MAKING HAY -- March 1999
A sustainable ag e-mail bulletin on federal agency news and
activities.
This bulletin is co-produced by the Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (SAC) and the Henry A. Wallace Institute for
Alternative Agriculture. 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:
*Clean H20
<>USDA/EPA AFO Strategy
<>Sec. 319 Watershed Restoration Assistance
*Marketing News
<>Organic Update
*FQPA Watch
<>EPA falling behind on OPs
*USDA Conservation
<>CRP Sign-up
*USDA Research Review
<>Stakeholder Guidelines
*USDA Notes
<>Beginning Farmer Advisory Committee
<>Community Food Systems RFP
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
***CLEAN H2O***
<> USDA-EPA Release AFO Strategy
On March 9, 1999, the USDA and the EPA released the Unified
National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, a significant part of the
administration's Clean Water Action Plan. A copy of the Strategy
is posted on the Web at
<<http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm>www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm>. You can
also request a copy from the USDA by calling (202) 720-5974 or by
calling Martha Noble at the SAC office (202) 547-5754 or e-
mailing her at <[log in to unmask]>. In addition, the EPA has
posted comments submitted on the Draft version of the Strategy on
the Web at
<<http://www.epa.gov/owm/afos/letters.html
>www.epa.gov/owm/afos/letters.html>.
The Strategy contains a few significant improvements over the
draft version but taken as a whole the Strategy still appears to
rely primarily mitigating surface water quality problems arising
from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), only one of
the many problems of large-scale factory farms. The Strategy also
defers many major issues to state regulatory agencies under
federal guidance documents that are currently being developed. A
brief summary of the major changes to includes:
1. Higher Profile for Sustainable Agricultural Practices and
Systems. We here at SAC are gratified to see the efforts of our
members at the listening sessions and in comments payoff in the
form of additional language in the Strategy concerning
sustainable agriculture. A new guiding principle "promote,
support, and provide incentives for the use of sustainable
agricultural practices and systems" has been added to the
Strategy and additional references to sustainable practices are
now sprinkled throughout the Strategy. Of course, we still have
to work to ensure that our voice is heard in defining
"sustainable agricultural practices and systems" and that this
principle is actually implemented.
2. Vertical Integrator Liability. The Strategy contains an
important partial victory. EPA recommends that an entity that has
"substantial operation control" over a CAFO should be a co-
permittee with the CAFO's owner. This provision would most likely
cover a vertical integrator who contracts with a farmer to raise
livestock and exerts control over the CAFO through contract
provisions or requires certain design and operational features as
a condition of entering into a production contract. EPA has
indicated to us in a briefing, however, that this is only a
recommendation and that it will not compel states to require
vertical integrator liability.
3. Land Application and Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
(CNMPs). The final version of the Strategy does not weaken the
requirement of the draft version that CNMPs for handling,
storage, and land application of CAFO waste be included within
the CAFO NPDES permit. The final version makes an important
improvement by requiring CAFO owners who move manure off site to
keep detailed records and obtain certification from the off site
recipient that it has a CNMP.
4. State Program Flexibility and the Concept of "Functionally
equivalent" to NPDES Regulations. In response to the National
Governors Association and others, the final version of the
Strategy includes numerous references to providing "appropriate
flexibility" for States and Tribes to meet the national
performance expectation for AFOs. In addition, the Strategy
provides that the EPA can review existing state regulatory
programs and determine they are "functionally equivalent" to the
federal CAFO NPDES program. It is not clear if this concept
differs from determinations made by EPA in granting state
authority over other types of NPDES permits, nor is it clear
whether equivalency determinations are for the short or long
term. The Strategy requires that states submit requests for a
"functional equivalent" determination by October 1, 1999.
5. General v. Individual Permits. The Strategy does not require
that all CAFOs over 1000 animal units obtain an individual NPDES
permit. Instead, EPA recommends that for most existing CAFOs,
states use a statewide general permit. EPA does recommend that
states issue individual permits for exceptionally large existing
CAFOs and new or expanding CAFOs; however, the EPA will not
require states to issue individual permits, if they have programs
that deal with more than surface water (e.g., odor, groundwater,
air quality, etc.). The EPA notes in the Strategy that it will
consider increasing the amount of public participation in the
general permit process but gives no details. The Strategy,
however, also includes new references to "confidential business
information" which will not be made available to the public.
The next steps in the AFO strategy include EPA's preparation of
draft guidance for the states on Round I CAFO NPDES permits and a
draft model permit, scheduled for release for public review in
May 1999, with finalization in August 1999. In addition, USDA
will be reviewing the NRCS conservation practices for AFOs, with
proposed revisions scheduled for release in September 1999.
<> Clean Water Act Sec. 319 Funds for Watershed Restoration
Our thanks to the Clean Water Network for tracking developments
in another component of the administration's Clean Water Action
Plan, the Unified Watershed Assessment and Watershed Restoration
Action Strategy. Last year, the administration initiated a
Unified Watershed Assessment Framework process, under which the
states determined which watersheds within the state were not
meeting clean water and other natural resource goals. These
watersheds were designated as Category I watersheds and the
states then were to identify those Category I watersheds most in
need of attention in FY1999-2000. For these priority watersheds,
the states are required to develop Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies. For more details on this Unified Watershed Assessment
process, see the EPA guidance on the web at
<<http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/cleanwater/uwafinal/uwa.html>http://www.epa.g
ov/owowwtr1/cleanwater/uwafinal/uwa.html>.
In the FY1999 appropriations bill for the EPA, Congress
appropriated $200 million for states to implement nonpoint source
management programs under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, an
increase of $100 million over previous Section 319 funding. This
incremental $100 million for Section 319 funding is targeted for
use by the States in implementing the Watershed Restoration
Action Strategies. EPA has completed allocation of these
incremental Section 319 funds to the states and has developed a
new guidance for the states on how to prioritize the spending of
the funds. The guidance entitled "Funding the Development and
Implementation of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act" is posted on the web at
<<http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/fy19992.html
>www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/fy19992.html>.
This guidance includes a
list of the funds allocated to each state. Note that this
guidance applies only to states, and not to Tribes. Incremental
Section 319 funds will be made available to a select number of
Tribes under a special national awards process.
Your state may have a process for you, or your organization, to
participate in this watershed restoration process. You can look
at your state's Unified Watershed Assessment priority list on the
Web by entering the site <<http://www.epa.gov/surf>http://www.epa.gov/surf>.
This site
contains a box entitled "Locate Your Watershed". By clicking on
this box, you can access a page that includes a provision for
"Search by Maps". Click on this selection to get a map of the
United States and then click on your home state. This will take
you to the Surf Your Watershed homepage for you state. Click on
the Unified Watershed Assessments to get to your state
government's link for the Assessment. If you find that you have
an interest in the restoration strategy for a particular
Category I priority watershed, contact the state agency listed on
the state Assessments page to find out opportunities available
for public participation in the Watershed Restoration Action
Strategy for the watershed of interest to you.
***Marketing News***
<> Organic Update
The February 9-11 meeting of the National Organic Standards Board
produced substantial progress on a number of policy issues that
were among the most controversial elements of the first Proposed
Rule. In addition to the previously announced prohibition on the
use of genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and
biosolids, Keith Jones of the National Organic Program outlined
significant improvements in standards for livestock, synthetic
materials, inert ingredients in pesticide formulations, and
ecolabeling. Important provisions include: a 100% organic feed
requirement, no antibiotic use on livestock, access to the
outdoors for all animals and pasture for all ruminants with very
limited exceptions, NOSB authorization for all approved synthetic
materials, a prohibition on all List 2 EPA inerts and all List 3
inerts unless specifically approved by the NOSB, and no
restrictions on label claims other than the organic claim.
The changes reflect the broad consensus seen in the more than
275,000 comments that criticized the first Proposed Rule and are
much closer to existing state and private certification
standards. Keith stated that his office is ôdotting the iÆs and
crossing the tÆsö on the next draft which should, after internal
clearance, appear in the Federal Register by summer. Keith
announced that the Department will seek a one-time authorization
to cover the cost of the first round of certifier accreditation.
If Congress goes along, this should be very helpful for enabling
smaller, private certifiers to work in the national program.
The NOSB also brokered a tentative compromise between the USDA
and the private certifier community on provisions for termination
of certification. The arrangement would allow private
certifiers, after finding a serious violation of
standards and an internal appeal process, to revoke the letter of
certification through which it authorized the offending operation
to use its seal on a particular product. The operation can elect
to appeal the certifierÆs decision to the Secretary, who retains
final authority to terminate certification. A workable
resolution to this issue will be a closely watched detail in the
next Proposed Rule. Keith also announced that he is negotiating a
contract with the Organic Materials Review Institute to conduct
the necessary technical reviews on materials being considered for
the National List.
***FQPA Watch***
<> EPA Falling Behind on Organophosphates
The EPA has fallen behind in making the key decisions needed for
FQPA implementation. The Agency postponed a Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for February,
and has yet to release a refined risk assessment for any
organophosphate (OP) compound. The Agency is continuing to
accept comments on unrefined assessments for many OPs. The
refined risk assessments are needed to complete the risk
management process, through which the Agency will determine which
products and label uses will be eliminated. The Agency also
announced that while it expects to have the first third of all
food tolerances reviewed by August 1999 (as required by FQPA),
tolerances for the high-risk organophosphates will not be among
them. The EPAÆs inability to reach a decision on the OPs is
undermining the FQPA, which was specifically designed to expedite
review of the highest risk products. The apparent decision to
shift the AgencyÆs resources to low risk products and the
registration of newer reduced risk alternatives has left the
fate of many widely used OPs unresolved.
***USDA Conservation***
<> CRP Sign-Up totals
Secretary Glickman announced the results of the 18th Sign up for
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which will bring nearly 5
million additional acres into the program, out of 7.1 million
offered in this round. This will result in a total enrollment in
the program of 31.3 million acres.
Once again, Plains states led the new enrollment, with continued
high sign ups in Montana, the Dakotas, and Kansas. The largest
acreages in this sign-up were:
Montana 638,178 acres
North Dakota 603,235
Texas 554,800
Kansas 403,030
Minnesota 380,547
Colorado 290,129
South Dakota 282,127
Iowa 229,073
Washington 193,576
Nebraska 186,364
As in all of the most recent sign-ups, USDA ranked bids on the
basis of an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) and a cost factor.
For the 18th Sign-up, CRP offers with an EBI of 245 or greater
are considered acceptable for enrollment, and USDA claims a
higher EBI average for this round than for any previous one.
***USDA Research Review***
<> Stakeholder Guidelines
(Special to MAKING HAY by Kim Leval)
After much delay, the land grant university stakeholder and peer
review draft guidelines and plans of work will be published in
the federal register for public comment around March 23rd. Last
year, in the federal research bill, Congress mandated that in
order to receive formula funding, state agricultural colleges
(land grants) will be required to follow guidelines and document
how they involve citizen stakeholders in agricultural research
decision-making. The proposed rule will be open to public
comment possibly for as little as 30 days, hence our pre-
publication alert.
The Center for Rural Affairs, the Consortium for Sustainable
Agriculture Research & Education, and the Midwest Sustainable
Agriculture Working GroupÆs research committee are leading an
effort to respond to these guidelines and ensure representation
of a diverse array of citizens, meaningful input processes, and
strong accountability mechanisms. These groups will be sending
action alerts with information including the federal register
announcement, sample comment letters, and who to contact for more
information. If you would like to join in the effort to influence
how your land grant research impacts social, economic, and
environmental justice and sustainability, contact Kim Leval of
CSARE and the Center for Rural Affairs at (541) 687-1490 or email
her at [log in to unmask] or look for the information on the
following websites: <<http://www.cfra.org/>www.cfra.org> or at
<<http://www.csare.org/>www.csare.org>.
***USDA Notes***
<> Beginning Farmer Advisory Committee
Seven long years after the law passed establishing the beginning
farmer advisory committee, Secretary Glickman announced the
appointment of the 18-member group on February 22nd. Included on
the panelÆs membership are our own Ferd Hoefner (Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition) plus Kathy Ruhf from the New England Small
Farm Institute, Calvin King, Sr. from Arkansas Land and Farm
Development Corporation, and Greg Smitman from the Intertribal Ag
Council. Also represented are the National Council of State
Agriculture Finance Programs, the Extension Service, the Farm
Credit System, and the American Bankers Association. The group
expects its first meeting to occur in late spring or summer. It
is charged with developing greater federal-state beginning farmer
partnerships using existing beginning farmer credit programs, and
to recommend other methods for creating new farming and ranching
opportunities.
<> Community Food Security RFP Expected
At the end of March, USDA will issue a Request For Proposals for
the 1999 Community Food Projects grant program. Applicants will
have either 60 or 90 days to submit completed proposals. This is
a competitive grants program administered by the USDA Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Services. The grant
program will match an amount up to $250,000 for up to 3 years for
a private, non-profit entity project that links farms, food
processing facilities and food markets with local low-income
rural or urban residents.
Background information on the Community Food Project Grant
Program is available on the web at
<www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm>. In addition, Martha
Noble plans to attend an information session on the Program at
Penn State University on April 23, 1999. If you have any
questions you wish addressed at this session or would like a
briefing after the session, contact Martha Noble at the SAC
office or via e-mail at <[log in to unmask]>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send email to [log in to unmask]
Make the message text (not the subject): SIGNOFF IOWA-TOPICS
|
