ORGANIZATIONS

United States Department of Agriculture

• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Farm Service Agency
• The Commodity Credit Corporation

Conservation Districts
State Technical Committees and Local Working Groups
Technical Service Providers

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
MAXIMIZING FISH AND WILDLIFE BENEFITS BY WORKING TOGETHER
PROVIDING CONSERVATION PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROVIDING WILDLIFE HABITAT: AN OBJECTIVE-DRIVEN APPROACH

ORGANIZATIONS

United States Department of Agriculture

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for implementation of the Farm Bill. The two primary USDA agencies responsible for implementation are the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Both agencies have a local presence in approximately 3,000 counties in the U.S. and have a long history with local conservation implementation. Their presence in every county and relationship with the agricultural community is effective in communicating conservation values with agricultural producers and other landowners. This long relationship has resulted in a trust that enhances the ability to market conservation practices. They, along with landowners and Conservation Districts, are the key for delivering conservation practices on the ground. Understanding these agencies and building strong partnerships with them is important for furthering fish and wildlife conservation efforts.

FSA administers commodity and disaster programs, plus the Conservation Reserve Program. NRCS provides technical support to the Farm Service Agency for implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program and administers many conservation programs..

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to further the conservation of natural resources. The agency was originally known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and, like the present Farm Service Agency, found its origins in the Great Depression as a response to the Dust Bowl of the Great Plains. During the 1930’s poor agricultural practices coupled with a multi-year drought led to failed crops, severe erosion, and degradation of natural resources. This resulted in many rural families moving throughout the Nation looking for new work. During the height of the Dust Bowl, Hugh Hammond Bennett, the founder of the Soil Conservation Service, provided passionate testimony before a Congressional committee that resulted in the Soil Conservation Act of April 27, 1935, which created the Soil Conservation Service within USDA. The Agency then set out to remedy environmental degradation working through the Civilian Conservation Corps and with private landowners. The work accomplished in the following decades has prevented similar dust bowls during severe droughts of the past several decades.

The SCS provided technical assistance to private landowners and others to address soil and natural resource conservation. This was accomplished by one-on-one assistance to farmers and ranchers, which often resulted in a Conservation Plan. The Conservation Plan included maps, soil, and plant information as well as recommendations on how to better manage, restore, or enhance resource conditions. There were financial programs available such as the Great Plains Conservation Program, Agricultural Conservation Programs, and Small Watershed Program. Because of SCS’s direct working relationship with landowners, Aldo Leopold encouraged Hugh Hammond Benett, then Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, to hire biologists, which he did, to help further wildlife conservation.

SCS worked closely with local Conservation Districts that were established under state law. Specifically, SCS provided technical support where local conservation districts asked for assistance. This eventually resulted in SCS opening offices in almost every county that was encompassed by one or more local conservation districts.

The 1985 Farm Bill created provisions to keep highly erodible lands out of production and to decrease the drainage of wetlands in agricultural landscapes. However, the Conservation Reserve Program was also established as an incentive program to provide rental payments to take highly erodible lands out of production. These policy shifts began to put teeth into what was previously only conservation recommendations. The 1990 Farm Bill and subsequent amendments gave SCS a variety of conservation programs with cost-share payments, incentive payments, and easements to further specific conservation objectives long recommended through technical assistance. These new programs have become important parts of the “tool box” to further conservation on private lands.

Though SCS was originally founded primarily to address major erosion problems, its mission quickly evolved over the ensuing decades. This is reflected in the diverse technical disciplines that comprise the current workforce such as soil conservationists, soil scientists, range conservationists, engineers, hydrologists, economists, biologists, foresters, environmental specialists and more. As the mission broadened, the original name of Soil Conservation Service no longer adequately described the agency’s work, so its name was changed to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Administratively, NRCS currently divides the country into 3 regions, each with a Regional Assistant Chief that oversees the states making up the region. All of the regions contain a Technical Support Center made up of an array of technical specialists to help states carry out technology development and delivery. Each state, including the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands Areas, has a State Conservationist who oversees conservation programs within their area. The State Conservationist has a staff of technical, program, and administrative personnel to guide and direct conservation delivery. Though the structure below the State Office varies, the most common arrangement is an Area Office that oversees the Field Offices located in counties. The Field Office is the primary level of the agency that works directly with participants, often with technical specialist support from the Area or State Office. The typical Field Office staff is comprised of the District Conservationists who may have a support staff depending upon workloads and resource concerns. Normally Field Offices do not staff biologists, so they depend upon Area Office or, more commonly, State Office biologists for technical support. However, some District Conservationists have a fish and wildlife conservation background.

NRCS also has other major national functions such as the mapping of soils, natural resource conservation technology development, wetlands science, forestry, grazing land technology development, engineering support, and the Natural Resource Inventory. These units provide the technology and science that supports the Field Office in delivering conservation to landowners and land managers. This information eventually was incorporated within the electronic Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) that includes sections on natural resources, conservation planning, and the standards and specifications for the delivery of conservation practices. The FOTG is the central technical resource within NRCS and can be found on NRCS state Web sites.

The fish and wildlife technical discipline within NRCS is carried out by Field Office staff with support from approximately 150 biologists in the Area, State, and National Offices and the Regional Technical Centers. However, the number of biologists within the agency has always been less than the workload would indicate. This is especially true in recent years considering the growing emphasis of the Farm Bill on fish and wildlife resources.

Though the agency’s mission and program responsibility has grown over its eight decades of existence, the total number of employees has actually decreased. This has presented challenges in the delivery of Farm Bill programs, and has resulted in a growing number of partnerships with others agencies, non-government organizations, and Technical Service Providers to further conservation program delivery.

Farm Service Agency

The Farm Service Agency also traces its beginnings to 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression. A wave of discontent caused by mounting unemployment and farm failures had helped elect President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised Americans a "New Deal."

One result was the establishment in 1935 of a Department of Agriculture agency with familiar initials: FSA, which stood for Farm Security Administration. Originally called the Resettlement Administration and renamed in 1937, its original mission was to relocate entire farm communities to areas in which it was hoped farming could be carried out more profitably. But resettlement was controversial and expensive, and its results ambiguous. Other roles soon became more important, including the Standard Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provided credit, farm, and home management planning and technical supervision. This was the forerunner of the farm loan programs of the Farmers Home Administration.

With the passage of the second Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L. 74-430) and a general reorganization of the Department of Agriculture that October came new, complicated changes in conservation, crop support, and marketing legislation. Programs such as commodity marketing controls, and the policy of the Congress to assist farmers in obtaining parity prices and parity income, made the Federal government the decision-maker for the nation's farmers.

In 1953, a reorganization of USDA again made changes in the powers and duties of its price support and supply management agency. With the changes came a new name — Commodity Stabilization Service — and an increased emphasis on the preservation of farm income. Conservation programs such as the Soil Bank were introduced to bring production in line with demand by taking land out of production for periods of time ranging up to 10 years. Community, county, and state committees were formally identified for the first time as Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees.

The Commodity Stabilization Service became the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ACSS) in 1961, and the new name reflected the agency's stabilization and resource conservation missions. Field activities in connection with farm programs continue to be carried out through an extensive network of state and county service centers.

In 1994, a reorganization of USDA resulted in the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, renamed Farm Service Agency in November 1995. The new FSA encompassed the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), and the farm credit portion of the Farmers Home Administration. In May 1996, FCIC became the Risk Management Agency.

Today, FSA's responsibilities are organized into five areas: Farm Programs, Farm Loans, Commodity Operations, Management, and State Operations. The agency continues to provide America's farmers with a strong safety net through the administration of farm commodity programs. FSA also implements ad hoc disaster programs. FSA's long-standing tradition of conserving the nation's natural resources continues through the Conservation Reserve Program. The agency provides credit to agricultural producers who are unable to receive private, commercial credit. FSA places special emphasis on providing loans to beginning, minority, and women farmers and ranchers. Its Commodity Operations division purchases and delivers commodities for use in humanitarian programs at home and abroad. FSA programs help feed America's school children and hungry people around the globe. Additionally, the agency supports the nation's disabled citizens by purchasing products made by these persons.

FSA administers and manages farm commodity, credit, conservation, disaster, and loan programs as laid out by Congress through a network of state and county offices. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of the agricultural industry and to help farmers adjust production to meet demand. Economically, the desired result of these programs is a steady price range for agricultural commodities for both farmers and consumers.

State and county offices directly administer FSA programs. These offices certify farmers for farm programs and pay out farm subsidies and disaster payments. Currently, there are 2,346 FSA county offices in the continental U.S. FSA also has offices in Hawaii, and a few American territories.

More than 8,000 farmer county committee members serve in FSA county offices nationwide. Committee members are the local authorities responsible for fairly and equitably resolving local issues, while remaining dually and directly accountable to the Secretary of Agriculture and local producers though the elective process. They operate within official regulations designed to carry out state laws and provide a necessary and important voice in decisions affecting their counties and communities.

Committee members make decisions affecting which FSA programs are implemented county-wide, the establishment of allotment and yields, commodity price support loans and payments, the Conservation Reserve Program, Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Compliance, incentive, indemnity, and disaster payments for commodities, and other farm disaster assistance.

The Commodity Credit Corporation

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a government-owned and operated entity that was created to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices. The CCC also helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and aids in their orderly distribution. It oversees the funding for Farm Bill Programs.

On July 1, 1939, CCC was transferred to the USDA. It was reincorporated on July 1, 1948, as a corporation within USDA by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act (62 Stat.1070; 15 U.S.C. 714) http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/charteract2008.pdf. As amended through Public Law 110-246 May 22, 2008, the CCC Charter Act aids producers through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations, and makes available materials and facilities required in the production and marketing of agricultural commodities.

The CCC Charter Act also authorizes the sale of agricultural commodities to other government agencies and foreign governments and the donation of food to domestic, foreign, or international relief agencies. CCC also assists in the development of new domestic and foreign markets and marketing facilities for agricultural commodities.

The 1996 Farm Bill significantly changed U.S. agricultural policy. Earlier, USDA made deficiency payments to producers of wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice to make up the differences between target prices and seesawing market prices. The 1996 Farm Bill capped spending for the first time, guaranteeing farmers a series of fixed but declining "production flexibility contract" payments.

CCC is managed by a Board of Directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex-officio director and chairperson of the Board. The Board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. All members of the Board and Corporation officers are USDA officials and include the FSA Administrator and NRCS Chief.

CCC has no operating personnel. Its price support, storage, and reserve programs, and its domestic acquisition and disposal activities are carried out primarily through the personnel and facilities of the FSA.

Conservation Districts

The Conservation Districts are another vision of Hugh Hammond Bennett, who was then head of the Soil Conservation Service in the 1930’s. He believed that for conservation objectives to be met, there must be local involvement. Bennett and others were able to persuade President Franklin Roosevelt that the soil resources of this nation were being wasted and that government must act aggressively to reverse this trend. He convinced the president that a model soil conservation act should be developed and sent to the governors of each state for passage by their state legislatures. The purpose of the model act was to develop programs at the state and local levels to control soil erosion, which included the creation of soil conservation districts. In 1936, with the endorsement of President Roosevelt, a so-called “Standard Act” was submitted by the USDA to the governors of each state. All states eventually adopted language which led to the establishment of Conservation Districts.

The local Conservation District is made up of a voluntary board of directors representing local landowners that provide guidance on local conservation priorities to NRCS and others. Some districts have taxing authority, but many are funded by a combination of state and local governments. They often receive grants from organizations to carry out specific tasks. Others are minimally funded and work primarily through volunteer assistance. Better funded Districts often have staff that complements NRCS in some Field Offices.

Local Conservation Districts are aggregated into state associations of Conservation Districts which, in turn, are members of the National Association of Conservation Districts. Each of these organizations represents the issues and concerns of local districts in the development of both state and national agricultural conservation policy.

The relationship between NRCS and Conservation Districts is both long and important. As indicated, the first Chief of SCS advocated their establishment and would only establish a field office in a county at the request of a local Conservation District. The districts are important partners for NRCS in determining conservation priorities.

State Technical Committees and Local Workgroups

The Food Security Act of 1985 (i.e., 1985 Farm Bill) directed NRCS to establish State Technical Committees (STC) that would broaden the scope of involvement of others in the design and delivery of Farm Bill conservation programs at the state and local levels. The role of the committees was expanded by the 1996 Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (i.e., 1996 Farm Bill).

State Technical Committees serve as an advisory body to NRCS State Conservationists and have no implementation or enforcement authority. The 2008 Farm Bill was amended to clarify that State Technical Committee members may also provide information, analysis, and recommendations to other USDA agencies responsible for natural resource and conservation activities within the Farm Bill. It is the responsibility of the State Technical Committee to make recommendations on the technical and program delivery aspects of Farm Bill programs. They may provide guidance on conservation practices, ranking criteria for program participation, cost-share and incentive rates, and recommendations for achieving program balance within the state.

Statutorily required members on the State Technical Committee include NRCS, FSA, U.S. Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (formerly the Cooperative  Research Educations and Extension Service), the state fish and wildlife agency, the state forester, the state water resources agency, state department of agriculture, associations of soil and water conservation districts, agribusiness, and nonprofits with demonstrable conservation expertise that have experience in working with agricultural producers, owners of nonindustrial private forest lands, as well as agricultural producers representing the variety of crops and livestock or poultry raised in the state.

To become an official member of the State Technical Committee, you should make a request to the NRCS State Conservationist.  State Technical Committee meetings are open to the public. These committees are an effective venue for the fish and wildlife community to interject ideas and priorities into the implementation of Farm Bill programs at the state level.

Local Work Groups (LWG) are composed of Conservation District officials, FSA County Committees, agricultural groups representing the variety of crops and livestock or poultry raised within the local area, non-industrial private forest land groups, and other professionals representing relevant agricultural and conservation interest, and a variety of disciplines in the soil, water, plant, wetland, and wildlife sciences who are familiar with private land agricultural and natural resource issues in the local community. LWG’s offer recommendations to the State Technical Committee and NRCS as to how conservation programs should be implemented in their area. As with State Technical Committees, it is important that advocates of fish and wildlife resources be active in LWGs..

Technical Service Providers

To address staffing capacity issues in delivery of conservation, the Farm Bill provides for agreements with third party providers of technical assistance referred to as Technical Service Providers (TSP). This can be done directly through cooperative agreements or contracts between NRCS and another agency or with a non-federal entity to provide technical assistance to program participants, or through a payment to a landowner or producer for an approved third party provider. The technical services that can be provided are conservation planning, education and outreach, and assistance with design and implementation of conservation practices. NRCS is responsible for the criteria to certify TSPs.

TSPs are certified by the types of NRCS Conservation Practices for which they qualify to plan and implement. In addition, they must meet the conservation planning training certification requirements, which can be obtained through on-line courses. USDA maintains a registry for TSP applicants at http://techreg.usda.gov/.

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

The Farm Bill and program rulemaking establishes priorities for the conservation programs at the national level. The next step of priority-setting occurs at the state level through recommendations of the State Technical Committees. Membership and attendance at State Technical Committee meetings is the most important venue for ensuring that Farm Bill programs maximize benefits for fish and wildlife habitat.

Local Work Groups establish and prioritize the conservation needs at the local level. This information is transferred to State Technical Committees for establishing priorities.

Each application for program participation is subject to ranking criteria that reflect local, state, and national priorities. Specifically, points are usually rewarded for targeted state, local, and national resource concerns identified by State Technical Committees and Local Workgroups. The applications are then ranked based upon their total score and funding descends down the prioritized list until exhausted. These lists can be reprioritized in subsequent years as new applications are submitted.

FSA and NRCS can establish national, state or local emphasis areas where programs can target more specific goals. By focusing dollars on specific landscape outcomes, they can concentrate projects, further promote participation, and maximize partner collaboration.

State Technical Committees should use the best available science in setting priorities. State Wildlife Action Plans (http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org), which were mandated by Congress for every state, identify conservation issues, needs, and priorities, and can serve as tools for developing ranking criteria or establishing special fund pools to meet critical fish and wildlife needs. Other plans that provide specific wildlife conservation priorities include plans of the various bird conservation initiatives (http://www.nabci-us.org/plans.html), the 2009 State of the Birds Report (http://www.stateofthebirds.org/), endangered species recovery plans (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/index.html), and the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (http://fishhabitat.org/). To be considered, people must advocate for these plans to help integrate them into Farm Bill program ranking criteria. .

MAXIMIZING FISH AND WILDLIFE BENEFITS BY WORKING TOGETHER

The conservation provisions of the Farm Bill have continued to grow the number of conservation programs as well as the amount of money authorized for these programs. However, USDA staff has not increased; in fact the total numbers have declined over the past decades. This inverse relationship has led to some challenges in the delivery of conservation programs. In addition, most programs require the participant to provide for part of the cost of implementing practices, which can be difficult for many participants.

Increasing the funding allocations of conservation programs in the Farm Bill is a good first step. But building partnerships with NRCS and FSA and seeking opportunities to help them implement Farm Bill programs can be the key to advancing fish and wildlife resource conservation.

Achieving fish and wildlife habitat conservation is a multi-step process that includes marketing projects to landowners and producers, understanding program requirements, taking care of the administrative paper work, ranking projects, obligating dollars, designing conservation practices, and guiding implementation on the ground.

NRCS and FSA staff workload is large and staff numbers limited, so they often do not have the time to “market” fish and wildlife conservation practices as well as implement them in a timely manner. This is where partners that are trained and motivated to further fish and wildlife habitat conservation can and do play a significant role. For example, groups such as the state fish and wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ducks Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever have spent resources identifying potential projects and then assisting the participant with applying for the programs.

NRCS has entered into cooperative agreements with many groups to implement conservation practices. For example, state fish and wildlife agencies and other groups understand that their fish and wildlife conservation missions can be achieved by leveraging Farm Bill dollars and helping get conservation on the ground. This is increasingly being done by establishing partnership biologists who are funded by dollars from NRCS, the fish and wildlife agency, and non-government organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. These positions can be administered either by NRCS, state wildlife agencies, or non-government organizations.  However, if they are under the administration of NRCS, they can be housed within the NRCS office to be more readily available to agricultural producers and program software for developing conservation plans and processing program applications. Also, close proximity to NRCS or FSA can build a trust that will result in even more fish and wildlife projects and confidence in others on the staff to attempt new technologies. These positions are critical to ensure an emphasis on fish and wildlife conservation, and can be strategically located in key landscapes with significant fish and wildlife concerns.

The 2008 Farm Bill recognizes that technical capacity is often more limiting than funding for projects, and thus increased opportunities for partners to play a role in Farm Bill implementation. The Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) was designed to target assistance to producers for enhancing conservation outcomes on agricultural and nonindustrial private forest land. Areas of CCPI assistance are selected competitively through applications of eligible partners. Eligible partners include state, local, and tribal governments, producer associations and cooperatives, institutions of higher education, and nongovernmental organizations.

Non- Farm Bill Funds Can Be the Tipping Point

Even if staffing capacity to deliver the Farm Bill was completely addressed, there are still other challenges. Marketing fish and wildlife conservation practices requires more than just convincing participants that it is the right thing to do. Most understand that. Many of the programs require that participants provide as much as 50 percent of the practice cost or more. Some of this can be achieved by in-kind services, but even the costs of materials and labor are limited commodities in working agricultural landscapes. To overcome this obstacle, financial help from partners can reduce or eliminate any funds required from the participant. Partners can thus maximize the effectiveness of projects for fish and wildlife conservation by targeting supplemental dollars to help participants in important landscapes. In fact, supplemental funding can be a barometer of the wildlife community’s valuation of the project, which is often a consideration in the ranking.

PROVIDING CONSERVATION PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

NRCS uses conservation planning to help participants develop conservation plans that consider natural resources (e.g., soil, water, air, plants, and animals) and other human concerns (e.g., economic and social). The NRCS working model states that lands should already have a current conservation plan before receiving funds for any Farm Bill conservation program to ensure the most effective use of program dollars.

Understanding the NRCS conservation planning process is important so partners can both communicate with NRCS staff and provide assistance in developing conservation plans where appropriate. The fundamentals of the planning process are sound and will lead to making better decisions on the ground.

NRCS conservation planning includes 9 steps:

1 - Identify Problems and Opportunities