This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

excellent discussion on the prairie issue

Prairie listserve, and
Prairie Coalition Network volunteers,

Just a few days ago, I forwarded a request for emails/faxes of support for a
letter by Senator Burns to the Sec. of the U.S. D.A.

In this short time, I have been privileged to follow the following
conversation between two people with a great deal of knowledge about the
issue: one from outside the agency(Suzy Friedman) and one with direct agency
knowledge of announced policies and budgets (William McGuire, whom Cindy
Hildebrand of Iowa tells me she trusts explicitly.)

Although Bill courteously took this dialogue off listserve, no doubt to
spare us the drudgery of the details and to have a more private conversation
between themselves on the subject, after previewing it for you all, I
believe you will, if interested in the subject, enjoy easedropping as I was
permitted to do.


PLEASE DO CALL YOUR SENATOR TODAY and leave the message that you would like
him/her to sign onto Senator Burns letter and that today is the deadline for
that. One economic point you might make is that you want to see more of the
conservation programs come to your state because they PAY better!  And it
will not take land out of corn or wheat or remove it from grazing uses.
Why, it's a lovely law!

I have to think that the Senator knows what he is doing, and his request
might help reserve just a few more dollars for existing prairies to be put
into the Grassland Reserve Program.  Lord, would I like $2,000,000 of that
money to come to Texas for prairie conservation easements!  Maybe we can
perpetually conserve some of these wonderful prairies that I despair ever
getting grant money for.

Lee Stone
Bastrop, TX

PS.   If we are helpful to Senator Burns, we may find a prairie ally.  Maybe
he's from a ranching family who graze on short or mid-grass prairie? I
didn't get a chance to call his ag aide today, but I certainly will
tomorrow.


IF YOU WISH TO FOLLOW THIS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, DROP TO THE LAST EMAIL,
AND WORK YOUR WAY UPWARDS.  Naturally there

[The following email is the last in the series and is from Bill.]

You are welcome Suzy.

The 2.8 million cap appears a good balance among that general sign-up,
CCRP and CREP purposes of the program, has been fairly widely
communicated by FSA and has mostly been expressed as an intent (i.e.
enroll approximately that many acres, knowing that it probably won't
work out to be exact).  FY2004 is the first year in which new enrollment
would cost FSA additional and the FY2004 budget proposal presented on
the Hill only includes funding for that many more acres.  I'm reasonably
comfortable that FSA is headed toward 2.8 million plus or minus a few.
I am also concerned about the $'s taken from the four tech. assistance
donor programs but believe it a moot point for FY03 funds - how it is
done in FY2004 and beyond may be more important.

I just received more word on GRP.  The plan appears to be to fund the
program at $49.9 million this federal fiscal year in several pilot areas
- all to the west of Missouri.  This might even be done in the absence
of a rule although I'm not yet clear on that.

The letter is, of course, up to you and others to send/not send or
sign-on/not sign-on.  I don't advise on that one way or the other.
However, I hope that the information I provided is helpful in these
decision processes and certainly appreciate your (and those on these
listserves) interest and involvement in conservation progress.  The
conservation needs are great, the challenges daunting and it will take
all of those with interest, working together, to make the progress that
needs to be made.

Bill

>>> <sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org> 05/15/03 11:44AM >>>

Thanks much Bill. While we would like a 2 million acre cap, limiting
the
general sign up to 2.8 million acres would definitely leave acres for
continuous enrollment and CREP. We are still concerned about the $$ to
be
taken from EQIP, WHIP, and FPP however.

But we are in agreement that a 2.8 million cap would be helpful. We
have
just not heard that. Have you heard anything more beyond what was said
at
the conference to show that FSA is going to in fact impose a 2.8
million
acre cap? I woudl appreciate getting a copy of the budet summary you
mention below. But if that is just what FSA estimates will be enrolled,
but
they do not say they will cap the enrollement, it is very possible that
the
enrollment will be far larger. Yes? No?

On GRP, you could well be correct. Either way, we would like to see
GRP
restored to what the Senate included in it's version of the Farm Bill
-- a
2 million acre program without a dollar cap that is focused on longer
term
and permanent enrollments as opposed to mostly short term contracts.

I always really enjoy your feedback. I watch for your emails on the
Farm
Bill Network listserve (have to admit I tend not to open all of them --
too
many).

But bottom line, we still feel the Burns letter is important and
whoever
feels comfortable with the message, we could really use some more help
to
get more Senators signed on. We only have a day left.

Look forward to more of your thoughts and emails.

And fyi, I've sent each of you an invitation to join an ag
conservation
listserve I manage, in case you are interested.

Suzy

Suzy Friedman, Staff Scientist/Ag Policy Analyst
Environmental Defense
202-572-3376 (v), 202-234-6049 (f)
sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org
www.privatelandstewardship.org



                   
                   
                     "William McGuire"
                   
                     <mcguiw@mdc.state        To:
<leeprairie@austin.rr.com>, Scott Faber/EnvironmentalDefense, Susan
       
                     .mo.us>
Friedman/EnvironmentalDefense, <tnoto@rochester.rr.com>
             
                                              cc:
<Grantridge@aol.com>, <LONDE@aol.com>, <kellydn@frontiernet.net>
       
                     05/15/2003 11:51         Subject:  Re: new
information about Burns request
                     AM
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   




Suzy, hope all is going well out your way and thanks for the dialog on
the CRP issues.  CRP is a huge program that can do much conservation
good and it is certainly worth all the attention we can give it.

In order to clarify my understand of the issues I have added
explanation following your comments on my original posting so read on.

Bill

>>> <sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org> 05/15/03 08:38AM >>>

Lee -- Thanks tons for all you have done in sending this request
around. I
greatly appreciate your help.

I have tried to answer the questions below, but these are pretty
complicated issues and I would be more than happy to also talk on the
phone. My number is 202-572-3376, or send me your number.

I've included my responses below in red. I greatly appreciate this
feedback.

Scott Faber and Terry Noto also do a lot of work on CRP and related
issues.
Scott or Terry -- do you have anything to add to my responses below?

Thanks!

Suzy



Suzy Friedman, Staff Scientist/Ag Policy Analyst
Environmental Defense
202-572-3376 (v), 202-234-6049 (f)
sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org
www.privatelandstewardship.org





                     Lee Stone

                     <leeprairie@austi        To:       Susan
Friedman/EnvironmentalDefense

                     n.rr.com>                cc:
<mcguiw@mdc.state.mo.us>, Cindy Hildebrand <Grantridge@aol.com>,
Kelly Norris  <kellydn@frontiernet.net>, Janis Londe <LONDE@aol.com>

                     05/14/2003 08:24         Subject:  new
information about Burns request

                     PM


BILL:

     My understanding of the issues is ...

     1.  The Administration has expressed an intent to limit CRP
     enrollment
     in the current sign-up to 2.8 million acres (the amount in the
     President's FY04 budget proposal).  This enrollment target would
     leave
     plenty of enrollment space for CCRP and CREP.

SUZY:      
If this is true, great. But we have not heard that the
Administration
     has any intention to cap CRP enrollment. There is nothing in the
     documents released thus far that indicates such an intention.
That is
     why Senator Burns is circulating the letter calling for a 2
million
     acre cap.

BILL IN RESPONSE:
At the FY2004 Federal Budget Briefings in Washington DC in late Feb.
(hosted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies),
FSA announced (and provided a hard copy summary which I can provide to
you if helpful) the intent to have a general sign-up this spring and
estimated that 2.8 milliion acres would be accepted.  The FSA budget
proposal reflects this in the CRP funding requested in FY2004
($2,119,000,000 which is up $236,000,000 from the 2003 appropriation).
The 2.8 million acre enrollment target was also announced at the
national CRP training FSA held in Kansas City, MO in preparation for
the
general sign-up this spring.

BILL'S INTIAL SECOND POINT:
2.  Due to complicated actions/interaction between and among
     Congress,
     the Office of Management and Budget, theJustice Department and
USDA,
     the
     decision was made in federal FY03 to use funds from 4
conservation
     programs (EQIP, WHIP, FPP and GRP) to fund technical assistance
for
     all
     conservation programs (including CRP, WRP, CSP and a couple of
     special
     EQIP programs).  While this is not equitable and will,
hopefully,
be
     corrected in federal FY04, the funding diverted from these
programs
     for
     technical assistance is gone and will be spent on technical
     assistance
     for the programs, regardless of the size of the CRP sign-up.

     Yes, what happened in the Omnibus bill was a MESS!! We are
hoping
to
     correct this mess in the FY04 appropritions bill. We feel each
     program should pay for its own technical assistance.

SUZY'S RESPONSE:
Agree most wholeheartedly.  It isn't fair or logical to expect a few
conservation programs to pay technical assistance bill for all.  Some
programs like WHIP were cut very, very deeply.

     But in the mean time, we are eager to ensure that significant
funds
     from EQIP, WHIP, FPP and (if they have rules released and get up
and
     running this year, which is in question) GRP and CSP are not
diverted
     from those also important programs to pay for technical
assistance
     for CRP and WRP. It is a done deal that these working lands
programs
     will be paying for technical assistance for CRP and WRP in FY03,
but
     by putting a cap of 2 million acres on the general CRP sign up,
we
     can limit that diversion of funds from EQIP, WHIP, and FPP. CRP
is a
     vitally important program. But the EQIP, WHIP, and FPP are
incredibly
     important as well. A 2 million acre cap would provide some
balance
     and allow producers a greater opportunity to access whichever of
     these programs they find most helpful in their situation. This
is
an
     extremely complicated issue, and I would be happy to discuss in
via
     phone if you would like.

BILL'S RESPONSE:
CSP hasn't been tagged as a technical assistance donor program - only
EQIP, WHIP, FPP and GRP.  Although NRCS has expressed intent to return
unused technical assistance $'s to programs to fund on-ground
projects,
it seems most likely that the huge technical assistance demand will
consume the diverted technical assistance $'s.  In any event, and if
there are unused FY2003 technical assistance $'s, there will be no way
to tell which program they came from or which program they go back to.
The difference between a 2.8 million acre CRP and a 2.0 million acre
CRP
will likely make little difference in terms of technical assistance
spending (in view of the other programs that will chew up FY2003
technical assistance $'s if CRP doesn't).  Again, I agree that the
solution should be for each program to pay it's own way in terms of
technical assistance.

BILL'S THIRD POINT:
     3.  In the case of GRP, it is exceedingly unlikely that any
money
     could
     be spent out of federal FY03 funds anyway since a rule hasn't
been
     issued for the program and reportedly won't be until late summer
or
     eary
     fall (far too late to have a sign-up and obligate FY03 funds).
In
     any
     event, GRP is an acreage cap (not spending cap) program so
diverting
     funds means little except that it is not a good precedent to
expect
     funding from one consevation program to fund technical
assistance
for
     other conservation programs.

SUZY'S RESPONSE:
Yes, it is unlikely that GRP will get off the ground this year,
     althought I heard we may see rules today. But the program is
actually
     capped both in terms of acres and acres -- it is a 2 million
acre
     program capped at $254 million over the life of the Farm Bill.
So
     funding can definitely be diverted from this program.

BILL AGAIN:
You are correct that GRP is an acreage cap program that also has a $
cap.  However, it is arguable and (as far as I know) unresolved in
terms
of whether technical assistance $'s taken from the GRP side of the
budget will reduce the $254 million cap if GRP is an inoperable
program
- perhaps the technical assistance drain will reduce the cap and
perhaps
not.  In any event, Congress could restore or increase GRP funding and
the 2 million acre cap would provide an excellent foundation on which
to
build supportive logic for that.  Also, you may be right that a
proposed
rule for GRP could be released any day (this is an out-of-the-blue
thing, at least to me, that was announced yesterday) and that perhaps
there will be a sign-up yet this year although a geographically
limited
pilot might be all it is.

BILL'S FOURTH POINT:
4.  Regarding the impact of CRP on rural economies, USDA just
went
     through an extensive process to produce a Programmatic
Environmental
     Impact Statement for CRP.  It is my understanding that this was
     conducted by a non-USDA entity and with plenty of opportunity
for
     public
     review and input.  Economic issues were explored in this
document
     (let
     me know if anyone would like to review it and I can advise how
to
get
     a
     copy - it is large).  If memory serves me correct, the economic
     influence of CRP wasn't found to be significantly detrimental to
     local
     rural economies in an overall sense although it may shift
spending
     among
     sectors of the local economy (i.e.less spending on seed/inputs
for
     cropland planting but more spending on grassland management,
     hunting/fishing recreation, etc.).

SUZY'S RESPONSE:
     Again, we are very strong supporters of the general CRP program.
It
     has produced incredible conservation benefits and has been of
great
     benefit to many producers. But the targeted subprograms of CRP
--
     continuous enrollment and CREP -- and the working lands programs
like
     EQIP, WHIP, and FPP are also of great importance and value.

BILL AGAIN:
I agree that we need all of the programs as well as a balance among
the
general sign-up, CCRP and CREP elements of CRP.

     Food for thought ...

     Bill
     mcguiw@mdc.state.mo.us

Bill also said in a later email: " FYI, the 2.8 million cap is what
USDA
has been intending since at least late Feb. of this year when the
Presidents FY04 budget proposal was rolled-out."

My question to you is what's going on?  I plan to call the Senator's
office
in the morning and speak to his Ag Aide.  I'll share with you what is
said.
I don't like asking busy prairie people to write emails/faxes if
there's no
specific need.

Lee Stone f
494 SH 71 W STE 140-318
Bastrop, TX 78602
512-581-9822

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index