April 3, 2003

Charles Whitmore
Acting Director, Conservation Operations Division
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013-2890

Dear Mr. Whitmore:

I am writing on behalf of the Land Stewardship Project to provide comments and recommendations in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Conservation Security Program (CSP) published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2003 (Fed. Reg. Vol. 68, No 32, pages 7720-7722).

The Land Stewardship Project believes that the CSP holds great promise for improving natural resource conservation on our nation's farmlands. Such improvement is greatly needed, as soil erosion, chemical and nutrient runoff, and depletion and contamination of water supplies continue to degrade America's environment and threaten the long-term stewardship of the land. In particular, CSP can serve to balance the loss of federal farm program payments by farmers who do not prioritize commodity program crop production, but who instead have begun to utilize resource-conserving crop rotations and pasture-based rotational grazing systems and are penalized by lower farm program payments as a result. (see attachments A Tale of Two Farms and Intensive Corn-Soybean Rotation is Not Sustainable by University of Minnesota soil scientist Gyles Randall)

It is very important that the CSP reward conservation farmers who have been doing what's right all along and encourage them to do more. Conservation farmers provide many benefits to all Americans in the form of clean air, clean water, habitat and soil protection, and more. This program needs to recognize and reward actual conservation benefits produced by farmers on their farms and provide incentives for farmers to address and solve critical resource problems. We heartily agree with NRCS' statement: "In short, CSP should reward the best and motivate the rest."

The Administration should make the Conservation Security Program a major priority. In light of the events that have occurred since the CSP was signed into law by the President last May, the Land Stewardship Project urges you to:

1. Accelerate the rule making process and launch the CSP in time to allow for significant enrollment opportunities in fiscal year 2003. The statutory deadline for writing rules to implement the CSP has already passed.

2. Ensure immediate implementation on a comprehensive, nationwide basis. The CSP is intended for all regions of the country and all types of agriculture.

3. Uphold and defend CSP's status as a conservation entitlement program, as the law requires. Once producers meet the requirements for approval of an effective and meaningful conservation plan, they should be enrolled in a contract - without delay and with no allocation formulas, selection processes, bidding systems, or waiting lists.

4. Require strong conservation and environmental standards, and reward strong environmental performance. Positive environmental outcomes achieved by innovative producers should be a major objective of the CSP, more than funding specific practices with little emphasis on outcomes.

5. Retain the real payment limitations required by the law that was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and supported by the American people. No loopholes or exceptions should be enacted via regulation, manual, or practice. Enforcement of the limitations should be strict. We must not allow CSP to become a handout of hundreds of thousands of dollars to individual producers.

6. Support restoration of full funding. The recently signed omnibus appropriations bill caps the CSP at $3.77 billion through 2013. While this action does not change the entitlement nature of the program, it would have the very unfortunate effect of prohibiting additional farmers from enrolling (or renewing contracts) after the cap had been reached. We urge you to give strong support to the bipartisan Senate leadership commitment to remove this cap in upcoming legislation and restore the program to its full 2002 Farm Bill funding.

7. The law requires all CSP participants to comply with the conservation requirements of the 1985 farm bill, commonly referred to as swampbuster, sodbuster, and conservation compliance. We strongly urge the Department to utilize its broad authority under the CSP to set minimum requirements for each tier to enhance the compliance feature in two important ways. First, for the purposes of participating in the CSP, compliance should be to a level at or below the soil loss tolerance level, consistent with the quality criteria orientation of the CSP. Second, again for the purposes of the CSP, compliance should be applied to all land eroding at greater than the tolerance level, not just so-called highly erodible land.

8. As a way to use USDA programs efficiently, and to focus CSP funds on outcomes rather than the installation of new practices, CSP cost-share funds should be used for the maintenance of current effective conservation practices and structures. Cost-share to support the installation of new practices or structures should come from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) with no delay upon approval of a CSP contract that includes such installation.

We also wish to comment on other key issues for consideration:

A. Definition of a Resource Conserving Crop Rotation

Recommended Definition
We believe that resource conserving crop rotation means a minimum of three different crops in rotation, at least one of which is not grown as a conventionally defined row crop. Crops should be grown in full-season rotations. A proportionate amount of acres of all cropland enrolled in the CSP should be planted to the resource conserving crop and it should meet the purposes outlined in the law, including Sec 1238 10D. Cover cropping, while a useful practice, does not sufficiently interrupt pest cycles (Sec 1238 10D.)

The original Senate language provides good guidance on the definition of a crop rotation including: "a perennial grass; a legume grown for use as a forage, seed for planting or green manure; a legume-grass mixture; a small grain grown in combination with a grass or legume, whether inter-seeded or planted in succession; and such other plantings, including trees and annual grasses, as the Secretary considers appropriate for a particular area." Perhaps trees could be dropped because they are not usually part of a "rotation."

Rationale: We have compiled a short annotated bibliography that lists 10 sources of information that describe the environmental or economic value of longer crop rotations (see appended resource conserving crop rotations bibliography). Another publication noted that the inclusion of cool season crops in a warm season row crop systems helps to break pest cycles, and regulate nutrient cycles. It may also help conserve moisture. ( see Davis, C T and R.E. Gauge. "Chapter 1: The Transition" Sustainable Farming Guidebook. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. St. Paul, MN, page1-4).

Of course, a corn-soybean system should not qualify as a resource conserving crop rotation, since it would not meet the terms of the statute. The corn-soybean crop system does not meet the purposes of Sec 1238 (10) parts a, b, c, or d. Corn and soybeans induce soil erosion, particularly before canopy cover is achieved. The modeling done by the Land Stewardship Project and others in our Multiple Benefits of Agriculture study showed the potential for significant reductions in soil erosion if a resource conserving crop rotation were used. Moreover, recent data based on in-field monitoring and modeling, clearly shows significant increases in soil erosion when going from a grass system to two-crop mono-cultural production.

Soybeans have been used to interrupt pest cycles in corn, but that effect is weakening. For example, corn rootworm is experiencing extended diapause in parts of the Corn Belt. As more Round-Up resistant soybeans are grown, herbicide tolerance is becoming a problem in weeds such as mares tail. Millions of pounds of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides are required to make this type of production system viable in the short term.

B. Include managed rotational grazing and rationale as eligible for an enhanced payment.

Definition
A Managed Rotational Grazing is a system of livestock production where animals are fed and housed primarily on pastures broken up into smaller paddocks. Cattle are moved frequently among paddocks to allow for maximum nutritional value of the feed and optimal recovery of the vegetation in the paddocks between periods of grazing. Manure is deposited on the land as the animals are grazing. Negative environmental consequences resulting from more confined production systems are minimized. In this system, animals are brought into barns for milking and during periods of inclement weather.

Rationale: Studies show the value of managed rotational grazing. Information provided for background includes the following:

a) An annotated bibliography of 11 studies showing the value of Managed Rotational Grazing in different parts of the country and including grazing in riparian areas. This includes parts of a fuller annotated bibliography on the subject of grazing and riparian areas.

b) An LSP fact sheet documenting a variety of implications for environmental, social, and human health issues by changing to Management Rotational Grazing.

C. Reinstate the original purposes of the CSP

The Senate language for the purposes of CSP included: "to promote diversity of flora and fauna; on-farm conservation and regeneration of biological resources, including plant and animal germplasm; wetland restoration, conservation, and enhancement; wildlife habitat management, with special emphasis on species identified by any natural heritage program of the applicable State; reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement of carbon sequestration; and environmentally sound management of invasive species."

The actual law as passed only included a more narrow range of the intended purposes listed above.

Recommendation: In the final administrative rule, we urge you to include all of the original purpose statements presented in the Senate version.

Rationale: This program should be implemented in a way that achieves optimization of environmental benefits on farms and ranches. The Multiple Benefits of Agriculture Project Phase I Report (see attached summary of this report) showed that a wide range of environmental benefits could result from production that meets Tier III requirements or Tier II (whole farm) requirements, if the practices include resource conserving crop rotations, rotational grazing, and buffers. We know from our research that the public is willing to pay $201 per household for significant environmental improvements by agricultural producers.

The Land Stewardship Project also supports the detailed comments submitted in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on behalf of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. I concur with their answers to your questions and endorse their recommendations.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to watching the program as it develops.

Sincerely,

Mark Schultz
Policy Program Director
Land Stewardship Project
2919 E. 42nd Street
Minneapolis, MN 55407