agency have any recommendations for improving 

this program in the next Farm Bill? 

Currently, the Administration is actively considering options. We are happy to make 

ourselves available for technical assistance in preparation for any policy changes you are 

considering. 

The following table reflects acres approved under the $33 million appropriated for TIP in the 2014 Farm 

Bill. 

Number of Total TIP Total Rental 

State . Contracts Acres Payment 

Colorado 52 12,243 $ 916,808 

Idaho 5 462 $ 52,925 

Illinois 13 594 $ 86,705 

Iowa 39 2,384 $ 545,903 

Kansas 69 9,749 $ 792,984 

Kentucky 18 680 $ 107,193 

Michigan 10 398 $ 56.559 

Minnesota 193 26.857 $ 2,920,617 

Missouri 27 1,979 $ 273,684 

Montana 142 35,055 $ 2,761,935 

Nebraska 88 6,104 $ 982.577 

New York 2 182 $ 16,929 

North Dakota 115 15,731 $ 1,272.750 

Ohio 20 488 $ 71,215 

Oklahoma 5 618 $ 55,014 

Oregon 20 7,392 $ 35,368 

Pennsylvania 6 231 $ 47,325 

South Dakota 8 826 $ 98,239 

Tennessee 1 43 $ 6.916 

Texas 16 4.240 $ 314.317 

Virginia 4 186 $ 18,105 

Washington 109 31,961 $ 3.906.910 

Wisconsin 5 378 $ 49,910 

Grand Total 967 158,781 $ 15,390,888 
202 

5. We all know that farming is inherently risky. Many conservation practices can help 

farmers reduce risk on their operations by improving soil health, reducing fertilizer and 

water use, and reducing impacts of severe weather like drought. Increasingly there is an 

interest in understanding more specifically how conservation practices can improve the 

long-term resiliency of farms and how that may impact the crop insurance program. Can 

you please discuss if there is data that you currently collect linking conservation 

practices to crop yields? If not, can you provide recommendations for how you could 

collect this data going forward? 

Some relevant yield data have been collected for years by NRCS and a more strategic 

nationwide effort is currently being launched to leverage NRCS, other federal agency, 

and partner resources to collect a nation-wide dataset that effectively links 

implementation of soil health management systems and yield benefits. There is great 

potential to coordinate across a broad set of partners with shared interest in soil health 

to develop rapidly a comprehensive and informative dataset to facilitate 

transformational producer and agency decision making. 

Past and current data collection: Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP} data 

collection and modeling studies on which NRCS and the Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) collaborate have quantified some of the positive effects of specific conservation 

practices on soil health status, yield, input needs, and resilience to severe 

weather. Additionally, NRCS has started a focused review of the body of scientific 

literature (including CEAP studies) that has assessed the impacts of soil healthpromoting practices on yield. A summary of the preliminary review concluded that yields 

and/or yield stability were increased by soil health-promoting practices in 76% of 

reviewed papers. Studies identifying no or negative impacts on yields were found only 

where the soil health-promoting practices had been recently implemented or were not 

yet properly adapted to the climate, soil, and cropping system. 

Future data collection efforts and opportunities: NRCS is currently launching a more 

targeted project to truly integrate and advance the Science of Soil Health by leveraging 

decades of research with decades of grassroots innovations by producers who have been 

developing effective soil health management systems (SHMS). SHMSs are systems of 

multiple NRCS conservation practices that focus on maintaining and enhancing soil 

health by addressing all four of the soil health planning principles: minimize disturbance, 

maximize soil cover, maximize biodiversity, and maximize presence of Jiving roats. A 

SHMS is cropping system specific and creates a synergistic effect as practices are 

adapted to each other to leverage benefits of each. 

The new Science of Soil Health project will measure, and compile in a database linked to 

the NRCS soil survey, a set of standardized soil health indicators based on a review of the 

scientific literature with involvement of experts in the scientific community at large and 
203 

with management and outcome data, including yield. Sites assessed will span the range 

of management systems to establish potential ranges by soil grouping, with an emphasis 

on establishing the upper soil health potential by including successful SHMSs. Data will 

be contributed to the databases from the scientific literature, as well as from on-going 

projects and activities related to soil health by NRCS, other Federal agencies, partners 

that are able to contribute data, and citizen scientists willing to share their on-farm 

results. 

NRCS will partner with USDA agencies and public and private partners for both data 

collection and analysis, and integrate results into conservation planning that designs and 

evaluates soil health management systems based on soil health status information and 

knowledge of regionally appropriate successful soil health management systems. There 

is potential for collaboration across a number of agencies in this effort, including but not 

limited to Agricultural Research Service (ARS}, National institute of Food and Agriculture 

(NJFA}, Economic Research Service (ERS}, Farm Service Agency (FSA}, and Risk 

Management Agency (RMA), as well as potential for collaboration across the range of 

public and private partners with interest in soil health. 

6. Can you discuss efforts to support beginning farmers through the conservation 

programs you oversee? Can you share recommendations for improving access to 

conservation programs for beginning farmers, including veterans? 

A number of provisions within CRP support beginning farmers. CRP provisions currently 

waive the 25 percent reduction of the annual CRP rental payment for managed 

harvesting and routine grazing of CRP if the acres are utilized by a beginning farmer and 

rancher. 

A provision within CRP Grasslands administration also offers participants who identify as 

a Beginning, Veteran and Underserved farmer and rancher the award of exclusive 

additional points in the offer ranking process, which increases their offer scores and 

likelihood of acceptance. 

Additionally, CRP Transition Incentives Program incentives are based on a retiring CRP 

contract participant's transition of their land to a Veteran, Beginning or Socially 

Disadvantaged farmer and rancher for the purpose of sustainable grazing or crop 

production. 

We are happy to make ourselves available for technical assistance in preparation for any 

policy changes you are considering. 
204 

7. Please provide a summary of how the programs you oversee are helping organic 

producers or helping producers transition to organic production, including any relevant 

data about how many organic producers are accessing these tools. 

The CRP provides a brood set of practices that can be used by organic producers to 

provide o buffer to protect their land and maintain their organic certification. 

Conservation practices such as grass filter (CP21}, upland bird habitat buffers (CP33}, 

pollinator habitat (CP42), shelter belts (CP16A} and field windbreaks (CPSA) provide 

buffers for organic lands while generating broad conservation benefits for landowners 

and their neighbors. Since 2016, more than 7,100 acres have been enrolled by organic 

producers. 

Additionally, under the Transition Incentive Program (TIP), for CRP contracts that 

expire( d) on or after September 30, 2014, producers can begin the certification process 

under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Producers may also start preparing 

their land for certified organic food production in the last year of the CRP contract under 

TIP. 

Senator Joni Ernst 

1. As you committed to in the hearing, can you please provide us with the specific data you 

have on beginning farmers and ranchers being outbid for farmland by the CRP program? 

We understand that there have been concerns in Iowa, and we certainly work to 

establish the most accurate rates possible. To help with such situations, FSA put a cap of 

$300 per acre on new continuous sign up acreage in December 2016, and also limited 

pollinator enrollment to 100 acres per form. As background, CRP annual payment rates 

are offer-specific and are based on soil rental rates (SRRs) set by FSA. The goo/ is to set 

the payment rate so that its equals the minimum amount o landowner is "willing to 

accept" to enroll in the program. We are currently updating the SRRs, which will be 

effective on October 1, 2017. 

USDA is more than willing to work with your staff to identify areas or producers within 

Iowa to evaluate acreage availability and its relationship to CRP enrollment and 

competition. USDA currently does not have data related to beginning farmers and 

ranchers being outbid for farmland by CRP. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. For 30 years, lands in the Conservation Reserve Program have contributed to soil and 

water protection and wildlife and pollinator habitat, while also playing a significant role 

in mitigating climate change. These lands represent a substantial investment offederal 

funds to protect highly erodible and other sensitive lands that can provide resource 
205 

benefits such as wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and water sequestration, even once they 

have left CRP, as long as they are not converted back to cropland. 

Rather than continually reenrolling the same lands into CRP, how can the next Farm Bill 

encourage farmers to transition their lands out of CRP to working pastureland and 

grazing lands while still maintaining these important conservation benefits that 

taxpayers have supported? 

CRP participants are provided information concerning transition opportunities to other 

available programs, such as TIP, ACEP, or state or private easement programs when 

their contracts are approaching the end date. Further, participants planning to convert 

expiring contract acres to agriculture use are encouraged to do so while also considering 

taking advantage of USDA's working lands programs that include CRP Grasslands, 

Conservation Stewardship Program, or the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

In addition, it is important to recognize that a substantial portion of CRP vegetative 

covers remain intact beyond contract expiration. The environmental benefits from these 

lands continue and are obtained at no additional cost to the taxpayer. An analysis of 

USDA/NRCS National Resource Inventory data for 3 periods between 1997 and 2012 

shows that 38-55 percent of land that was in CRP and then left the program remained 

in grass, rangeland, or forest cover at the end of the 5 year period. This is consistent with 

a recent internal FSA analysis that shows that three years after leaving the program 46 

percent of CRP acres remained in grass. Two previous analyses of forest covers for CRP's 

predecessor, the Soil Bank, showed that in Georgia after 18 years, 83.1 percent of Soil 

Bank tree plantings were still in trees, and nationally after 33 years, 80 percent of Soil 

Bank tree plantings were still in forests. 

2. How many CRP acres are currently planted to trees? And what, if any, impact do you 

think it would have if the 2018 Farm Bill terminated any base acres on farmland enrolled 

in CRP that is planted to trees? 

There are currently 2.5 million acres planted to trees in CRP. The expiring CRP acreage 

planted to trees is considered DCP cropland by FSA, which makes the land eligible to 

maintain base acres as long as the land is continually used in agriculture-related activity. 

If the Jaw changes and says that land in CRP trees can no longer support base acres, 

those acres will be lost from the farm forever and never can be recovered. This would 

result in potential lost income to the landowner when the CRP contract expires, is 

voluntarily terminated, or is the subject of an early out by the Secretary, and the base 

acres no longer exist. 

*The table below shows CRP acres currently enrolled in tree practices. 

TREE ACRES IN CRP, MAY 2017 
206 

STATE 

ALABAMA 

ALASKA 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

IDAHO 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 

KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

MAINE 

MARYLAND 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

MISSISSIPPI 

MISSOURI 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

ALL 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH DAKOTA 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PUERTO RICO 

RHODE ISLAND 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

VERMONT 

VIRGINIA 

WASHINGTON 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 

WYOMING 

2,500,069 

TREES 

160,000 

50 

178,742 

754 

4,666 

1 

2,552 

18,940 

210,769 

1,168 

8,847 

171,520 

37,294 

176,073 

5,509 

25,842 

229,969 

180 

14,762 

19,589 

236,832 

489,868 

53,768 

2,747 

33,086 

5 

374 

3,317 

10,864 

47,552 

8,428 

24,489 

2,038 

36,952 

24,665 

353 

28 

48,682 

39,095 

34,758 

25,155 

60 

2,465 

28,268 

24,961 

5,502 

44,703 

3,830 
207 

3. Over the last ten years how many acres of CRP lands planted to trees has the FSA 

extended contracts on? 

Less than 1 million acres of the 2.5 million acres currently enrolled were re-enrolled acres 

in the last 10 years. 

4. If the 2018 Farm Bill were to modify the CRP to focus more on buffers and tree "filter 

strips" adjacent to surface water or wetlands that reduce sediment and chemicals in 

agricultural runoff, and other targeted enrollments, rather than on removing whole 

fields from production, do you think there would be a reduction in the federal costs 

because much less land would be involved? 

Based on the information provided, we are unable to provide a firm estimate of cost. The 

answer is difficult to determine because the scope of the proposed focused modified CRP 

is not specified. The Federal cost is a function of both the cost of the conservation per 

acre, the amount of land enrolled, and the soils in the region of the country where the 

land is located. A review of the most recent general sign-up CRP ond Continuous CRP 

sign-ups indicates that on a per acre basis, Continuous CRP costs more than general signup CRP. 

Currently, Continuous CRP is a voluntary conservation opportunity for agricultural 

producers to enroll environmentally sensitive agricultural/and and establish long-term, 

resource-conserving covers, such as grasses or trees. The amount of land enrolled will be 

determined by how many producers are interested in the practices identified in the 

modified CRP. 

We are happy to make ourselves available for technical assistance in preparation for any 

policy changes you are considering. 

S. The Farm Bill could ensure that land in CRP stays out of production for longer than 10 

years if a longer term easement was offered to a farmer, this would offer a better 

guarantee of long-term protection because easements are an interest in the land itself. 

If the next Farm Bill allowed USDA to purchase some 30-year easements through CRP 

from farmers, could it potentially provide longer-term environmental benefits if farmers 

were to agree to those long term restrictions on the use of their land? 

if landowners are interested in 30-year easements, then potentially longer-term 

environmental benefits might be obtained. However, it is important to recognize that 

producers do have the choice of enrolling their land in NRCS easements and in some 

cases state easements. Also, a substantial portion of CRP covers remain intact beyond 

the CRP contract's expiration. The environmental benefits from these lands continue and 

are obtained at no additional cost to the taxpayer. 
208 

We are happy to make ourselves available for technical assistance in preparation for any 

policy changes you are considering. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

1. In January 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture partnered with the state 

of Minnesota on an agreement under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

(CREP). The agreement will provide for up to 60,000 acres of voluntary, targeted 

protection and restoration by providing an additional conservation option for producers. 

I have heard concerns from producers that they will be ineligible for re-enrollment of 

certain acreage currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) if those 

acres are meeting state regulatory requirements. 

How does the Farm Service Agency work with states and local governments to ensure 

that conservation programs are meeting both federal and state goals, as well as natural 

resource concerns? 

Under CRP, FSA partners with State and local governments in many ways, including 

formal agreements through CREP and initiatives like the State Acres For wildlife 

Enhancement (SAFE) initiatives. CREP is a component of the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) under which USDA and a State partner together to address high-priority 

natural resource concerns identified by the State. Federal funds are supplemented with 

non-federal funds to encourage farmers and ranchers to enroll in the voluntary 

program. FSA, which administers the CRP and CREP on behalf of the Commodity Credit 

Corporation, works cooperatively with the State in the development of a comprehensive 

proposal for each CREP project. The proposal includes measurable goals and objectives 

for the project, a monitoring plan, and an annual reporting requirement to identify and 

track performance of the project in meeting the goals and objectives. After the project 

proposal is developed and appropriate review and consultation is completed, a CREP 

Agreement is created that provides the terms and canditians af the project, the 

responsibilities of the State and USDA, and the criteria under which eligible land may be 

enrolled ta meet the goals of the project and address the State identified resource 

concern. 

Senator Michael Bennet 

1) We held more than two dozen listening sessions across Colorado this spring, and we 

have consistently heard about the need to conserve working grasslands. Ranchers and 

other landowners tell us that the grassland CRP program is a unique opportunity to 

maintain some working land productivity while protecting important wildlife habitat. In 
209 

the 2014 Farm Bill, we provided a 2 million acre cap for grasslands, but the USDA has 

not yet put 2 million acres of grassland into the CRP. 

In your view, what are some of the barriers to enrollment in grassland CRP in western 

states like Colorado? 

Robust demand for CRP Grassland acres has been demonstrated thus far. Since 

grasslands signup was opened, we have received over 1.9 million acres in offers. From 

the three CRP Grasslands ranking periods USDA conducted, approximately 922,000 of 

offered acres were accepted. Only the most competitive offers were selected for 

enrollment based on six ranking factors: (1} current and future use, (2} new 

farmer/rancher or underserved producer involvement, (3} maximum grassland 

preservation, (4} vegetative cover, {5} environmental factors, and (6} pollinator 

habitat. Offers not selected in a ranking period are rolled over into the next ranking 

period. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. New and Beginning Farmers 

By 2030, more than 1.7 million acres of New York farmland will transition to the next 

generation. I am concerned that without the right programs in place, many of these 

acres will be consolidated into ever-larger farms that become permanently inaccessible 

to beginning farmers. This could have a significant negative affect on the health and 

strength of our rural communities. 

How are your Services working together to ensure that all conservation programs are 

coordinated and work well for beginning farmers? 

A number of provisions within CRP support beginning farmers. CRP provisions also waive 

25% reduction of the annual CRP payment for managed harvesting and routine grazing 

of CRP if the acres are utilized by a beginning farmer and rancher. A provision within CRP 

Grasslands administration offers participants who identify as a Beginning, Veteran, and 

Underserved farmer and rancher are awarded exclusive additional points in the offer 

ranking process, which increases their offer score. 

Additionally, CRP TIP incentives are based on a retiring CRP contract participant's 

transition of their land to a Veteran, Beginning or Socially Disadvantaged farmer and 

rancher for the purpose af sustainable grazing or crop production. 

2. Pollinators 
210 

The 2008 Farm Bill made pollinator health a priority in all USDA conservation programs. 

The 2014 Farm Bill maintained those provisions and added an emphasis on expanding 

and improving honeybee habitat. After more than a decade of conservation work, our 

wild pollinators and honeybees continue to struggle. 

A survey of New York beekeepers showed that this past winter, nearly 48 percent of our 

honeybee hives failed. The problems of pesticides, mites, disease, and limited forage 

were compounded by a terrible drought during the summer. 

What more should the Committee do to help NRCS and the other Services assist farmers 

who depend on pollinators? 

The Committee con continue to support pollinators in the 2018 USDA Form Bill by providing conservation 

programs ond tools that encourage producers ond landowners to address pollinator habitat. 

Senator Robert P. Casey, J r 

1. Ms. Jones, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program targets high-priority 

conservation concerns identified by a State, and federal funds are supplemented with 

non-federal funds to address those concerns. In exchange for removing environmentally 

sensitive land from production and establishing permanent resource conserving plant 

species, farmers and ranchers are paid an annual rental rate. 

Pennsylvania is one of the leading states enrolled in the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program. CREP has been particularly helpful in creating riparian buffers in 

the state. What do you find is the most useful way to engage farmers and increase 

participation? 

A proactive and robust outreach and education effort can be an effective tool to engage 

and inform farmers of the benefits that conservation can have on their overall farming 

operation, as well as the operations of their neighbors. Under the CREP, the State 

partner assistance of employing an active and constructive role in the promotion of the 

program is vital, especially with regard to outreach and education of agricultural 

producers. Additionally, we have found that having the farmers themselves engaging in 

the promotion of the program, and the education of their peers, can be invaluable to 

increasing awareness and growing the level of voluntary conservation participation. 

2. Ms. Jones, plain Sect farmers (Amish and Mennonite) are often reluctant to participate 

in government programs. Can you discuss some ways to engage non-traditional farmers 

who may not want to receive a cash payment, but would benefit from participation in 

voluntary conservation programs? 
211 

Cultural awareness and education are crucial to solidifying relationships with nontraditional farmers and ranchers. The plain Sect farmers and faith based communities 

have a vested interest in stewardship, preservation and conservation. FSA works with 

partners to engage with faith based community populations. Training staff to 

understand how to effectively reach these audiences is crucial. FSA understands utilizing 

trusted gathering places and mediums such as the community Fire House and Budget 

Newspaper are ways to promote programs to Amish and Mennonite communities. A 

toolkit providing outreach tips to Amish and Mennonite segments was developed to 

support targeted outreach throughout the USDA network of field staff. In the past the 

focus has been on collaboratively promoting credit, dairy and organic programs. Many 

field staff are adept at serving plain Sect farmers and faith based farm communities and 

have developed innovative outreach and program enrollment practices for these 

populations. Staff market our programs and loans in ways that are culturally 

appropriate, for example, explaining programs (such as disaster assistance or cost share 

programs) as rebates and understand the important role community leadership may 

play in a producer's ability to participate in a program or loan. 

Various agencies, service centers, and local governments have had success throughout 

the country working with plain Sect farmers to encourage and facilitate the adoption of 

conservation practices such as no-till, improved nutrient management and fencing 

livestock out of water sources. These projects are most successful when farmers are 

approached at the local/eve/ and relationships are built over time. 

Senator Chris Van Hollen 

1. As you know, the Chesapeake Bay is one of our nation's great water bodies, but it 

suffers from significant pollution from agricultural runoff and drainage. Maryland 

farmers have made significant progress in reducing their environmental footprint on the 

Bay. One of the key tools they have used to do this is conservation buffers funded 

through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Farmers have installed these buffer 

practices in large part because of the signing incentive payments (SIPs) and practice 

incentive payments (PIPs) offered through CRP. President Trump's FY-18 budget 

request proposes to eliminate SIPs and PIPs for practices like buffer strips and filter 

strips within CRP. Does USDA plan to push this as a farm bill proposal? 

The USDA budget proposals to eliminate SIPs and PIPS specifically exempts CREP 

enrollments. Each of the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have CREP 

agreements in place targeted to Chesapeake Bay water quality. 

Additionally, the Secretary will be working to manage within the President's Budget but 

also acknowledges that Congress has an important role. We are happy to make 
212 

ourselves available for any technical assistance in preparation for any policy changes you 

are considering. 
213 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Chuck Roady 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. How has Good Neighbor Authority worked in Montana? As you know, Congress 

expanded that authority to the entire country in the 2014 Farm Bill. Are there any 

policy adjustments needed and if so, can you elaborate on those recommendations? 

Good Neighbor has been very successful in Montana. We've got a signed Master Agreement and 

have 2 projects so far. Like the rest of the country, limitations on road repair and rehabilitation that 

were included in the 2014 bill. Per our written testimony, we recommended the following changes 

to the program: 

"Allow the Forest Service to use GNA for projects anywhere on the National Forest System, not just 

those that meet abstract and poorly defined adjacency requirements; and 

Remove restrictions on road repair and rehabilitation. Current practice defines road reconstruction so 

broadly that even limited road work triggers concern when the Forest Service uses GNA. This leads to 

poorly designed timber sales and precludes some projects altogether." 

Because of a narrow definition of road repairs, the current restrictions on road building lead to the 

Forest Service dropping many acres from consideration for GNA projects. If a forest needs to 

replace one failing culvert, for instance, this can be considered "road construction," and the project 

acres beyond the failing culvert are dropped from the project, or, ifit makes the project unviable, 

the entire project is dropped. Ironically, this approach to road repair leaves watersheds in worse 

shape; the failing culvert or other resource concern is left unaddressed. 

Per our written testimony, we urge the Committee to use the next Farm Bill to adopt a single, 

clarified Good Neighbor Authority that fixes limitations on projects found in the current authorities, 

and which does not impose additional, hard to define requirements which would subject future 

projects to potential litigation. The Good Neighbor Authority is another valuable tool in the tool box 

to be used by the Forest Service to implement projects in addition to their regular land 

management programs. 

2. Mr. Roady, the Farm Bill provided permanent authority for Stewardship 

Contracting. How has Stewardship Contracting worked for your company? Are there 

any improvements or policy changes that Congress should consider to the Stewardship 

Contracting authority? 

My company has been involved in and has implemented a number of Stewardship Contracts, and in 

frequent past years, Stewardship Contracts have accounted for a substantial portion of timber 

outputs in our region. FFRC supported permanent extension of Stewardship Contracting Authority, 
214 

however we continue to believe there are improvements and clarifications that would make the 

program more functional. 

First, we recommend adding "retention of existing forest products infrastructure" as a co-equal goal 

with the seven land management goals identified in the current authority. The Forest Service has 

learned the hard way that once forest products facilities and the logging infrastructure disappear, 

the costs of future land management operations skyrocket. It is very difficult to attract and retain 

new capital investment where the Forest Service has- for whatever reason failed to support the 

wood using industries that make up our membership. As we've seen in Region 3 and elsewhere, loss 

of mills leads to the loss of logging capacity, which can cause the entire "value chain" (suppliers, 

equipment dealers, etc.) to vanish. 

Second, we recommend clarifying when the Forest Service should use Stewardship Contracts, 

normal timber sales, or Stewardship Agreements. We also urge the Committee to clarify that the 

Forest Service and BLM have the authority to award contracts on a "lowest cost, technically 

acceptable" basis. 

We also appreciate the language, found in the 2014 Farm Bill Report, which stated unambiguously 

that the Committee did "not intend for Stewardship Contracting to replace, diminish, or adversely 

impact the U.S. Forest Service's timber sales program." We urge the Committee to keep making this 

point in your future work. Just as with the Good Neighbor Authority, Stewardship Contracts are 

another tool in the tool box for the Forest Service to utilize in addition to their regular program. 

3. Often times agencies like the Forest Service unfortunately do not use current authorities 

to the fullest capabilities. The Farm Bill provided authority to the Forest Service to treat 

landscapes impacted by insect and disease infestations under a categorical exclusion for 

up to 3,000 acres. However, in practice, only a fraction of allowable acres are treated 

under this authority. What would you suggest to increase the efficacy of categorical 

exclusions? 

The Forest Service frequently drops acres from consideration for management, whether they are 

using basic management authorities or the expedited authorities provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

This tendency stems from a belief among many critics of the agency that whenever there is a 

sensitive species present, the presumptively best way to protect the species is to forgo management 

of the forest This has frequently left stands overstocked, susceptible to insect and disease 

outbreaks, and potentially large and destructive wildfires, and often times to the very detriment of 

the habitat for the species they desire to protect.. While CEQ guidance and FS policy state that the 

"mere presence" of sensitive resource should not preclude management or the use of expedited 

authorities, in practice it is obvious that the Forest Service largely avoids areas which include any of 

a number of sensitive resources in fear of being litigated. 

Congress should remind the Forest Service that frequently, management is the best solution to keep 

forests in the conditions that support sensitive resources, whether that is a watershed in need of 

thinning or an overstocked stand, which, if it burned in a catastrophic fire, would rob species of 

needed habitat. 
215 

One issue that could be clarified is that the acreage treated in a Farm Bill Cat Ex should be the 

minimum required to reduce fire danger on a watershed basis. Alternatively, Congress could 

establish minimum treatment levels within CE's, say 1,000 acres (which would be 1/3'd of the 

current CE limit). In Montana, 5 of the 9 CE's are conducting mechanical treatments on less than 

1,000 acres, with two treating less than 140 acres. This requirement would lead to over 2, 900 

additional acres being treated under current NEPA. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. I enjoyed hearing your praise for the Forest Legacy Program during the hearing. I have 

worked very closely on this program and supporting federal appropriations on it ever since 

the Forest Legacy program was first created in the 1990 Farm Bill, when I was Chairman of 

the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. This program has proven very 

successful in Vermont where much like our family farms, working forests are critical to my 

state's economy and its culture. 

Do you support maintaining the current authorization for the Forest Legacy program that 

enables state forestry engagement in priority forest conservation and retention efforts? 

From your experience with the Forest Legacy Program in Montana are there any 

improvements that need to be made to it? 

FFRC does not have a position on Forest Legacy. However, we fully recognize the program has been 

a valuable tool in Montana and other states to encourage and keep private timberlands in active 

forest management 

2. I repeatedly hear from forest groups in Vermont about the pressing need to develop and 

build markets for new products that utilize low grade wood, especially as we try to recover 

from the recent loss of 4 million tons of market demand of pulpwood in New England. In 

your written testimony you mentioned the Community Wood Energy Program as a way to 

invest in markets for low value wood while also addressing some of the Northeast's 

heating/fuel issues. 

Do you support reauthorizing and expanding the Community Wood Energy Program in the 

2018 Farm Bill? 

FFRC does not have a position on the Community Wood Energy Program. 

3. With respect to invasive forest pests do you feel that USDA has sufficient authorizations and 

funding resources to combat forest pests, both those coming to the U.S. through trade 

today and those that have already been introduced in this country? 
216 

The Forest Service and other Federal agencies have sufficient authority to quarantine and control 

non-native, invasive pests. However, on Federal lands, the Forest Service is hamstrung from coping 

with outbreaks of endemic pests, such as various bark beetle, and conducting timely efforts to 

reduce the impact of non-native pests, such as the emerald ash borer. As a for instance, efforts to 

experiment with heavy thinning on ash stands on the Superior and Chippewa National Forests have 

not been completed in a timely fashion. Once the ash borer reaches these stands, mortality is 

quickly expected to reach 100 percent The inability to arrest both native and non-native pests 

before they can cause stand- or watershed-level mortality sterns from the fact that the Forest 

Service does more complex NEPA, and takes far longer to complete it, than any other Federal 

agency in government, hence jeopardizing their ability to effectively combat the pests. 

4. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACE P-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to beginning 

farmers? 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement program to 

help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also protecting that 

farmland that is threatened by development? 

FFRC does not have a position on issues that do not directly impact the management of Federal 

forests. 

5. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 
217 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment limitations 

for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next Farm Bill? If so, 

to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you support reducing 

the time frame under which a farm is held to the current payment limitation for 

EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having that limit apply to only two 

years or three? 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there scenarios 

under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should be given a 

waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some conservation activities 

or projects? 

FFRC does not have a position on issues that do not directly impact the management of Federal 

forests. 
218 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Salem Sa loom 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. Dr. Saloom, you discussed in your testimony how you have engaged with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to secure regulatory assurances under the Endangered Species Act. Is there more that we 

con do in the Farm Bill to streamline that process and perhaps better link Farm Bill conservation 

programs to result in more regulatory certainty for producers? 

For me, the process of securing regulatory assurances for my land, so I can effectively manage my land 

and do voluntary conservation practices that contribute to at-risk species habitat on my land, took at 

least six to eight months, to complete. Additionally, because I have relationships with the state and 

federal agencies that needed to be involved, I had an easier time than most landowners negotiating 

this. Most landowners don't have these types of relationships. If we want more landowners to do 

voluntary conservation that ultimately helps us reduce the need to list species, this time-frame must 

be reduced for landowners who want to do voluntary conservation. 

The Farm Bill currently, through the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, provides some regulatory 

assurances for landowners, but the process is still time consuming. Landowners who are clearly 

implementing conservation practices that NRCS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the state 

wildlife agency determine are known to contribute to at-risk species habitat, should be given a 

streamlined process for regulatory assurances. The Farm bill's conservation programs, like EQIP and 

CSP have a readymade mechanism to sign landowners up for these known practices and monitoring 

progress. I hope the Committee will explore this in their work on the 2018 Farm bill. 

2. What regulatory challenges, or what regulatory uncertainty, do you and other forest land owners 

face from agencies like EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency? 

First and foremost, landowners need to be able to trust agencies. Over time, I built a relationship with 

the Forest Service, NRCS, and US Fish and Wildlife Service on the local and regional field level. They 

visited our property, walked the forests, and had several meetings and discussions with us. Often, 

because of regulatory actions outside of the local staff control, these agents loose trust of landowners, 

this in and of itself creates regulatory uncertainty. 

Additionally, there are four regulatory concerns impacting family forest owners we need to deal with: 

1) The Endangered Species Act. 

Some decisions on ESA enforcement are being based not on science or the expertise of those 

making decisions on the ground, but on the whims of senior level administrators. This must 

end. Additionally, as mentioned above, we strongly urge a more streamlined process for 

landowners, who are conducting voluntary conservation practices that contribute to at-risk 
219 

species habitat, to receive regulatory assurances under ESA. This process is not accessible for 

the average family forest owner and must be made so, as our research and experience shows 

us that when family forest owners are given the choice and the support, they want to make for 

these at-risk fish and wildlife. 

2) EPA's Clean Water Act. 

The Waters of the U.S. rule, if not written properly, could have significant impacts on family 

woodland owners, limiting their ability to manage their lands. One of the best ways to protect 

water quality and quantity is by keeping forests on the land, well managed forests filter our 

water and help regulate water flows and storage as well. Regulations that make it harder for 

families to keep their land in forest, will be contrary to the goal of protecting water quality. 

Most family woodland owners, and all owners in the American Tree Farm System® implement 

best management practices for water quality, which are known to sufficiently protect water 

quality, thus additional regulations are not necessary. 

3) EPA's Federal Purchasing Guidelines. 

In 201S EPA issued federal purchasing guidelines that restrict the use of wood from my land as 

well as the land of thousands of other families certified by the American Tree Farm System, an 

internationally recognized, third-party audited forest certification system. Instead, in these 

guidelines, EPA called for the use of wood from only one forest certification system, the Forest 

Stewardship Council, which is largely foreign-sourced wood. Last fall, the EPA took a step to 

rectifying this issue, declaring their regulation "Under Review", but it is not yet fully resolved. 

This is something Ag Committee must help with in next Farm Bill, as the USDA's biobased 

program, which sets federal purchasing policy too, should be the rule with respect to federal 

purchasing of wood products. 

4) EPA's Biomass policy. 

Another regulatory issue that continues to create uncertainty for the biomass industry, which 

includes both the pellet industry as well as the traditional forest products industry that uses 

biomass for heating and electricity, is the treatment of biomass in renewable energy policy. 

Currently, it's unclear whether biomass is considered a carbon beneficial energy source, and 

therefore is creating uncertainty in the market. We ask that EPA, with the direction from 

Congress provided in the FY 2017 Appropriations bill, recognize the carbon benefits of biomass 

energy and remove this uncertainty, so markets for our low value wood, like biomass markets, 

can grow. 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. The Farm Bill authorizes conservation programs that focus on both "working lands" conservation 

and on "land retirement." In your opinion, which type of USDA conservation programs, working 

lands or land retirement, provide taxpayers with the biggest bank for their buck? That is, which of 

these types of conservation programs get the most environmental benefit for the cost? 

Both "working lands programs" and "retirement programs" have a role in conserving forest landscapes. 

However, in my experience, most landowners do not want to place conservation easements on their 

lands. The working lands programs like EQIP work well for the average landowner and deliver 
220 

incredible benefits for the taxpayer. EQIP also successfully leverages a large amount of landowner 

resources toward established federal conservation goals. 

2. Do you or producers you work with through your organization use cover crops? If yes, can you talk 

about any issues you have had with your crop insurance eligibility related to your use of cover crops 

and whether you think that the crop insurance eligibility rules are making it more difficult to 

implement cover crops? 

We do not use cover crops per se. However, as a forest landowner managing for both timber and 

wildlife, five percent of our woodland holdings are in wildlife openings. We plant not only winter 

crops, but some cover and agriculture crops as well. Clover is one of those, and is utilized not only to 

supplement feeding wildlife in late winter and early spring, but also to help restore nitrogen in soils. It 

is also a supplement for pollinators. We do not maintain crop insurance on these plantings. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. I repeatedly hear from forest groups in Vermont about the pressing need to develop and build 

markets for new products that utilize low grade wood, especially as we try to recover from the 

recent loss of 4 million tons of market demand of pulpwood in New England. In your written 

testimony you mentioned the Community Wood Energy Program as a way to invest in markets for 

low value wood while also addressing some of the Northeast's heating/fuel issues. 

a. How do you feel that expanding this program could help Tree Farmers like yourself in Alabama 

and your colleagues in states like Vermont? 

The problem at this time is that natural gas is so inexpensive that biomass for energy is having difficulty 

finding its place in heating and electricity production. We need more innovative ways to use biomass. 

The supply is out there and low grade wood that is not being managed or harvested is stagnating our 

forests, building up fuels for potential catastrophic wildfires (especially in the West) and making our 

forests less resilient to pests and disease. A program, like an expanded Community Wood Energy 

Program, that helps grow energy markets, as well as other types of markets, for this low-value wood is 

essential. 

As a personal example, we purchased a 40 acre wood lot adjacent to our Tree Farm about a year and a 

half ago. It had been unmanaged and had issues with both invasive species and a severely depressed 

tree stand. This is an ideal site to clear-cut with a chipping operation so that the site can be adequately 

reforested with the appropriate tree species and turned back into a productive forest. Normally, the 

byproduct of this clear-cut, wood chips, would be used for fiber or biomass. However, because there is 

no market for biomass in this area, logging with a chipper is not an option and we are unable to 

proceed with this plan. This isn't an isolated incident; the collapse of diverse wood markets has 

repeated itself around the nation-raising the cost and complexity of forest maintenance on private, 

state, and federal lands. Expanding markets for the use of low value wood would go a long way to 

ensuring forest owners and managers have the tools necessary to maintain their forests. 
221 

b. How do you propose that the Community Wood Energy Program be modified and expanded in 

the next Farm Bill? 

The Farm Bill has an opportunity to dramatically increase the utility of the Community Wood Energy 

Program (CWEP) to rural America. We recommend reauthorizing and revising the Community Wood 

Energy Program, and providing $50 million in annual, mandatory funding to: 

o Support capital investments for advanced wood energy and combined heat and power in public 

AND private facilities; 

o Support other uses of low value, low quality wood with a preference for projects that use forest 

management byproducts and byproducts of wood products manufacturing; and 

o Prioritize projects in areas that need markets for this low value, low quality wood or have 

limited access to pipeline natural gas. 

Additionally, support for the Timber Innovation Act as part of the next Farm Bill would bolster research 

to explore and refine the biomass process for fuel/energy markets-increasing performance and 

maximizing efficiency for the dollars already being spent on biomass. Supporting these innovative 

programs will go a long way in sustaining America's forests. 

2. With respect to invasive forest pests do you feel that USDA has sufficient authorizations to combat 

forest pests, both those coming to the U.S. through trade today and those that have already been 

introduced in this country? 

The best way to prevent forest pests is with well-managed forests, something that many landowners 

{including the government) are struggling with today. We need to first dispel with the notion that we 

can approach this problem on an isolated basis. Outbreaks of invasives, both plant and animal, are 

increasingly frequent and their devastation doesn't end at ownership boundaries. This only further 

highlights the need for cross-boundary, landscape scale work to combat the threat. Simply 

coordinating actions with adjacent landowners, and sometimes assisting with the work performed, can 

make the entire forest landscape more resilient-creating an outsized impact from the limited 

resources invested. Additionally, providing more funding to programs that help landowners manage 

their forests can create a buffer-zone of resiliency to keep pests from getting out-of-hand. 

Opening up innovative markets for wood is a big step forward toward decreasing costs for landowners' 

forest-management. That being said, there are a number of invasive pests {such as the emerald ash 

borer or asian longhorned beetle) that are afflicting certain tree species and require federal 

intervention to bring under control. While we can manage some for these species, these largely come 

in oversees and are difficult to control. For these invasives, we suggest two improvements could be 

made in the next Farm Bill: 

Increasing access to funding for emergency invasive forest pest response before they have a 

direct impact on trees in North America by amending the Plant Protection Act to clarify the 

Secretary's authority to use up to $10 million from existing sources of funds {Commodity Credit 
222 

Corporation) to deal with invasive species emergencies, including when the immediate threat 

to agriculture is "indirect"- i.e., urban trees. 

Prioritizing long-term funding for research to restore forest tree species severely damaged by 

non-native pests within the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture to support 

research through competitive grants. 

Do you feel there ore sufficient resources allocated to fighting tree and wood pests by the Forest 

Service and the Animal Plant Inspection Service? 

The USFS has, for years, been hampered in providing many of their services, due to costly wildfires in 

the West requiring transfers, or "fire borrowing." This wildfire funding deficit has to be permanently 

addressed and fixed so that the usual business of the Service can be carried out. 

With respect to APHIS, we do believe that APHIS funds for controlling forest invasives is often 

inadequate, which is why we recommend the above to allow greater access to emergency funds to 

control these outbreaks. 

3. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for easements 

under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large decrease in the 2014 

Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the witnesses before us today 

should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry operations, with a 

third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one who joined his grandfather 

and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and another who grew up working on his 

family's farm that he now owns and operates with his brothers. But not every farmer or person 

looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a family operation. I hear from countless young 

Vermont farmers who never would have been able to buy their farm ar get a start on their own, had 

it not been for a conservation easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the 

Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program- Agricultural Lands Easement (ACEP-ALE) there is no other Federal program ta support the 

permanent conservation af working farmland in order ta help farmers facing generational transfers 

and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one af the biggest barriers to beginning farmers? 

In the forestry sector, access to forest land isn't so much the issue as our ability to pass our land to the 

next generation. I believe we need appropriate tax laws to mitigate generational transfer loss of both 

types of lands, as well as losing some of these lands to development. We need innovative ways to help 

educate the future generations as to the benefits of farming and forestry. The Farm bill's conservation 

programs, working lands and land retirement both, can help with this challenge. We do support the 
223 

beginning farmer, forest owner, outreach programs in USDA that help new owners be successful in 

their management. 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement program to help 

farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also protecting that farmland 

that is threatened by development? 

As mentioned above, getting access to forest land, in our case, isn't so much an issue as keeping it 

forested and passing to the next generation but certainly, if these tools are provided to farmers in the 

next Farm Bill, making the available to forest owners would be welcome. 

4. I have heard from a number of Vermont formers that they would like to see the current payment 

limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect changing economic 

conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more landowners who contribute to priority 

conservation objectives to make additional conservation improvements on their operations, 

especially those with a large water quality benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also 

mentioned this point in his written testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment limitations for the 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next Farm Bill? If so, to what level 

would you like to see it increased to? Or would you support reducing the time frame under 

which a farm is held to the current payment limitation for EQIP reduced, so rather than for 

the life of the bill having that limit apply to only two years or three? 

In Alabama funding for EQIP is depleted fairly rapidly and those who do not rank among the first to 

qualify have to look at alternatives. From this standpoint, we need more EQIP funding to be able to 

reach a wider audience of forest landowners. 

So payment limit increases need to be balanced with the need to support forest owners and achieve 

the conservation impacts like water quality and wildlife habitat improvement needed on the ground. 

We do support an increase in payment limits on Conservation Title programs to reflect changing 

economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that, if not increased, would reduce program 

participation. We haven't taken a stance on whether this should be an outright increase or change in 

the timeframe, but are open to both options. 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there scenarios under 

which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should be given a waiver authority to 

set a higher payment limitation for some conservation activities or projects? 
224 

As noted above, we support increases in payment limits, although we want to be sure that these 

increases are balanced with the need to support many forest owners. We would be open to an option 

that allows a waiver for higher payment limit authority as well. 
225 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Adam Sharp 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. Mr. Sharp, your testimony illustrates agriculture and voluntary conservation at its best. 

Ohio agriculture and Ohio Farm Bureau are doing great work to proactively address 

water quality issues. Agriculture, as you well know, is often under attack on several 

fronts from regulators and environmental groups. How do we better demonstrate the 

agriculture industry's involvement and contribution to addressing issues like water 

quality as demonstrated in the RCPP project and the edge of field research you discuss 

in your testimony? Agriculture has a positive story to tell, and yet, the message is not 

widely known. 

Simply being more purposeful about taking aggressive proactive measures to address our 

challenges and then share those stories is a great place to start in helping to display what the 

agricultural industry is doing to tackle issues like water quality. Ohio Farm Bureau's efforts to 

collaborate with USDA-NRCS along with other partners to create our Demonstration Farms 

project is a great example. This project is located in the heart of the Western Lake Erie Basin 

along the Blanchard River focusing on conservation efforts. The farm organizations, The Nature 

Conservancy, and other partners involved with this endeavor have voluntarily taken on this 

project as have the three farmers- two row crop and one swine- whose acreage is being used. 

These demonstration farms are serving as models for new innovations that reduce and prevent 

agricultural runoff and those discoveries are being shared with farmers across the watershed 

and the region, land management agencies, policy makers, the media and the public. By 

coupling the conservation practices on these farms with the faces of farmers, especially those 

that are respected in their communities, will help in delivering the positive message of what the 

agricultural community is doing for water quality. When consumers see that farmers and their 

families are just like them, and that they are doing the best they can for clean water, then the 

message means more than just hearing about practices and statistics. We hope this 

personalization will help demonstrate agriculture's commitment. 

Undoubtedly though, as the methods for which individuals consume information continues to 

evolve, agriculture must continue to evolve as well with new and creative ways to better tell our 

story. 

2. Your testimony covers quite extensively water quality issues facing farmers in Ohio. 

What other regulatory challenges, or what regulatory uncertainty, do you and other 

producers face from agencies like EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency? 
226 

Ohio's farmers have an interest in o regulatory process that is transparent and fact-based, 

respects the will of Congress, and observes the separation of powers in the Constitution. Federal 

regulations have a direct impact on farmers and ranchers, and over the years, the breadth and 

extent of that regulatory landscape have increased. The American Farm Bureau Federation and 

Ohio Farm Bureau have taken a stand against regulatory overreach and are working to reform 

the federal regulatory process and preserve farmers' and ranchers' land-use and water rights. 

Rules like Waters of the U.S. {WOTUS) caused great concern amongst our farmers and we are 

very supportive of the Administration's efforts to rescind that rule. Specifically in the Senate, we 

are strongly supporting Senator Portman and Senator Heitkamp as they push for regulatory 

reform through their Regulatory Accountability Act. 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. The Farm Bill authorizes conservation programs that focus on both "working lands" 

conservation and on "land retirement." In your opinion, which type of USDA 

conservation programs, working lands or land retirement, provide taxpayers with the 

biggest bank for their buck? That is, which of these types of conservation programs get 

the most environmental benefit for the cost? 

As an organization, we support all conservation programs but our members have told us time 

and time again, that if reductions in programs need to be made, they prefer to protect working 

lands programs over retirement land programs. 

2. Do you or producers you work with through your organization use cover crops? If yes, 

can you talk about any issues you have had with your crop insurance eligibility related to 

your use of cover crops and whether you think that the crop insurance eligibility rules 

are making it more difficult to implement cover crops? 

We use cover crops on my farm, and I continue to see more and more interest in planting cover 

crops. As for the crop insurance issues, we personally have not had any issues, but numerous 

producers around the country did have a difficult time harmonizing Farm Service Agency {FSA) 

and Risk Management Agency (RMA) cover crop rules. We believe the joint release of updated 

termination and reporting guidelines by FSA, RMA ond the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) last December has helped significantly. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. Your testimony mentioned the important Edge-of-Field Research that the NRCS has been 

supporting in Ohio that has led to a better understanding about how to prevent nutrients 

from escaping from fields. The information being collected across the country through this 

monitoring is invaluable and is being used nationally to identify effective management 

practices, yet the costs for this monitoring, which does not directly benefit the farmer that 

is facilitating this research, is counted against a farm's payment limitation for the 
227 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). 

Do you support addressing this issue in the next Farm Bill to ensure these research projects 

that farmers are helping to facilitate, do not limit the conservation practices they are able to 

implement on their own farms with the NRCS's support through EQIP? 

Yes, we would support a fix for this in the next Farm Bill. If a farmer is willing to partner with 

NRCS or other organizations to allow research on their farms through EQJP that is to be used for 

the broader agricultural community, those EQIP dollars should not be counted against a 

farmer's limits for other conservation practices. We should not penalize a farmer far trying to be 

a good partner and steward. 

Additionally, some consideration should be given ta making sure those farmers wha do 

participate in research projects for the greater good have their individual data and personal 

information protected. 

2. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACE P-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to beginning 

farmers? 

Access to land is certainly an issue for many beginning farmers, but is also a challenge for 

producers of all ages. In farming, there are many significant capital expenditures and land is 

near the top in terms of overall expense. For a beginning farmer to get started farming, access 

to land remains a very high hurdle 
228 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement 

program to help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also 

protecting that farmland that is threatened by development? 

We support efforts to limit a producer's participation in the Conservation Reserve Program to 

two contracts. This should make additional/and available or allow farmers to use ACEP and 

other programs to permanently retire that land. 

3. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one of the members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment limitations 

for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next Farm Bill? If so, 

to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you support reducing 

the time frame under which a farm is held to the current payment limitation for 

EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having that limit apply to only two 

years or three? 

EQ/P remains a very important program and we would support an increase in payment 

limitations for the program. We also would support the opportunity to offer some suggested 

changes to improve EQ/P. Those would include, but are not limited to: 

• Expanding the current NRCS practice of providing 30 percent of conservation practice 

payments up front, to all farmers; 

• Allowing an exemption to the NRCS manual for EQIP money to be used for streambank 

stabilization practices prior to the adjacent land's expiration in a Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) contract or a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

contract; 

• Funding to ensure that landowners are adequately compensated whenever property is 

used for purposes intended to achieve mandated natural resource goals; 

• An exemption from the current three-year payment limit for the same practice under 

EQIP for practices that benefit wildlife and have a continual cost to the farmer or rancher 

implementing them. 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there scenarios 

under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should be given a 

waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some conservation activities 

or projects? 
229 

Farm Bureau does not have a position on this issue. 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

1) Ohio Farm Bureau has been a leader in working with its members to support 

legislative policies and adopt best practices that will benefit water quality and 

improve soil health for all Ohioans. Can you tell the committee how your members 

are using USDA programs-including the Conservation Stewardship Program and 

other tools made available under the Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

(RCPP) and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative-on the farm? Do you think Ohio 

would be able to meet its water quality goals without these programs? 

Ohio's agriculture and conservation organizations took an active role in supporting the Farm 

Bill's Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and committed resources to this publicprivate partnership. Farmers have been eager to participate in the voluntary programs funded 

under the RCPP that allows them to implement on-ground conservation practices far sediment 

and nutrient management. 

We appreciate that Congress, and this committee specifically, saw the importance of these 

programs. These dollars were used for critical an-farm needs including animal waste systems 

and storages, lot covers and roofs, controlled drainage structures, cover crops, drainage water 

management, nutrient management plans, waterways, crop rotations and multi-year cover 

crops. 

In 2015, USDA awarded $17.5 million to a Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP-Tri 

State WLEB) in the western Lake Erie watershed. The targeted approach focuses efforts on the 

855,000 acres that have been identified as the most critical areas to treat within the larger 7-

mi//ion-acre watershed within Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. The RCPP project: 1) expands access 

to public and private technical assistance, 2) supports new and ongoing innovative conservation 

practices, and 3) provides expertise for modeling and evaluating outcomes to farmers in critical 

sub-watersheds. The 5-year multi-state project includes more than 40 collaborating public and 

private sector organizations with representation from Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, state and 

local governments, as well as non-profit entities, universities, and private sector businesses 

committing an additional $28 million to the project. 

The projects funded through RCPP and GLRI have been absolutely critical to our agricultural 

water quality efforts in Ohio. They provide a combination of on-the-ground solutions that can 

be used now as well as researching practices that will be the basis of our conservation efforts in 

the future. 

2) For a state like Ohio, what would a decreased emphasis on a non-targeted 

Conservation Reserve Program mean both for acreage enrolled in the conservation 

program and overall water quality in the Western Lake Erie Basin? 
230 

It would be very difficult to speculate on how o change of emphasis on the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP} would impact enrollment and water quality. Overall, as on organization our 

policy promotes working lands programs over retirement land programs. 

While CRP remains on important program, we would support the opportunity to offer some 

suggested changes to improve the program. Those would include, but ore not limited to: 

• Requiring USDA to update rental rote data for the Conservation Reserve Program every 

year rather than every other year. 

• Copping the pollinator rental rote at the lower of $300 per acre or 90% of the overage 

county cosh rent for the type of land that is entered into the pollinator program. 

• Allowing adequate flexibility in establishment practices and mid-contract maintenance 

for acres enrolled in the CRP to completely control any noxious weeds or problem species 

that may have been introduced in the pollinator plot. 

In addition, we do not support increasing the cap on the CRP above the current 24 million acre cop nor 

allowing the same parcel of land to be re-enrolled in the general CRP after the conclusion of two 

contracts. 

3) In your testimony, you touched on how successful programs like RCPP have been in 

reducing runoff and improving the water quality around crop production. As you 

know, Northwest Ohio has seen an increase in recent years in the number of its 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). How can the Ohio Farm Bureau 

and other statewide organizations use RCPP to improve the environmental 

stewardship of CAFOs? What other USDA conservation resources are helpful in 

ensuring proper stewardship of CAFOs? 

Ohio is considered a model throughout the country for our regulatory program for our 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). We have strict regulations surrounding the 

environmental stewardship protocols that must be used on CAFOs, such as a zero-discharge 

policy, and a list of standards for manure handling, storage, application rates and timing to 

name a few. 

While our CAFOs must work closely with the Ohio Department of Agriculture to meet their 

regulatory and statutory requirements, the ability for livestackfarmers of all sizes to be able to 

access programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP} is important. The 

EQIP program has been used to help disseminate the RCPP dollars and has been a success. 

Currently, EQIP prioritizes funding being targeted to a// livestock producers and we support that 

current prioritization. 
231 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Tom Tidwell 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. Chief Tidwell, how does the Forest Service utilize the best available science and data in the 

agency's decision making processes under the Endangered Species Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act? Under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, the Forest Service is required to ensure that actions are not likely to 

jeopardize a threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat. Please describe the 

science and data relied upon by the Forest Service, during the consultation process. Also, 

has the Forest Service been successful in defending final agency actions in lawsuits brought 

under the ESA? 

Answer: These statutes impose fundamental legal requirements on the Forest Service to 

consider relevant factors, including the relevant scientific information, and explain the basis 

for its decisions. For example, NEPA requires agencies to ensure the scientific integrity of 

their discussions and analyses in Environmental Impact Statements, and requires agencies to 

make explicit references to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions. 

Scientific information informs decision-making processes. However, this information does 

not dictate what the decision will be. The information may lead the Agency to a range of 

possible actions. There also may be competing scientific perspectives and uncertainty in the 

scientific information. In that case the Forest Service must determine which information is 

most accurate, reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered. The Forest Service makes 

these determinations using interdisciplinary agency expertise and professional judgment. 

Scientific information is one of the factors relevant to decision-making. Other factors 

include budget, legal authority, local and indigenous knowledge, agency policies, public 

input, and the experience ofland managers. 

The Forest Service has been generally successful in defending final agency actions in 

lawsuits brought under the Endangered Species Act. Over a 22 month period (October 1, 

2015 to present) the Forest Service won 74 percent of cases involving Endangered Species 

Act allegations. Although the Agency was successful in defending this type of litigation, 

project implementation was delayed and considerable resources in time and dollars were 

spent defending the projects. 

2. Chief Tidwell, what portion of the lawsuits regarding National Environmental Policy Act 

categorical exclusions at the Agency are on those authorized by the Farm Bill? Also, please 

describe how the Forest Service assesses whether "extraordinary circumstances" exist when 

deciding whether to apply a categorical exclusion. 
232 

Answer: As of June 2017, the Forest Service has proposed 94 projects using the Farm Bill 

insect and disease authority; 79 of these have been categorical exclusions. Litigation has 

been filed against 4 projects using the Farm Bill's categorical exclusion authority. 

The Forest Service uses a list of resource conditions to consider in determining whether 

extraordinary circumstances are present. The mere presence of one of these resource 

conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. Instead, extraordinary 

circumstances are present when there is both a cause-effect relationship between the 

proposed action and the resource condition; and, if such a relationship exists, the degree of 

the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions. The list of resources 

conditions includes factors such as congressionally designated wilderness areas, federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, and Native American religious or cultural sites. This 

process is outlined in the Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(b). 

3. Chief Tidwell, has the Forest Service been sued under the Administrative Procedures Act 

(AP A)? Can you characterize the type of analysis that is done under the AP A by the 

agency? What are the challenges regarding APA litigation? 

Answer: Yes, when an entity sues the Forest Service over its project planning, analysis, and 

decision-making, it usually brings the lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). Most environmental and forest management statutes do not provide a private right of 

action for judicial review (the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act are two 

exceptions). Courts review the Forest Service's compliance with NEPA and other statutes 

such as the National Forest Management Act in conjunction with the AP A's judicial review 

provision. Under the APA, a court may set aside an agency action only if it is "arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." While the 

agency generally does not perform analysis specific to the AP A, the analysis the agency 

completes under NEPA and other related statutes forms the basis ofthe court's review as the 

administrative record. 

Although most plaintiff claims fall under these more typical environmental laws, plaintiffs 

may bring lawsuits that seek to compel ministerial agency actions they consider unlawfully 

withheld or unreasonably delayed. In FY 2015, those claims amounted to approximately 15 

percent of all allegations. These claims usually fall into several broad categmies including: a 

failure to take action (e.g., failure to complete a management or operating plan, a bond or 

environmental review; failure to minimize impacts); an action unlawfully withheld (e.g., 

refusing to document an easement or refusing to acknowledge the plaintiff's request for a 

specific agency action- petition for rulemaking); and a failure to respond in a timely manner. 

4. The Farm Bill provided authority to the Forest Service to treat landscapes impacted by insect 

and disease infestations under a categorical exclusion for up to 3,000 acres. However in 

practice, only a fraction of allowable acres are treated under this authority. What would you 

suggest to increase the efficacy of categorical exclusions? 
233 

Answer: Many factors can contiibute to a project authorized using this authority applying to 

less than 3,000 acres. First, the size of a treatment area will vary according to the specifics of 

the individual project area and its restoration needs. The collaborative process required by 

this authority can result in project design modifications. Treatment areas may need to be 

reduced to comply with forest plan requirements, mitigate adverse effects to sensitive 

resources (such as a threatened or endangered species or cultural site). Lastly, treatment acres 

are sometimes reduced due to inoperable areas within a project (such as steep slopes, 

wetlands, rock outcroppings, or other non-forested areas). Nevertheless, many of the projects 

proposed using this categorical exclusion authorize upwards of 2,000 acres of treatments. 

Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow 

1. In this Committee and others I sit on, we are often talking about the need for the Forest 

Service to increase the pace and scale of national forest restoration. If you had to name the 

biggest impediment to accomplishing more restoration on our national forests, would that 

impediment be a lack of resources? Yes or no? 

Answer: Yes. The shift in resources to firefighting activities, from about 16% of budget in 

1995 to just over half our budget today has had an outsized effect on our capacity and ability 

to get more restoration work done on the ground. Within the resources Congress has 

provided, the agency has been able to increase the pace and scale of restoration by 23% since 

2011 (as measured by acres treated) by taking a number of actions including expanding 

collaborative partnerships: implementing key Farm Bill authorities, such as Good Neighbor 

Authority; expanding use of stewardship contracting; and improving program integration in 

planning and budgeting. 

2. During the last administration, the Forest Service made progress in increasing the amount of 

timber sold off our national forests year after year. Is that trend continuing? 

Answer: Yes. In FY 2016 the Forest Service sold 2.9 billion board feet (bbt) of timber, and 

we are on track to sell3.2 bbfin FY 2017. The FY18 Budget includes a plan to sell3.4 bbf 

in FY 2018. This trend is indicative of our commitment to increase the pace and scale of 

forest restoration and contribute to rural economies. 

3. Would you be able to sell more timber off our national forests were you not forced to spend 

such a large portion of your budget suppressing wildfires? 

Answer: Yes. With more intense fire activity in recent years, funding the 1 0-year average 

has required a greater percentage of agency funds each year-and that trend is continuing. In 

addition, uncertainty about the scale and timing of fire borrowing disrupts or constrains the 

pace and scale of projects underway and our ability to plan restoration projects in subsequent 

years. We would be able to increase our restoration activities, and sell more timber, if we 

could apply some of the resources currently going into fighting wildfire to this work. 
234 

4. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Crapo to drive more research and 

development into so-called "mass timber" applications that would create new markets for 

forest products, particularly wood that is not suitable for sawtimber. Can you talk about the 

Forest Service's perspective on the potential of mass timber to drive job creation and serve as 

an economic incentive to help thin and restore overstocked forest stands? 

Answer: Strong markets for mass timber can serve as an economic incentive to help thin and 

restore overstocked forest stands. By supporting the market for mass timber, we are creating 

opportunities for new, high tech jobs in rural communities: managing the land, harvesting 

trees, operating mills, producing mass timber panels, and operating machinery and software 

to cut the panels. Stronger markets may also incentivize private forest land owners to invest 

in sustainable forest management and keep their lands forested instead of converting it to 

other uses. 

The Forest Service is promoting mass timber using a wide range of tools, such as the Wood 

Innovations grant program and providing training opportunities to thousands of architects 

and engineers. The Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) also contributes to efforts to stimulate 

national markets for mass timber. · 

Senator Steve Daines 

I. In the context of the upcoming Farm Bill and authorities we provided in 2014, such as the 

use and success of categorical exclusions, will you recommend to the new Administration 

that they support increasing the size and scope of CEs on prioritized landscapes, particularly 

if the projects are developed through a public, collaborative process and address pressing 

forest health challenges? 

Answer: The Forest Service is interested in exploring the potential effect of additional 

categorical exclusion authorities to address restoration priorities and forest health. 

2. In addition to wildfire funding reform and broader CEs, are there ways to build upon Good 

Neighbor Authority partnerships, such as legislation I introduced with my friend Senator 

Klobuchar, to further empower State Foresters to increase the pace and scale of treatment on 

landscapes across ownership boundaries that arc susceptible to wildfire? 

Answer: The Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service to enter into cooperative 

agreements or contracts with States and Puerto Rico to aJlow them to perform watershed 

restoration and forest management services on federal and non-federal lands, including those 

susceptible to wildfire. Agreement templates for both authorities were approved in June 

2015. They also allow us to leverage capacity with state and private partners to meet timber 

targets and Forest Plan goals. As of June 26, 2017, a total of95 agreements in 29 states have 

been executed with the Forest Service to perform a variety of restoration services. 
235 

The Forest Service continues to look for innovative and efficient ways to engage and partner 

with state forestry agencies. In previous years, we have successfully provided fmancial and 

technical support to these partners through our State and Private Forestry programs. 

The FY 2018 President's budget reduces funding for some State and Private Forestry 

activities to focus resources on maintaining existing national forests and grasslands. This 

budget will require greater shared stewardship of the land between the Forest Service, other 

Federal agencies, and state and local communities to achieve our goals. 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

I. Forests serve as a tremendous ecological and economic resource, and we have a growing 

need to strengthen markets for low grade and low value wood in New England and 

throughout the county. We saw in Vermont and across New England that when the pulp and 

paper market dropped it appeared to kill the entire forest value chain. In different areas of the 

country this issue takes many names, including small-diameter utilization, greater use of nonselect species, or parts yield from low-grade lumber. One area for opportunity is in the 

growing use of thermal and combined heat and power (CHP) uses of wood energy to create 

new markets and demand for low grade wood, while also retaining wealth in rural economies 

through local renewable fuel sources replacing imported fossil fuels. 

a. How has the Forest Service helped to support the development of wood-fired CHP 

infrastructure? 

Answer: The Forest Service supports the development of wood-fired combined heat 

and power (CHP) infrastructure through our Wood Innovation Grants. These grants 

are designed to stimulate and expand wood energy and wood products markets that 

contribute to the long-term management of the National Forest System and other 

forest lands. One collaboration funded through these grants are Statewide Wood 

Energy Teams. These teams work to promote commercially proven wood energy 

systems, such as CHP, that use woody biomass, and also work to expand markets that 

convert woody biomass into energy to support wildfire mitigation, forest restoration, 

and other forest management goals. New England, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

and Massachusetts have all established Statewide Wood Energy Teams working to 

promote and educate the public about wood energy. 

b. Are there areas where the Forest Service could do more research or offer support to 

grow the use of wood in thermal energy markets and grow the demand for pellets, 

wood chips, and thermal wood energy appliances? 

Answer: Forest Service researchers played a significant role in developing the 

Northwest Advanced Renewable Alliance wood waste-to-bio jet fuel conversion 

technology and in the marketing of the program. The Northwest Advanced Renewable 

Alliance's bio jet fuel was recently demonstrated in an Alaska Airlines flight from 

Seattle to Washington DC. The Forest Service also provides project management 

support for the Consortium for Advanced Wood-to-Energy Solutions torrefaction 

project. The goal of the torrefaction project is to demonstrate the feasibility of using 
236 

torrefied wood for co-firing with coal in power plants. Significant opportunities exist 

for potential increases in thermal wood energy use in specific sectors that use high 

volumes of propane or fuel oil. Forest Service researchers continue to develop high 

value fuel products from existing in-house technologies. Forest Service will continue 

our discussions with the hardwood industry and other sectors of the forest products 

industry to facilitate market developments for undervalued wood and mill residue. 

c. How could the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Program help to expand wood 

energy markets? 

Answer: The Forest Service Wood Innovations Program can help expand wood energy 

markets by building on the priority projects identified by the Statewide Wood Energy 

Teams. 

2. With respect to commercializing new forest products using low grade wood, there appear to 

be many programs to support a business once it has an idea and is up and running, yet the 

missing link is getting product ideas into the hands of entrepreneurs and then supporting 

them to build a business around it. 

a. Are there ways that the Wood Innovations Program could focus more on expanding 

wood products markets? Are there sufficient resources and funding in that program 

to meet the need for commercializing new forest products using low grade wood? 

Answer: The Forest Service funds both traditional forest product businesses and those 

with new, innovative wood products, such as mass plywood materials. In FY 2017, we 

awarded over $8.3 million to fund 38 projects (26 related to wood products markets and 

12 related to wood energy) in 19 states, which leveraged almost $37 million in 

matching funds from 36 business, university, nonprofit, and tribal partners. As the grant 

program has expanded, we have been able to make a greater impact helping meet the 

need for commercializing new forest products using low grade wood. 

b. Has the Forest Service ever worked with the Small Business Administration's Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program to support the need for wood 

innovation projects? 

Answer: Forest Service Research and Development is a financial contributor to the 

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Small Business Innovation Research 

Program, which includes development of value-added products from forest resources 

and development ofbiofuels and bio products developed from biomass from the forest. 

Forest Service scientists and professional staffs are often invited as panelists or ad-hoc 

reviewers in proposal review of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Innovation Research 

programs in other federal agencies where topics include forest-based materials. 

3. The 2014 Farm Bill sought to ease previous restrictions on forest-thinning projects when 

trees are threatened by insect infestation and disease, in order to increase the speed with 

which the Forest Service could address natural resource issues. The Farm Bill made changes 
237 

to both Categorical Exclusions and streamlined Environmental Analyses to allow the Forest 

Service to implement forest insect and disease treatments on certain national forest acres. 

a. Can you share with the Committee how many projects have utilized this new 

authority? 

Answer: As of June 2017, the Forest Service has proposed 94 projects using the Farm 

Bill insect and disease authority; 79 of these have been categorical exclusions. 

b. Do you believe that this new authority has permitted the Forest Service to create 

and implement restoration projects at a faster rate than it previously could? 

Answer: Yes, this authority has allowed the Forest Service to implement projects more 

quickly than it otherwise could. This is especially the case for projects using the 

categorical exclusions. On average, projects using Farm Bill Insect and Disease 

categorical exclusions are completed within 220 days. Without the Farm Bill authority, 

these projects would comply with NEPA through an environmental assessment. The 

national average for completion of an environmental assessment is roughly 700 days. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

I. My state has a long history of successfully preserving our natural resources in northern 

Minnesota while also allowing for responsible mining. I have opposed efforts to weaken 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because I trust that the process in place 

allows for a stringent environmental review and public input to ensure that all proposed 

projects are based on detailed scientific evidence with a clear commitment to protect our 

natural resources for future generations. Late last year the Forest Service denied consent 

on two mineral leases in the Superior National Forest and proposed withdrawing 

234,000-acres from the leasing program for a 20-year period. 

What factors went into the U.S. Forest Service's decision? What actions are the Forest 

Service taking to ensure that decisions on mineral leases are reached in a fair and 

consistent manner? 

Answer: The Forest Service understands the important economic and national security 

benefits provided by mineral extraction and supports mining as a legitimate activity on 

National Forest System lands. However, mining is not appropriate on all places within 

the National Forest System. 

On June 3, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requested the Forest Service 

provide a decision on whether it consents to renewal of two leases held by Twin Metals 

for lands within the Superior National Forest. On December 14, 2016, the Forest Service 

submitted a letter to the BLM stating the Forest Service did not consent to the renewal of 

the leases. The Forest Service believes that the inherent potential risk associated with 

development of a regionally untested copper-nickel sulfide ore mine within the same 
238 

watershed as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness was unacceptable. The BLM 

in turn rejected the renewal application. 

In evaluating a specific mineral development proposal, the Forest Service balances the 

benefits and environmental concerns associated with that proposal with the effect of such 

development on the protection of the NFS lands in question and the management of the 

multiple uses of those lands. In the case of Twin Metals, the specific issues the Forest 

Service considered included the potential environmental consequences of mineral 

development given the unique attributes of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, 

the nature and uses ofthe Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness by the public and 

tribes, the relative economic benefits of mineral development and wilderness recreation, 

public opinion, the difficulty of predicting the environmental consequences of coppernickel sulfide ore mining given its rarity in this region, the uses and need for the copper 

and nickel deposits thought to underlie the leaseholds, and current laws and policy. 

2. The Empowering State Forestry to Improve Forest Health Act, a bill that I have 

introduced with Senator Daines, would improve coordination across federal and private 

boundaries to tackle the difficult management and wildfire challenges that many rural 

forest communities face. The Forest Service has many goals, including reducing wildfire 

risk, preventing and combatting invasive species outbreaks, and increasing jobs through 

forest-based economies. 

What value would taking a "landscape" approach to federal forest management, including 

incorporating state and private forestlands, have in meeting these goals? 

Answer: Implementing a landscape scale approach to federal forest management that 

includes state and private forests ensures that our Nation's forestlands will continue to 

provide important benefits to the American public. There are over 640 million acres of 

non-Federal forest lands in the United States-more than two-thirds of the Nation's 

forests. These important resources generate millions of dollars in forest products revenues 

and recreation spending; provide well-paying rural and green industry jobs; supply 

almost 30 percent of the surface drinking water to cities and rural communities; and 

support imperiled wildlife and fish species. A landscape scale approach transcends 

jurisdictional boundaries allowing landowners to focus on restoring healthy and resilient 

by effectively and efficiently addressing wildland fire risks and invasive species 

outbreaks. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

New and Beginning Farmers 

1) By 2030, more than 1.7 million acres of New York farmland will transition to the next 

generation. I am concerned that without the right programs in place, many of these acres will 

be consolidated into ever-larger farms that become permanently inaccessible to beginning 

farmers. This could have a significant negative affect on the health and strength of our rural 

communities. 
239 

How are your Services working together to ensure that all conservation programs are 

coordinated and work well for beginning farmers? 

Answer: The Forest Stewardship Program, delivered through state forestry agencies, partners 

with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (EQIP), Farm Service Agency (CRP), 

Cooperative Extension, and other organizations to provide coordinated outreach, information 

and technical assistance to private landowners. For example, the Forest Stewardship Program 

provides funding to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to build and 

sustain working relationships with private landowners to promote the long-term management 

of their forestland. In FY 2016 the Department of Environmental Conservation provided 

technical assistance and education to 2,995 ofNew York's private forest landowners. Almost 

675,000 forested acres in the state are covered by an active Forest Stewardship Plan. 

Privately owned forests provide numerous public benefits including timber, clean air and 

water, and wildlife habitat. 

Pollinators 

2) The 2008 Farm Bill made pollinator health a priority in all USDA conservation programs. 

The 2014 Farm Bill maintained those provisions and added an emphasis on expanding and 

improving honeybee habitat. After more than a decade of conservation work, our wild 

pollinators and honeybees continue to struggle. 

A survey of New York beekeepers showed that this past winter, nearly 48 percent of our 

honeybee hives failed. The problems of pesticides, mites, disease, and limited forage were 

compounded by a terrible drought during the summer. 

What more should the Committee do to help NRCS and the other Services assist farmers who 

depend on pollinators? 

Answer: Environmental stressors such as pesticides, pests, and pathogens change the way 

pollinators sustain primary productivity. Land management activities within the home range 

of bees impact the diversity and quantity of flower nectar sources, and hence, bee 

populations. An ecosystem approach to understanding pollinator population changes is 

necessary to support pollinator health, the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity 

and populations, and pollination ecology. TI1e 2015 federal Pollinator Research Action Plan 

identifies priority research efforts to understand and address pollinator health. The Pollinator 

Research Action Plan addresses five areas in order to expand our understanding of the 

complex interacting factors that affect pollinator health, namely (1) setting a baseline, (2) 

assessing environmental stressors, (3) restoring habitat with effective land management 

practices, and by developing native plant supplies, (4) understanding and supporting 

stakeholders, and (5) curating and sharing knowledge. Further, Forest Service research is 

focused on host plant and pollinator relationships, ecosystem restoration techniques, and 

habitat management alternatives. This research informs solutions that integrate agricultural 

and forestland, habitat creation, habitat restoration of roadsides, restoration of fire-damaged 

areas and riparian areas, native plant propagation, removal of invasive shrubs and invasive 

insect predators, restoration using prescribed fire, and bee monitoring. 
240 

The 2015 National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators 

identified a goal of restoring or enhancing 7 million acres of land for pollinators over five 

year timeframe. The Forest Service continues working on improving the quality and quantity 

of overall acreage for pollinators. Since 2015, the Forest Service has restored or enhanced 

over 600,000 acres of pollinator habitat. This work supports both honeybees and native 

pollinators. In support of USDA food security initiatives and Farm Bill programs committed 

to pollinator health, the FS prioritizes the development of pollinator-friendly native plant 

material needed for restoration work. The pollinator-friendly native plants are produced in FS 

nurseries or through contracts with private nurseries. FS also allows managed honey bees to 

forage on National Forest System lands where compatible with other natural resource 

management priorities. 

Farmers who depend upon pollinators benefit from enhanced technical and fmancial support 

through Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP), for the use of woody perennial plants (trees and shrubs) as pollinator habitat. 

Such plants can be integrated into farm field borders, windbreaks, and other edge-of-field 

and in-field practices. Forests woody perennials provide pollinator nesting habitat, nectar, 

and pollen throughout the growing season as well as protection from pesticide exposure. 

They also help to improve the efficiency of pollination by protecting crops from wind. 
241 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

Conservation and Forestry: Perspectives on the Past and Future Direction for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 29, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Christopher Topik 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

1. Your testimony mentioned that the Farm Bill easement programs are important to both 

conservation and to private landowners who need assistance to make the most of their 

properties. 

a. Can you further share with the Committee the importance of supporting forestland 

protection in the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program- Agricultural lands 

Easement {ACEP-ALE)? 

Topik: Our scientific assessments and our knowledge ofthe role afforests in 

communities strongly suggest to us that it is essential to America to maintain strong 

forest cover for many reasons such as discussed in my testimony. Private forest land 

owners are under many stresses so they need help with various tools to make continued 

working forestland possible. The ACEP-ALE approach is one of the most economically 

efficient ways of keeping forests as forests, and to help private forest land owners to 

steward their properties while the rest of us benefit from the various ecosystem services 

they provide. 

b. Is it your opinion that the NRCS has not followed Congressional intent from the 2014 

Farm Bill that clearly laid out that eligible land included "nonindustrial private forest 

land that contributes to the economic viability of an offered parcel or serves as a 

buffer to protect such land from development" yet they have set an arbitrary 2/3 

forested acreage limitation that has limited forest enrollment? 

Topik: The regulatory decision by NRCS to limit nonindustrial private forest land does not 

appear to be consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill statute. 

2. One of the threats that Vermont forestland owners pay close attention to is invasive species. 

A single infestation of emerald ash borer or Asian long-hom beetle could eliminate all of the 

value for a forest property almost overnight and could quickly wipe out our forest economy 

in Vermont. fu addition, invasive plants may prevent regeneration of the forest after a 

logging job. The insects may vary by state and region, but I don't imagine that the threat is 

any less. 

Are you concerned about the threat of invasive species to TNC owned forest land, as well as 

other private forest lands in the country? 

Topik: Yes. Invasive species- insects, plants, and others- already have a 

significant impact on forest health, productivity and ecosystem services on private 
242 

and public lands, and the threat continues to grow as additional invasives arrive and 

extend their ranges in response to climate change and other environmental factors. 

Management of invasives on TNC lands in Vermont is one of our largest and most 

persistent stewardship challenges. 

3· I hear often from Vermont woodland owners worried about dangerous invasive species 

entering the United States through contaminated wood packaging. 

What do you see as the role of the U.S. Forest Service and USDA APHIS or other federal 

agencies in addressing this threat and stopping these dangerous invasive forest and 

agricultural pests before they enter the country? Is enough being down to stop these invasive 

pests from entering the country? 

Topik: Federal agencies need to provide strong leadership and action to prevent the 

arrival of new pests into the country. Once they are here it is often too late - it's 

likely to be much harder to control or manage an invasion by a new species with no 

native predators/competitors than it is to head it off before it gets established. The 

vector for these invasions is international commerce, so the primary responsibility 

and leadership for addressing this threat rests at the federal level. The Forest Service 

role is to provide science, inventory and expert guidance and the role of APHIS is to 

help with enforcement at the borders, along with the DHS agencies. 

4. Despite the many benefits of protecting working agricultural lands, the funding for 

easements under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) saw a large 

decrease in the 2014 Farm Bill. But development pressure on farmland is on the rise and the 

witnesses before us today should count themselves fortunate that they have been able to 

navigate generational transfers. 

The panel you were a part of represented a diverse array of farming and forestry 

operations, with a third generation cattle producer who farms with her two daughters, one 

who joined his grandfather and mother in the operation, one now farming with a son, and 

another who grew up working on his family's farm that he now owns and operates with his 

brothers. But not every farmer or person looking to get into farming is that lucky to join a 

family operation. I hear from countless young Vermont farmers who never would have been 

able to buy their farm or get a start on their own, had it not been for a conservation 

easement and a dedicated partner like the Vermont Land Trust or the Vermont Housing and 

Conservation Board. Other than the Agricultural Conservation Easement ProgramAgricultural Lands Easement (ACE P-ALE) there is no other Federal program to support the 

permanent conservation of working farmland in order to help farmers facing generational 

transfers and beginning farmers just starting out on their own. 

a. Do you think the issue of access to land is one of the biggest barriers to beginning 

farmers? 
243 

Topik: Yes, access to affordable land is a significant barrier for many beginning farmers. 

Support to various agencies and NGOs that can help train young farmers be more successful is 

important. 

b. Would you support efforts through our voluntary agriculture land easement 

program to help farmers get on land they could not otherwise afford, while also 

protecting that farmland that is threatened by development? 

Topik: Yes, the Conservancy supports efforts to use easements to protect farmland, which can 

result in helping farmers buy land that would not otherwise be affordable. 

5. I have heard from a number of Vermont farmers that they would like to see the current 

payment limitations for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program increased to reflect 

changing economic conditions in agriculture and forestry that would allow more 

landowners who contribute to priority conservation objectives to make additional 

conservation improvements on their operations, especially those with a large water quality 

benefit. At least one ofthe members of this panel also mentioned this point in his written 

testimony. 

a. Do you support having the next Farm Bill increase the current payment limitations 

for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) in the next Farm Bill? If so, 

to what level would you like to see it increased to? Or would you support reducing 

the time frame under which a farm is held to the current payment limitation for 

EQIP reduced, so rather than for the life of the bill having that limit apply to only two 

years or three? 

Topik: The Conservancy supports efforts to increase EQIP payment limitations. We support 

raising the limit to $1 million per farmer per farm bill. Yet, if the payment limitation is not 

increased to this level, we would support reducing the duration of the limit to two or three 

years." 

b. Lastly, if an increase for all farmers and projects is not possible, are there scenarios 

under which you think the Secretary or the Chief of the NRCS should be given a 

waiver authority to set a higher payment limitation for some conservation activities 

or projects? 

Topik: If an increase in the EQIP payment limit is not possible, the Conservancy 

supports providing the Secretary, and delegating to the Chief of NRCS, with authority to 

waive EQIP payment limitations for specific projects funded under the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program and related programs that are able to enhance the 

land's ability to provide clear, quality water, flood absorption/risk reduction, and/or 

wildlife habitat benefits. 

0