An overview of Maine's programs can be found at: https://www.maine.gov/dacf/ag/pfas/index.shtml 

I would be interested to know of 1) any States through which the state agency or SWCDs may be involved in oversight of biosolids use or land application restrictions, 2) of any State's with concerns of potential negative biosolids-effects to soil & water beyond PFAS, pharmaceuticals, metals, or bacteria, and 3) any State conservation agencies or SWCDs that may be engaged in soil/water monitoring in association  with land application of biosolids. 

Thanks!

Joey Breaux - Louisiana

Any other states with the new phone system?  And if so, are the districts installing landlines or getting cell phones to cover the communication gap?  How are states working to keep communication open between farmers / ranchers and conservation districts?

The integration of CREP into CRP acreage has had a substantial impact. To start, there was limited communication of the program changes between FSA and CREP tech staff. I learned about the enrollment period opening from a google notification on my phone, and actually just learned CREP acreage was integrated into CRP acreage because of this thread. It has been incredibly difficult trying to learn the CREP program amidst programmatic changes, and limits my ability to effectively do my job. 

I was told by my predecessor that enrollment typically opens in September, and to have all of the planning done by that time. With the enrollment period opening seemingly out of the blue, I was not prepared for new enrollments. This limited the amount of contracts I could submit for the two batching periods. I submitted an offer after the two batching period deadlines, as FSA said they would give further guidance as to what would happen to those offers submitted after the batching period. I have yet to hear that guidance or what will happen with the submitted offer. 

Second, watershed association's in our area like to use CREP as a match when submitting grants for large, on the ground stream restoration projects. Not only does this leverage available funds for restoration, it holds landowners to maintenance on newly restored lands through a CREP contract. The recent changes to the CREP program has made CREP an unreliable funding source, limits the amount of on the ground restoration work, and makes partner's weary of wanting to work with the CREP program.

Third, I worry about the public perception of the program. If partners find CREP unreliable, I fear landowners will start to as well (if they don't already).

The integration of CREP acreage into CRP acreage has significantly affected my workflow and made it much more difficult to enroll new CREP contracts. My understanding of these changes comes almost entirely from conversations with local FSA staff, as there has been very little direct communication with those of us implementing CREP. Without clear, timely guidance explaining program changes, it is difficult to understand new requirements and effectively plan our work.

In 2025, when CREP acreage was managed separately, enrollments typically occurred in September. Based on that schedule, I began preparing contracts with interested landowners well in advance. When the enrollment process changed, I was unexpectedly given only two weeks in March to submit enrollment paperwork. Although I initially had seven interested landowners, the compressed timeline created significant logistical challenges, and I was ultimately able to enroll only one contract.

This year, the enrollment period occurred while I was on maternity leave. Although I had arranged for my regular responsibilities to be covered, no one had been prepared to manage new CREP enrollments because the timing was unexpected. As a result, those covering my position had to respond with little notice, and once again only one new contract was successfully enrolled.

Following that enrollment period, I was informed that there might be an additional batching period later in the year. Based on that information, I spent several months working with landowners to prepare two additional contracts for submission. Then, in August, I was notified that there would not be another batching period because there was no longer enough time to process additional applications. The considerable time invested by both staff and landowners in preparing these applications ultimately could not be used. I am concerned about how it will impact the public’s perception of the program.

Frequent changes to enrollment timelines, combined with inconsistent communication, and limited acreage have made it extremely difficult to effectively administer the CREP program.