IMPACT OF DESIGNATING NEW TARGETED AREAS

Mr. HIGHTOWER. When additional areas or new areas are targeted, what imp does this have on areas which were targeted the previous year? Are these proje only one year in duration? If they are multi-year projects, can I assume that a sh in targeting to other areas does not affect those programs which are already und way?

RESPONSE. On the average, work in a targeted area is expected to continue ove five to seven year period. Projects would be phased out as resource conditions a brought within acceptable levels and funds would then be shifted to other are with more critical problems. We do monitor program accomplishments on an ann basis and, in cases where the desired results are not being achieved, we may redu the level of targeting assistance in a particular county or area. For the most pa the addition of new targeted areas does not affect work in ongoing targeted proj areas. There would be some reduction in the base program in years when funds redirected to provde for increased targeting as is proposed in the 1985 budget.

CONSERVATION TILLAGE

Mr. HIGHTOWER. I am supportive of the role which conservation tillage can p as a partial solution to our erosion problems around the country. I have noticed t one of the most serious problems currently plaguing conservation tillage is w control. Is SCS working with the Agricultural Research Service to solve these pr lems?

RESPONSE. Yes. In fact there are 36 ARS locations that are working on one more aspects of the subsystems required to develop effective and acceptable cons vation production systems in major land resource areas. These subsystems incl weed control, as well as machinery systems concepts, water management, mana ment of soil physical properties and temperature, nutrient management and c germplasm development. Potential weed and other pest problems are still very h priority research needs with SCS, and we are coordinating these needs with A and other research organizations.

PRIME FARMLAND

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Could you provide us with the SCS definition of prime farmla and a list of land in the U.S. which is considered such?

RESPONSE. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed cr and is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, ra land, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). It has the quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce tained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water man ment, according to acceptable farming methods.

In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply f precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, accept acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. T are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood quently or are protected from flooding. Examples of soils that qualify as prime fa land are Palouse silt loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes; Brookston silty clay loam, drai and Tama silty clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

There are about 340 million acres of prime farmland in the nation. Each State Conservationist has identified the soil mapping units within their State qualify as prime and have prepared a list of these units.

Important farmland maps including prime farmlands and other important fa lands have been published for 905 counties in the United States. Another 373 c ties have important farmland maps in progress for future publication.

CONSERVATION IMPACTS OF USDA COMMODITY PROGRAMS

Mr. HIGHTOWER. I am aware that the Economic Research Service is studying relationship between USDA commodity programs and soil conservation eff When will this study be finished? Have any preliminary conclusions been reach RESPONSE. USDA initiated a study to determine how commodity price stabiliza and other farm income oriented programs could be designed to contribute to and water conservation objectives. The study focuses on current commodity grams, FmHA loan programs, disaster payments, and all-risk crop insurance grams.

The Economic Research Service is conducting the study with the cooperation and apport of other USDA agencies. The study will measure and assess soil conservaon conditions on farms participating in farm programs. ERS will analyze the xtent to which USDA commodity and related farm programs are in conflict with onservation objectives. The study will examine policy options to show how changes ould affect commodity production, farm income, land use, and erosion. There are ree major phases of the study: problem definition, policy options, and program asessment.

ERS has completed the problem definition phase of the study and will have preminary results in mid-March 1984. The policy options phase will be completed by id-1984.

CONSERVATION LOAN REQUIREMENTS

Mr. ROBINSON. The testimony explains the implementation of the National Conervation Program. In one aspect, the Soil Conservation Service was working in coperation with the Farmers Home Administration to require that farmers use conervation practices if they received a soil or water loan from FmHA. Is any considration being given to the farmer's ability to finance these conservation requireents? Will loans be rejected if the farmer cannot fulfill the conservation requireents, or will his loan reflect the cost of meeting these new qualifications? RESPONSE. The Farmers Home Administration-FmHA-is requiring that farmers ractice soil conservation for certain loans under the "Farm Program." The types of ans are listed in the Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 20, dated Monday, January 30, 984, under FmHA final rule that considers "Environmental Impacts of Proposed gency Action." A section of the rule states:

"However, the FmHA approving official need not include an element of the conervation plan within the loan agreement if that official determines that the eleent is both nonessential to the accomplishment of the plan objectives and so costly s to prevent the borrower from being able to repay the loan."

Loans will not be rejected if they meet the requirements of the published rule as relates to environmental impacts.

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES

Mr. ROBINSON. My. Meyers, you refer to $1.2 million reduction in all accounts hrough management efficiencies. Are any of these changes based upon the suggesions of the Grace Commission?

RESPONSE. These changes are not based directly on the suggestions of the Grace Commission. The reduction of $1.2 million is related to two government-wide initiaives. The first initiative is an OMB directive to reduce the numbers of personnel roviding administrative support services through a process of selective consolidaion and reorganization of these functions. The 1985 budget reflects a reduction of 260,000 related to this item. The Soil Conservation Service currently has adminisrative support personnel in all fifty state offices, Puerto Rico, and the National leadquarters in Washington. The Grace Commission also recommended that SCS onsolidate administrative staffs to increase productivity and reduce costs. We are ow studying the possibility of consolidating administrative support activities from 3 locations to 10 or fewer locations. This study should be completed by the end of his fiscal year.

The second initiative is related to a program announced by the Office of Personel Management to reduce the numbers of employees at the GS-11 to 15 levels rough attrition. The SCS budget reflects a reduction of $922,000 in 1985 related to is item.

Larger reductions are planned for fiscal years 1986 through 1989 related to both these initiatives for a total cumulative savings of $31.2 million over the five-year eriod.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testiony.

[The prepared statements and explanatory notes follow:]—