Benchmark condition inventory – good because it provides NRCS and land owner with a way to evaluate

American Farmland Trust

Informations

• Publié par: Zyog
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

September 7, 2005

Financial Assistance Programs Division
Natural Resources Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013-2890

COMMENT ON THE AMENDED INTERIM FINAL RULE FOR THE
CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM

Please find below American Farmland Trust’s comments on the Amended Interim Final
Rule for the Conservation Security Program (CSP) published in the Federal Register on
March 25, 2005 by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a national conservation organization working across
the country to save the land that sustains us. Established in 1980, we are the only national
nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the best farm and ranch land, planning for
growth with agriculture in mind and keeping the land productive and healthy.

The CSP is the nation’s first comprehensive stewardship incentive program for farmers
and ranchers, and we believe that this type of program should become a central
component of future U.S. farm policy. In order for it to do so, however, the NRCS must
implement the program in a manner that is national in scope, financially attractive to
producers and predictable. In our comments on the original interim final rule, we
recommended that the NRCS reject the proposed watershed approach, provide the
maximum payment levels authorized by the statute and make the program more
accessible to farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, the agency did not include these
fundamental changes in the amended interim final rule.

AFT once again urges the NRCS to eliminate restrictions that limit CSP enrollment to
select watersheds and encourages the agency to utilize an allocation system that ensures
that CSP is open to all farmers and ranchers in all states. AFT also encourages the agency
to provide producers with meaningful program payments by removing the stewardship
payment reduction factor and eliminating the variable payment rates and caps on
enhancement payments. We further urge the NRCS to recognize the diverse nature of
agricultural operations by ensuring that eligibility criteria are attainable for all farmers
and ranchers and by making a broad array of conservation practices and systems eligible
for CSP payments. We believe that these changes will not only result in a CSP that is
available to all farmers and ranchers regardless of size, product, or geography, but will
also recognize farmers and ranchers who protect and improve the environment.
NATIONAL OFFICE
1200 18th Street, NW • Suite 800 • Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.farmland.org

We hope you will consider these thoughts and the detailed recommendations below as
you develop the final rule for the CSP.

COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED INTERIM FINAL RULE

§ 1469.4(b) Significant resource concerns

Recommendation: AFT opposes the provision that allows the Chief to determine
additional nationally significant resource concerns for each sign-up. We recommend that
additional significant resource concerns be determined and announced at the state level
one-year before each sign-up notice. Finally, we recommend that the agency allow
participants to address any additional significant resource concern during the first year of
their CSP contract.

Comment: The interim final rule allows the Chief or his designee to determine additional
nationally significant resource concerns during each sign-up. Allowing the Chief to
determine significant resource concerns at the national level fails to acknowledge the
unique resource concerns facing each state. AFT believes that State Conservationists,
with input from State Technical Committees, are better positioned to make informed
decisions regarding resource concerns in their states. Allowing each state to determine
additional significant resource concerns recognizes the knowledge of local resource
issues possessed by NRCS state level staff. Determining resource concerns at the national
level will ultimately limit the environmental benefits the CSP provides. We recommend
that the agency revise the first sentence of the provision to read, “For each sign-up, the
Chief may direct State Conservationists to determine an additional significant resource
concern for all land uses.”

Advance notice of additional resource concern requirements is critical in light of the
agency’s estimation that it may take eight years to rotate through all of the nation’s
watersheds. Last minute notice of additional resource concern requirements in the sign-up
notice may prevent otherwise qualified producers from enrolling in the CSP until the
NRCS selects their watershed again. The agency should announce any additional
significant resource concerns at least one year before the actual sign-up period. This will
provide producers with sufficient time to implement new practices to address the concern
prior to the actual sign-up period.

The agency must also recognize that it is not possible to effectively address some
resource concerns over a short period. In addition to providing farmers and ranchers with
a one-year advance notice of additional resource concerns, the agency should allow
participants to address additional significant resource concerns during the first year of
their CSP contract.

Finally, the loss of productive farm and ranch land is a vital resource concern that is not
included in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guides. AFT urges NRCS to include farm
and ranch land protection as a resource concern that participants may address to meet
American Farmland Trust 2
September 7, 2005
eligibility criteria or CSP contract requirements. The CSP would not provide payments
for farm and ranch land protection. Instead, it would recognize farm and ranch land
protection as a resource concern that could be or may have already been addressed
through other means, such as land permanently protected through a state or local
Purchase of Conservation Easement (PACE) program. Including it on the list of resource
concerns would recognize the long-term commitment to agriculture and conservation that
these landowners have made.


§ 1469.5(e)(1) Minimum tier eligibility requirements

Recommendation: AFT believes the minimum tier eligibility criteria proposed by the
NRCS are not closely linked to the environmental outcomes they seek to achieve and
ultimately limit participation in the CSP. We recommend that the agency establish
minimum eligibility criteria that reflect actual conservation outcomes and are attainable
for a majority of farmers and ranchers.

Comment: The minimum level of treatment requirement proposed by the NRCS further
restricts producer eligibility for the CSP and limits the number of environmental and
conservation benefits that the program can ultimately provide. It is critical that the NRCS
not impose minimum level of treatment requirements that are so rigorous that they
prevent a vast majority of deserving producers from enrolling in the program. While AFT
agrees that the NRCS should require producers to demonstrate a prior commitment to
conservation as a condition of eligibility, we believe that the minimum level of treatment
criteria it proposes in the amended interim final rule are too rigorous. The Soil Condition
Index threshold for cropland, the water access requirements for pasture and rangeland
and the buffer requirement for Tier III eligibility are all examples of minimum eligibility
requirements that may not reflect actual conservation efforts. We encourage the agency to
re-examine the proposed minimum tier eligibility provisions to ensure that they are
attainable for a majority of farmers and ranchers and are reflective of actual conservation
outcomes.


§ 1469.5(e)(2) Minimum level of treatment on cropland

Recommendation: AFT opposes the Tier I and Tier II minimum level of treatment
requirements for cropland proposed by the NRCS. We recommend that, in addition to the
Soil Conditioning Index, the agency utilize the soil quality index currently being
developed by the ARS in order to determine the soil quality and conservation benefits
provided by cropland.

Comment: The NRCS has determined that applicants must achieve a positive Soil
Conditioning Index (SCI) value in order to enroll in the CSP. This provision prevents
many farmers from enrolling in the program who are utilizing good conservation
practices because it measures trends rather than current soil quality. The agency has
American Farmland Trust 3
September 7, 2005
acknowledged the limitations of the SCI and stated that it should not be used as the sole
1assessment of soil quality or conservation planning.

The agency should recognize that positive SCI values are not possible to achieve on all
types of operations or in all regions of the country even if good conservation practices are
utilized, and in some circumstances may not be necessary to prevent degradation of the
resource. The agency has stated that the SCI is dependent on practices such as crop
2rotation and cover crops as well as practices that limit tillage trips. This makes the SCI a
po