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]