NASCA Farm Bill Recommendations

February 9, 2023

The NASCA Farm Bill Committee was assembled by the Board of Directors, formally appointed by the NASCA President, and began meeting approximately monthly in July 2022. Since that time, the committee has solicited input from membership through regional communications and meetings and outreach to partners. Additional input was requested from members at this 2022 NASCA Annual Meeting. Committee members have been contacted to share input through one-on-one discussion. These recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NASCA Policy Committee and Board of Directors.

NASCA Farm Bill Committee Members

• Shana Joy, NASCA Vice President
• Kathy Gotcher, AL
• Lillian Ruiz, CT
• Susan Kozak, IA
• Andy Lyon, KS
• John Switzer, MI
• Frank Minch, NJ
• John Foster, TX
• Chris Pettit, WA
• Justin Caudill, WY

At its first meeting, the NASCA Farm Bill Committee selected Shana Joy to chair the group and determined sideboards for the committee:

• Focus primarily on the Conservation Title but also consider input on the Forestry, Energy, and Crop Insurance Titles,
• Develop a list of specific NASCA agenda items for next Farm Bill,
• Seek like-minded partners on Farm Bill issues,
• Limit communication with other groups to broad topic matters,
• Develop recommendations for board, staff, and member actions, and
• Provide reports to membership with the first to occur at the 2022 Annual Meeting.

These sideboards have provided the framework for committee work and this report, which focuses on several Farm Bill programs considered to be key for conservation delivery by our partnership. The committee welcomes input from membership and our core partners. We have also maintained a connection with NACD’s Farm Bill Task Force through the efforts of Chris Pettit (WA) who is serving on both groups. The challenges described in this report are not intended to criticize any of our partners who we value tremendously. These are simply observations of real-life impediments to putting conservation on the ground in as efficient and effective a manner possible, with suggestions on how programs might be improved.

General Comments

• Match requirements continue to separate the haves from the have-nots.
• Practice payment scenarios and acreage rental rates are not keeping up with inflation and rising project costs which can be exacerbated even further by program delays.
• Program delivery was far more efficient when each NRCS state office had its own agreements and human resources staff.
• Increase flexibility around Farm Bill financial assistance payment caps.

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

The Conservation Technical Assistance program, as described by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “provides our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and forestland owners with the knowledge and tools they need to conserve, maintain and restore the natural resources on their lands and improve the health of their operations for the future.”1

CTA is the foundation of service that allows NRCS to engage with NASCA members, conservation districts, tribes, communities, and others to connect them with the depth of information and programs available through NRCS and USDA. Without this program and vital funding that is not tied to applications to a specific financial assistance program, it is very difficult to fully engage working lands managers in conservation, empower partners to work in lock-step with NRCS to leverage capacity and build and maintain a fully trained conservation workforce.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• We are seeing less emphasis (and funding) for technical assistance that is not tied to a specific program or application; this is detrimental to full program participation and implementation. Increases in federal investment in conservation programs as well as new ecosystem services markets arising where NRCS or partners may be called upon for technical expertise further stresses the core partnership’s technical assistance workforce.
• An ongoing lack of fully trained staff both within NRCS and partners to provide high quality technical assistance.
• A lack of adequate engineering and technical design expertise within NRCS leading to the unintended consequences of more financial assistance funding directed to annual management practices vs. more permanent structural practices that have a greater likelihood of long-term benefits.

Recommendations

• Direct more funding to and put more emphasis upon CTA as a critical program on its own.
• Fund NRCS staff and partners to provide technical assistance uncoupled from program applications or contracts.
• Increase investment and emphasis on training NRCS as well as partner staff.
• Remove or reduce match for CTA agreements to reduce disparity between partners with ready cash and those limited to governmental budget cycles to allow for greater flexibility and impact.

1 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical

Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWPP)

EWPP, administered by NRCS, is intended to help communities recover after a natural
disaster.

“The program offers technical and financial assistance to help local communities relieve
imminent threats to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms and other
natural disasters that impair a watershed.2” EWPP is admittedly a valuable tool in the
box following a natural disaster, but some challenges continue to hamper full or timely
utilization of this program.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• Implementation of EWPP is not realistic as ‘emergency response.’ Emergency
  response brings to mind first-responders or immediate actions but that is not
  typically the timeframe for this program. Significant delays awaiting
  identification and commitment of a project sponsor as well as Congressional
  appropriations processes are detrimental to landowner assistance efforts and
  hazardous natural resource conditions persist or worsen.
• There is no annual appropriation for EWPP. Particularly for large disaster events,
  this can cause significant delays while awaiting EWPP funding.
• Program policy restricts removal of storm-related debris to sites where a
  permanent structure is threatened due to flooding associated with the debris.
  Impacts to cropland or forestland are not seen as sufficient justification to
  warrant EWPP funding, and no other federal disaster program exists to
  address this need.
• EWP measures may need to be implemented on lands of any ownership –
  Federal, State, Local, or Private. This includes both lands that receive a direct
  benefit as well as lands that protect downstream properties. Ownership and
  sponsorship requirements can be difficult to navigate.
• Sponsors are required to provide match. This is regardless of the cause of a
  disaster and potential project eligibility. Securing funds for sponsorship can
  be a limiting factor in securing sponsors as well as implementing needed
  protective measures.
• Protective measures may need to be installed on properties upstream from
  the values at risk. Unaffected landowners can be hesitant or unwilling to
  allow installation of protective measures that only have downstream benefits.
• Technical assistance caps can result in lack of capacity for NRCS and/or
  sponsors, especially with complex projects. Staffing capacity is critical in
  ensuring proper design, permitting, and implementation of EWP projects.
• Project sponsors often do not own the land where preventative measures are
  installed. Liability for the projects is a concern especially since projects are
  dealing with mitigating risk to life and property.
• The cost-benefit ratio for project eligibility must be greater than 1:1. This
  results in projects with higher values-at-risk to be eligible whereas lower value
  properties that have just as great a need are ineligible. This creates an
  inherit inequity to the program that prevents real risks to lower values-at-risk
  to be passed over in favor of properties of higher values.

Recommendations

• Congress should provide annual funding for EWPP so that initial recovery efforts
  are not delayed while awaiting the passage of a federal disaster recovery bill.
  Streamline the process for authorizing the use of EWPP funds by states for
  exigent circumstances. NRCS should authorize repairs as soon as a site is
  determined to be exigent, and the State Conservationist should be granted the
  authority to guarantee a minimum level of funding for needed repairs at these
  sites.
• Revise statutory authority and agency policy for EWPP to clarify that this funding
  can be used to remove vegetative debris deposited by a declared storm event in
  streams or drainage channels where the debris negatively impacts cropland,
  pasture, or forestland.
• EWP should be applicable to all lands, including projects that address
  downstream risks
  • Where there is a direct benefit to Federal Lands, Federal agencies
    should be able to implement without a sponsor.
• The NRCS should have flexibility with match requirements to provide greater
  access to EWP assistance while also considering other avenues by which local
  sponsors can contribute and take ownership for projects. Sponsor contributions
  beyond cash match that should be considered include community engagement,
  providing local context, and technical assistance.
• Allow incentive payment(s) to third party landowners where protective measures
  must be implemented.
• Provide flexibility in technical assistance allocations to allow for both the needs
  of NRCS and the project sponsor to plan and implement the projects.
• Congress should address indemnification and liability-related barriers to accessing
  this program. Public and private landowners are only eligible for this funding if
  they are represented by a project sponsor, which must be a state, county, or city
  government, a special district, or Tribal government. Current program design
  requires project sponsors to take on all of the liability, which is not readily covered
  by insurance. The creation of an insurance pool for sponsors could enable wider
  use of the EWP program.
• Remove the cost/benefit requirement.

Agricultural Conservation Easements Program (ACEP)

ACEP helps landowners, land trusts, and other entities protect, restore, and enhance wetlands or protect working farms and ranches through conservation easements.3 The COVID pandemic spurred migration into the rural landscape driving up property values and increasing development pressures on farms across the country. ACEP is the only federal tool in the box to help preserve working farms for future generations of farmers vital to feed our growing country and the world.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• Timeline from application to easement completion is a very long real estate transaction process at 18-24 months.
• Timing of appraisal/valuation occurs late in the process and landowners cannot make a final commitment to a conservation easement without this vital information.
• Cost of due diligence work to prepare a program application is lengthy and burdensome for land trusts to bear. Additionally, the costs of providing technical assistance to landowners to work through the requirements of the program process are not eligible for funding from NRCS.

Recommendations

• Streamline procedures and increase staffing for processing easements.
• Provide funding to partners for technical assistance and due diligence such as appraisals
• Suggest a transparent preliminary appraisal/valuation early in the process to help secure firm landowner commitment or utilize a screening tool/system to help determine viability of a potential easement prior to land trusts spending significant time and funds on pre-application due diligence. Increase the federal funds share of the cost share ratio for conservation easements.

3 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/acep/

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)

“Through RCPP, NRCS seeks to co-invest with partners to implement projects that demonstrate innovative solutions to conservation challenges and provide measurable improvements and outcomes tied to the resource concerns they seek to address.4” RCPP was created in the 2014 Farm Bill and became a stand-alone program in the 2018 Farm Bill. This program is an enormous opportunity to leverage federal investment with partner contributions and while many improvements to the program have been made since its inception some issues and barriers to accessing RCPP still remain.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• The minimum 1:1 match requirement for RCPPs can be difficult to secure, in-hand, prior to applying for a 5-year RCPP and those with secured match are ranked more competitively than those proposals that must seek and secure their match on an ongoing basis throughout the RCPP term. This makes those that rely upon locally generated revenue sources or state legislative appropriations for match at a distinct disadvantage due to the timeframes in which match may be secured through those sources.
• NRCS often only hires CTA from within the agency, limiting workflow and overloading agency personnel. Technical assistance dollars withheld from RCPPs to support NRCS staff participating in implementing RCPP should be used to support dedicated RCPP staff in the project area within NRCS. RCPP leads should be informed of which NRCS staff are being supported.
• Very long time frames (up to two years) have been experienced in working with NRCS to negotiate initial partner agreements causing potential losses of partner contributions and commitment to participate. Additionally, separate supplemental agreements are required for each partner that will access TA funds from NRCS causing further delays to RCPP implementation, loss of momentum, and potential loss of partner participation overall.
• Alternative funding arrangements (AFA) are not widely utilized as an option. Consider relaxing the AFA option requirements to be more like a block grant.
• Changes to administrative/reporting requirements, practice payment rates, and eligibility requirements over the lifetime of an RCPP causes confusion and significant delays that can cause landowners and producers to turn away from the program in frustration.
• While the national fund pool was eliminated, a locally-led emphasis is still lacking in RCPP as award decisions are still made at national headquarters.

4 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/rcpp/

Recommendations

• Streamline RCPP partner and supplemental agreements and processes to reduce administrative burden overall and allow for indirect/overhead for RCPPs.
• Relax partner contribution (match) requirements which serve as a barrier for partners with less ready cash-in-hand to access the program.
• Increase the amount of funds that an RCPP may be awarded from $10M to $20M to allow for greater environmental impact especially when multiple states are participating in a single RCPP.
• RCPP program rules, reporting requirements, and practice payment rates should be locked-in for the life of an RCPP partner agreement.
• Endorsement by local conservation district boards should carry greater weight for RCPP proposals.
• Ensure local conservation districts and/or LWGs are aware of a proposed RCPP or are involved in some way.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to producers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.5

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• Climate smart agriculture definition is too narrow and equipment purchase is not eligible.
• New and beginning farmers need additional financial assistance support.
• Small forest landowners struggle to utilize EQIP for forestry practices because the payment rates are too low for the high costs of forestry work on only a few acres at a time.
• EQIP Conservation Innovation Contracts (CIC) focuses on management practices. An imbalance between financial assistance for management practices vs. structural practices exists. More support for management practices is needed. Clarify definition of what is eligible for EQIP CIC.
• Additional incentives added to an EQIP practice implementation should be allowed at the state or local level without impact to the EQIP cost share payment rate.

Recommendations

• Maintain or increase funding to EQIP as the primary workhorse in the Farm Bill.
• Continue and increase emphasis on Local Working Group involvement to direct EQIP investments.
• Consider multiple or continuous application ranking throughout the year to improve timelines for the process of contracting to be completed.

5 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-environmental-quality-incentives

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

USDA Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program available to agricultural producers to help them use environmentally sensitive land for conservation benefits. Producers enrolled in CRP plant long-term, resource- conserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and develop wildlife habitat.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• The broad waiver language that allowed a county’s cropland acreage enrolled in CRP to exceed 25% for SAFE was lost in the 2018 Farm Bill causing significant setbacks to wildlife habitat conservation efforts that were effective to avoid ESA listings.
• Narrow definition of commodity crops and producer eligibility prevents participation by specialty crop growers.
• Soil rental rates based on NASS data are dropping significantly in some parts of the country damaging the utility of the program to achieve conservation.
• Costs for practice installation are continuously increasing making the $50,000 pay cap even more limiting to enrollment and increases the burden on farmers/landowners and state partners.
• The program is designed to accommodate lands with high rental rates, even though lands with low rental rates are often most at need of conservation.

Recommendations

• Increase cost share portion of CRP from 50% to 75%.
• Remove PIP and requirements that it hit against the $50,000 individual pay cap.
• Streamline applications and program processes.
• Return the county level acreage limitation waiver option for the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) program.
• Provide flexibility and parameters/guidance for states to conduct alternative analyses to inform CRP or CREP per-acre rental rates.
• Marginal or low-productivity lands should be prioritized with higher rental rates.
• Increase the acreage cap on CRP to enable greater progress to meet natural resource goals and more fully utilize CRP as a tool in the box especially for marginal and less productive lands and minimize taking prime agricultural lands out of production.
• Move CRP back under the NRCS portfolio.

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

USDA Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) provides emergency funding and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters and for implementing emergency water conservation measures in periods of severe drought.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• Payment scenarios are complicated and inconsistent with other USDA programs.
• Public lands are now ineligible for this program which excludes ranchers who lease public land for grazing from participating.

Recommendations

• Make payment scenarios consistent with other USDA cost-share programs such as EQIP.
• Include leased public lands as eligible for the program.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

This opportunity is currently a one-time funded program. Western states have found this opportunity to be tremendously useful and would like to see the initiative become and ongoing, funded, program.

Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP)

The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was established by the 2018 Farm Bill to respond to the threat feral swine pose to agriculture, native ecosystems, and human and animal health. The program is implemented jointly by NRCS and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS). Total funding for the program was $75 million over the life of the 2018 Farm Bill. A total of 10 states were identified for the pilot program.6 NASCA members would like to see this program continued and expanded beyond the pilot states as it has become a valuable tool for addressing feral swine. Contracting for services to control feral swine should be eligible for this program. Rehabilitation of lands damaged by feral swine is an important need.

6 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feral-swine-eradication-and-control-pilot-program

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (Watershed Program)

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (Watershed Program) is administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Watershed Program provides assistance to public sponsors including cities, towns, resource conservation districts and others, to address a variety of critical natural resource problems. Several federal programs are available to help individual land users to address critical resource needs. However, the Watershed Program uniquely complements these programs by assisting public entities to install measures that benefit multiple land users or entire communities. The Watershed Program and other available programs provide land users and communities with the opportunity to address natural resource needs in entire watersheds. Discussion between NASCA members and the National Watershed Coalition has helped shape recommendations for this program.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• Even though many flood prevention structures were fully funded through federal appropriations, the inspection and maintenance required of local sponsors requires 35% cost-share that can become a barrier.

Recommendations

• Increase cost-share to not less than 75% and up to 90% for rehabilitation.
• Provide granting authority to state conservation agencies for project planning and implementation.
• Reduce regulatory, policy and procedural barriers to timely program delivery.
• As long as a structure meets the standards and specifications of PL-566, the structure should be eligible for rehabilitation cost share even if construction was not funded by PL-566.
• Continue supporting irrigation system improvements or expansions under this program.
• Consider dedicated funding for this program due to the extent of aging infrastructure.

Forestry Title, Title VIII

Title VIII of the Farm Bill addresses the management of the nation’s public and private forestlands, forest research and assistance to forest landowners. There are more than 700 million forested acres in the United States, of which roughly one-third is federal lands, one-third is state lands and one-third is nonindustrial private forest land.

Recent Forestry Titles have emphasized a landscape-scale approach to management, including the introduction of Good Neighbor Authority that authorizes the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to enter into stewardship contracts with state, county, and tribal partners to achieve land management objectives.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• State Forest Action Plans (first authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and launched in 2010) help identify forest resource concerns for all forest lands, including urban forestry. But there remains a lack of awareness of the plans among conservation districts, as evidenced by a 2015 NACD forestry survey – only 30% of respondents indicated they were aware of such a plan.
• Many of the Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) drafted more than a decade ago are no longer relevant. These plans help provide local insight and direction helpful in wildfire management.
• Small forestland acreage is often excluded from federal programs, thus leaving willing landowners with few options. As identified in NASCA policy drafted in 2021, “thousands of new landowners are purchasing small parcels for residential, agricultural, recreational, and other purposes. Many of these new landowners lack the knowledge or technical expertise to manage natural resources associated with their property causing a cumulative effect in watersheds resulting in degradation of water and soil quality. Small acreage operations are not usually eligible or rank competitively for conservation assistance programs through USDA due to income thresholds, cost effectiveness thresholds, and other criteria.7

Recommendations

• Stress the need for conservation districts and state conservation agencies to be included in the planning and five-year review of State Forest Action Plans.
• Encourage Congress to highlight agroforestry programs in Title VIII.
• Recommend that CWPPs should be locally led, either led by or including the conservation district.
• Encourage the inclusion of conservation districts as eligible partners to contract with Forest Service and BLM on Good Neighbor Authority.
• Raise awareness for the need to increase conservation district capacity to provide technical assistance to small-acreage forest landowners.
• Remove language from 2018 Farm Bill labeling Landscape Scale Restoration as a “rural” program.

7 nascanet.org/about/policies/

Crop Insurance, Title XI

Title XI of the Farm Bill covers the federal crop insurance program, which provides farmers protection when annual yields or revenue fall below guaranteed levels. The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) administers the program; the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) provides a subsidy, while farmers and ranchers pay the balance. The most recent Farm Bill helped recognize cover cropping as “good farming practice,” making cover crops eligible for the same protections.

Program Issues Identified by NASCA Membership

• State programs are increasingly incentivizing the use of cover crops, but there is a lack of federal funding to support these efforts.
• The use of cover crops has negated crop insurance at least for some parts of the country.
• In some cases, crop insurance incentives have an adverse effect on groundwater conservation efforts by requiring the full irrigation of crops.

Recommendations

• Allow federal funding to help incentivize the use of cover crops.
• Encourage Congress to further consider the use of cover crops and irrigation in relation to groundwater conservation efforts.
• Continue requirement of conservation compliance to be eligible for crop insurance.