Subject: MAKING HAY -- February 2000
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:21:49 -0500
From: "Sustainable Ag. Coalition" <[log in to unmask]>
Making Hay February 2000
A sustainable ag e-mail bulletin on federal
agency news and activities. This bulletin is
produced by the Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (SAC). It is not meant to be a
polished newsletter but an alert system. We
will not worry about our prose and ask that our
work not be reproduced or quoted.
***********
CONTENTS
* Breaking News
<> USDA Budget Announcement
<> House Ag Committee Field Hearings
*Clean H2O
<> Reminder Nutrient Management Comments
<> Glickman Testimony on TMDL
* Food Safety
<> FQPA Campaign Gears Up
* USDA News
<> Final Stakeholder Rule on Ag Research
<> Biotech Advisory Group
<> Settlement on South Dakota Suit
<> On-Farm Storage Loans
<> Dairy Options Pilot Program Changes
***********
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
<> USDA Budget Announcement
The budget proposal released by the administration on
February 7 includes some small increases in programs
supported by sustainable agriculture organizations. Most
notably, the proposal includes an additional $3.7 million
for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
(SARE) program, which would raise funding to $15 million.
All of the increase in the proposal would be targeted to
organic agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
is asking Congress to fund the program at $20 million for
2001.
Elsewhere in the budget proposal:
* the ATTRA program is again proposed at $2 million, up
from its current $1.5 million level.
* Rural Coop Development grants would increase to $6
million from $4 million currently.
* the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP)
would increase from $1.2 million to $1.5 million, with the
increase dedicated “to develop small farm, export, and
sustainable agriculture activities that will assist small
farmers increase their marketing opportunities.”
* the Organic program would increase from $1.4 million to
$2.1 million, with the increase “to establish market
reporting of organic products...development of an
international certification program,
accreditation...establishment of a system to prevent
fraudulent labeling, and extensive customer outreach.”
* Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers would increase
from $3 million to $10 million.
* the Farmers Market Nutrition Program would increase from
$15 million to $20 million.
All of these proposals and the rest of the proposed USDA
budget now move to the annual congressional appropriations
process.
<> House Ag Committee Field Hearings
The House Agriculture Committee announced the final
schedule for a round of field hearings widely seen as a
review of the “Freedom to Farm” approach and its effects
over the past four years. The announcement notes that
farmers (and only farmers) are invited to testify at the
following hearings:
March 6: Lubbock, Texas
March 27: Raleigh, North Carolina
April 1: West Chester, Ohio
April 3: Kutztown, Pennsylvania
May 1: Sacramento, California
May 2: Sioux Falls, South Dakota
May 12: Boise, Idaho
May 13: Peoria, Illinois
Meeting locations, maps, and other information are
available on the Committee’s website at:
http://agriculture.house.gov
*** CLEAN H2O ***
<> Reminder Nutrient Management Comments
As we reported in previous issues, the EPA has released its
draft Technical Guidance for Developing Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs). EPA will rely heavily
on these Plans for regulation of Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs).
You can obtain a copy of the draft guidance through the
Government Printing Office (GPO) Federal Register website
at <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html>. The
site has a browse feature for individual Federal Register
issues, listed by date. The draft Technical Guidance is in
the contents for December 9 under the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS).
Detailed talking points for comments on the draft guidance
are available from the SAC office. For more information,
contact Martha Noble by phone at (202) 547-5754 or by e-
mail at <[log in to unmask]>.
<> Glickman Testimony on TMDL
On February 23, 2000, USDA Secretary Glickman stated at a
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
hearing on Water Quality, that an October 22, 1999 letter
from USDA to EPA criticizing proposed Clean Water Act
regulations had not gone through Department clearance and
was not the USDA’s official position. The proposed
regulations revise the current Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) program, which requires states to assess both point
sources and nonpoint sources of pollutants that impair
water quality standards and to prepare an implementation
plan for dealing with the pollutants. The week before,
USDA Undersecretary for Natural Resources James Lyons told
a subcommittee of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee that the letter was not official
USDA policy and USDA Undersecretary Richard Rominger told
the House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee that the
letter had not cleared the proper channels at USDA.
Secretary Glickman noted that the letter unfairly
questioned the EPA’s legal authority to promulgate the
proposed regulations and that letter’s tone was too harsh.
Glickman added, however, that some of USDA’s substantive
criticisms had merit and that the USDA and EPA had
established an interagency working group to discuss the
proposed TMDL regulation. Senator Lugar (IN), the
committee chair, requested that USDA prepare estimates of
the costs to the timber industry and agricultural
operations if the proposed TMDL regulations are
implemented.
<> Harkin Letter on CAFOs
As the EPA finalizes its Guidance Manual and Example NPDES
Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and the
USDA takes comments on its Technical Guidance for
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans, Senator Harkin
(IA) has sent a letter expressing concern that the agencies
are not developing an effective Clean Water Act regulatory
program for large-scale Confined Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs). Senator Harkin stated in the February 23, 2000
letter that voluntary, incentive based solutions to
agricultural water quality must have “backstop enforceable
standards” for large CAFOs. Senator Harkin also noted that
both agencies should cooperate in developing effective and
enforceable standards.
The Senator also urged that the NPDES permit guidance
incorporate specific standards needed to manage pollution
from CAFOs. These standards, enumerated in an attached
letter sent to the agencies last summer, include: strict
standards for land application of manure, linked with a
phosphorus index that ensures consistency among states;
adequate technical standards for manure storage facilities
to prevent spills, leaks, seepage, and toxic air emissions;
siting requirements for new CAFOs to protect ecologically
vulnerable areas; covered storage facilities for liquid or
dry manure; effective monitoring and reporting
requirements; and the expansion of the use of individual
CAFO permits.
*** FOOD SAFETY ***
<> FQPA Campaign Gears Up
Consumers Union, Natural Resources Defense Council, and a
host of environmental, pediatric and public health groups
have launched an effort to head off congressional moves to
undermine the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. In
particular, these groups are tracking H.R.1592/S.1464,
companion bills that would drastically change the basic
tenets of the FQPA. Consumers Union has set up a website
to focus on FQPA issues at http://www.ecologic-ipm.com and
issued a call for other organizations to sign on to a
statement of support for the FQPA.
*** USDA News ***
<> Final Stakeholder Rule on Ag Research
The final rule governing stakeholder input processes at
land grant universities was issued in the Federal Register
on February 8. The sustainable agriculture community
submitted 84 of the 89 comments received on the proposed
rule. The agency responded to these comments with one
substantive change and one process suggestion. The
substantive change was to add that the stakeholder process
should be “fair, open, and accessible.” The proposed rule,
by contrast, contained no guidelines whatsoever, so the
addition of these three words represents slight, but
nonetheless significant movement. However, the agency
rejected requirements suggested by many public commenters
that the process also be transparent, accountable to
participants, balanced and diverse in representation, and
comprehensive in scope.
In explaining their rejection of even these most basic
standards, the agency notes: “Although this Final Rule may
not impose all of the public accountability standards
desired by the commenters, this will be a new major
requirement for many institutions.... As evident through
some of the 5-year Plans of Work received, institutions are
establishing processes that are more inclusive, more
accessible, and reach beyond their traditional audiences.”
That being so, it is difficult to understand their
reluctance to put minimum standards in the regulation.
Despite that reluctance, the agency insists it “is not
conducting “business as usual” with the land-grant
institutions.”
Also as result of our comments, the final rule adds to the
annual reporting requirement that land grants include “a
statement of how the collected input was considered,”
rather than only a statement of how it was collected.
Another small change made as a result of our comments was a
retitling of the penalty section to “failure to comply and
report” rather than the proposed rule’s “failure to
report,” making it clearer that this is not simply a
paperwork exercise and reporting requirement.
The USDA Office of Inspector General also submitted
comments on the proposed rule, criticizing CSREES for not
including performance indicators, stakeholder input process
criteria, and assessment and compliance provisions. The
agency also rejected these recommendations except for the
inclusion of “fair, open, and accessible” noted earlier.
The one process suggestion made by the agency in response
to the comments would provide for an evaluation of
stakeholder processes in two years to determine the
adequacy and the effectiveness of the final rule.
Presumably at this time evidence of shortcomings might be
considered grounds for putting real minimum criteria in the
rule.
In a related matter, the final guidelines for State Plans
of Work by land grant institutions included a repeat of the
“fair, open, and accessible” standard for stakeholder input
processes and also incorporated other changes we
recommended. These included: adding under-represented and
under-served constituencies in the proposed operational
guidelines, adding the under-represented and under-served
as deserving special consideration as target audiences for
research efforts, and adding small farm owners and
operators to the list of traditionally under-served and
under-represented constituencies
<> Biotech Advisory Group
Late in January, Secretary Glickman unveiled the roster for the
Department’s new Biotechnology Advisory Committee, and it includes
a surprisingly strong contingent of folks who are critical of the
headlong rush to a genetically altered food supply. The
Committee, which former Ohio Congressman Dennis Eckart will chair,
includes many of the most persuasive voices from the sustainable
ag, environmental, and consumer worlds. These panelists will
include Carolyn Brickey (National Campaign for Pesticide Policy
Reform), Carol T. Foreman (Food Policy Institute, Consumer
Federation of America), David Fredrickson (Minnesota Farmers
Union), Rebecca Goldburg (Environmental Defense Fund), Michael
Hansen (Consumer Policy Institute, Consumers Union), Neil Harl
(Iowa State University), Sharan Lanini (Rocket Farms & California
Organic Food Act Advisory Committee), Mark Lipson (Farmer &
Organic Farming Research Foundation), Mary-Howell Martens (Farmer
& Finger Lakes Community College, Pen Yan, New York), Margaret
Mellon (Union of Concerned Scientists), Lorraine Nakai (Farmer,
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry), Michael Sligh (RAFI-USA),
and Margaret Wittenberg (Whole Foods Market & National Organic
Standards Board). The first meeting of the Board will be March 29
& 30 in Washington, D.C.
<> Settlement on South Dakota Suit
In May, 1999, South Dakota NRCS State Conservationist Dean
Fisher adopted the mapping conventions and wetland
delineation standards used by the NRCS in Minnesota. These
standards govern the application of the Swampbuster program
and, under a memorandum of understanding with the EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers, are also used by those
agencies in administering the Clean Water Act Section 404
wetland program. Numerous environmental groups objected to
the decision, concerned that it would significantly weaken
wetlands protection in South Dakota and could serve as a
precedent for weakening wetlands regulation in other
northern plains states.
.
On July 12, 1999, the National Wildlife Federation
announced that the NWF, the South Dakota Wildlife
Federation, the South Dakota Resources Coalition, Izaak
Walton League, and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe had
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in South Dakota
challenging the NRCS decision to change the delineation
criteria. The lawsuit charged, among other things, that
NRCS violated its 1994 agreement not to change the state’s
wetlands designations before consulting with and obtaining
the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army Crops of
Engineers. The suit further charged that the NRCS violated
the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to perform
required environmental assessments.
In mid-January, 2000, the Department of Justice announced
that it had signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs. Under the agreement, the South Dakota NRCS
office will withdraw the May 1999 decision memorandum,
except for the portion that requires field visits for
wetlands determinations. NRCS agreed not to change the
mapping conventions without attempting to reach a good
faith consensus with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
EPA, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. NRCS also agreed
not to change the wetland indicator plant list without
agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In
addition, a farm program participant’s narrative will not
be sufficient to self-certify a prior manipulation of a
wetland, without supportable documentation or other
evidence.
<> On-Farm Storage Loans
As part of its proposed farm program revisions, USDA
announced it will use existing administrative authority to
offer a loan program for on-farm grain storage. The
program, which will be available for this year’s harvest
and allow storage for up to 2 years, will provide loans
with 5-10 year repayment terms with interest rates at the
cost of borrowing money from the Treasury, currently about
5.25%. In making the announcement, Secretary Glickman noted
in particular the potential usefulness of the program to
farmers segregating grain for identity-preserved crops.
Rules for the program are currently being drafted and the
program is expected to be in place by this summer.
<> Dairy Options Pilot Program Changes
The USDA’s Risk Management Agency announced changes to its
Notice of Availability on the Dairy Options Pilot Program,
which is intended to investigate the effectiveness of “put”
options as a risk management tool for dairy producers.
Along with some revisions and clarifications to the
existing pilot program, the announcement in the February
24, 2000 Federal Register concludes the availability of the
program in the states and counties where it debuted, and
makes it available in different counties in 32 states. See
http://www.rma.usda.gov/training/programs/dopp/index.html
for more information from the RMA on the program and the
list of eligible counties.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]
|
