We hope OMB will expedite its approval of the USDA  proposal for FY02 funding -- INCLUDING ALL NECESSARY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING -- so NRCS can begin processing applications and initiate as many projects as possible prior to the November elections, so that the Administration can point to immediate and positive results from the Farm Bill (and use this to obtain good publicity from the media for the Farm Bill).

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is one of the primary federal cost share programs that Florida producers can utilize.

EQIP is particularly valuable because it provides a combination of technical, financial and educational assistance to landowners to address various natural resource concerns.  

Again, there are 3 points critical to Florida.  (For more details, please see the links below.)

1.  Definition of "marginal grazing land."  Need to be sure the type of pastureland we have in Florida is eligible and not excluded (in CRP, CREP, EQIP, Grassland Reserve, etc.  To view proposed language to be included in definition, click here).

2.  Rulemaking/policies on "managed grazing"   (especially in CRP and CREP, but also in EQIP).  Suggest that this be referred to as "prescribed grazing." Need to be sure that the types of grazing that occur in Florida are acknowledged and accommodated.  We graze because it achieves specific objectives.  For example, we often use grazing as a means of controlling invasive species and reducing fuel loading.  Grazing also is used to improve or maintain wildlife habitat, maintain a stable herbaceous plant community, facilitate nutrient export, and slow the flow of water across the landscape, thereby reducing or slowing the amount of sediment or nutrient into surface waters.  If rental payments are reduced because of this type of grazing, there will be no incentive for an owner/operator to participate in the program.  Grazing should be an approved method of controlling invasives, reducing of fuel loading, and maintaining wildlife habitat under EQIP. (To view proposed language for included practices, click here).
 

3.  Need to ensure credit/acknowledgement is received in program applications for installed practices and expenditures already made and that these practices/expenditures can be transferred from one program to another. This applies not only to EQIP, but to other USDA conservation programs as well.  Please see link to "conservation parity payment" under points to be considered in rule making, below.

These grants could be extremely valuable in helping initiate projects, filling in gaps in technical assistance funding when producers are applying for more than one program, and providing pre-agreement funds for working with landowners on applications and "program assembly," that could facilitate development and use of the stewardship agreements described in Sec. 2003, "Partnerships and Cooperation."  

Language was included in the Grassland Reserve Program to ensure Florida producers would qualify by specifying that:

• existing habitats for important plant and animal species can be retained -- and not replaced in order to qualify for the program;
• the program applies to all areas of the country; and
• existing plant and wildlife habitats can be protected through the program, when theses habitats support important species, even if the current grasses and shrubs are not the original native species. A purely technical interpretation of "natural grass and shrublands" or "natural grasslands," as originally described in the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill, would have disqualified many ranch operations in the U.S., even though many operations currently provide habitat for a large number of threatened and endangered species. This is because older grasses that had lower nutritional values have been replaced in many cases by newer, more nutritional grasses and legumes that now support large, very diverse populations of livestock, deer and other wildlife.

We wish to ensure that the rules for Grassland Reserve Program reflect these three objectives.

Again, we need to be sure that the type of pastureland we have in Florida is eligible and not excluded, and the types of grazing that occur in Florida are acknowledged and accommodated. 

This provision is of great interest to many Florida producers whose land holdings included habitats for listed species and who are interested in managing these habitats in a manner consistent with their conservation purposes, and would like to have the opportunity to enter into long-term (but not permanent) contracts to obtain compensation for practices carried out to maintain this habitat, and to provide a revenue stream for this land, in return for not converting it to another more traditional farm use that would generate revenues.

For the most part, these landowners do not want to sell their land to the government or place it under permanent conservation easements, and are not interested dealing with the complexities (and expense) involved in working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services in developing a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Hence, this provision in WHIP offers another valuable "tool" for expanding conservation on private lands, and provides another option to owners/operators that will fit situations and needs that are not addressed in other programs.

We support programs that provide funding to willing landowners who wish to place permanent conservation easements on their property in return for fair compensation.  We do not think these programs will protect farming, but we believe they are good public policy, and will result in retaining pastoral landscapes that provide open space, wildlife habitats and other environmental and social values.

The Florida Legislature has approved a program to act as a companion to the Farmland Protection Program (which includes permanent easements, 30-year easements and funds for "stewardship agreements").  Funding for this program is proposed to be $100 million a year for 10 years, or a total of $1 billion.

We hope to make good use of the Farmland Protection Program to complement our state program.  It is an important tool for those who wish to participate.

Third Party Technical Assistance. If all the planning is done by a 3rd party, does the cost for this technical assistance count toward the program caps that limit how much each owner/operator can receive under each conservation program?  Or does technical assistance (by NRCS or by 3rd party) come out of the technical assistance funds that are earmarked for each program?  

Need clarification on how 3rd party technical assistance will work and how different groups in Florida -- soil and water conservation districts, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and water management district staff, producer groups such as Florida Cattlemen's Association, private groups such as Glades Crop Care and local land trusts, and individuals who work under contract with private landowners -- will be compensated for the work that they perform on behalf of a landowner, and what certification will be required.  

These costs should fall under the Technical Assistance earmarked.  At present the certification process is open but not being used much according to Florida’s State Conservationist, Niles Glasgow.