Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FarmingforWildlife_USA
group.

   File        : /NWF Biofuels Innovation Program Summary.pdf
   Uploaded by : nwfmt_intern <nwfmt_intern@...>
   Description : Summary of NWF's proposal to boost production of renewable
biofuels in a wildlife friendly manner.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FarmingforWildlife_USA/files/NWF%20Biofuels%20Inno\
vation%20Program%20Summary.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

nwfmt_intern <nwfmt_intern@...>

On January 31, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns released the
Bush Administration's proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill. The length
and breadth of the proposals -- the summary runs 183 pages -- seems
to signal that the Administration plans to play an active role in
the upcoming Farm Bill debate.

Some highlights, and lowlights:

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Bush Administration proposes
no increase in the CRP from its current authorization level, 39.6
million acres (currently, about 37 million acres is actually
enrolled in the program). However, USDA plans to give priority in
future CRP sign-ups to lands used for biomass production, which will
reduce the wildlife value of those lands.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The Bush Administration proposes to
continue the program at its current authorized level of 250,000
acres per year, while merging the current Emergency Watershed
Program floodplain easement function into the WRP. (In practice,
Congressional funding limits have kept actual enrollment well below
250,000 acres annually). The Administration also proposes to change
WRP by allowing third parties to hold easements and allowing
landowners and others to contribute a share of the easement cost.
The Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program would be changed to be more
like the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, providing for
states to share in the cost for targeted efforts.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). The proposal would
eliminate the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, merging it into
an expanded Environmental Quality Incentives Program along with the
Forest Land Enhancement Program and several other cost-share
programs. The Administration would boost EQIP funding by 30 percent
over the next decade. The proposal would also establish a new
Regional Water Enhancement Program to address water quality and
quantity problems at a regional scale.

Private Lands Protection Program. The Administration would merge the
Grassland Reserve Program, Farm & Ranchland Protection Program, and
Healthy Forest Reserve Program into a single Private Lands
Protection Program. The new program would fund easements designed to
protect a variety of lands including native prairie, non-industrial
forest land, grazing lands, and open space.  It would also provide
additional consideration in the ranking process for landowners who
provide open access for public recreation on easement lands.

Conservation Security Program (CSP). The proposal would continue the
program, but with funding levels far less than was contemplated
under the 2002 Farm Bill, and with some substantial changes. It
would eliminate cost-share payments for new practices (along with
maintenance and base payments), and limit enrollment to up to 1
percent of all cropland in any one year.

Sod Saver. The Administration recommends a new "Sod Saver"
provision, that would permanently deny farm price and income support
payments on acres of rangeland and native prairie converted to crop
production in the future. This would build on existing Sodbuster and
Swampbuster provisions in the current Farm Bill.

Overall, the Administration's new Farm Bill proposal is a mixed bag
for wildlife. It includes some good ideas like Sod Saver, but
appears to fall short of the level of effort needed for conservation
and wildlife in the next Farm Bill.

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation

From E and E news

AGRICULTURE: Peterson rethinks his plans for biomass fuels research

Allison Winter, E&E Daily reporter

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has
refined his approach to a key part of the farm bill's energy title
dealing with cellulosic ethanol.

Peterson wants to take his proposal to pay farmers for growing
grasses for energy crops a step further, encouraging such operations
to take place in geographical areas that could eventually host
cellulosic ethanol refineries, he said this week.

Since Peterson took the chairmanship of the agriculture panel, he
has flagged a program to pay farmers to plant switchgrass or other
biofuels crops as his chief interest in the next farm bill. The
proposal was fairly straightforward, and Peterson said it could help
transition biomass from its current smaller research phase to larger-
scale production.

But now Peterson wants to add in requirements to tie the acreage to
eventual plants. He said he is still considering several different
options.

"I've changed my thinking a little bit on how to go ahead with this,
but I am not totally clear," Peterson said in an interview earlier
this week. "Now as I look at this, now I think we have to be
focused."

Instead of just having the program pay farmers to plant large swaths
of lands with various grasses, Peterson would like to group those
operations in pilot programs. He would like the farms to be in a 50-
mile radius that could include an eventual plant to convert the
grasses to fuel.

"The more I look at it, the idea of growing switchgrass all over the
country is probably not the best idea," Peterson said.
He said he was inspired by a visit last weekend to the Chariton
Valley Biomass Project and talks with biofuels experts. The Chariton
Valley project in southern Iowa produces small amounts of fuel on an
experimental basis from switchgrass and other native southern Iowa
grasses.

A group of conservation organizations has been promoting an idea
similar to Peterson's. The environmentalists' plan, the "biofuels
innovation program," would enroll 200,000 to 250,000 acres together
in grass production, to place the acreage within 50 miles of a
plant. The close proximity to a plant is necessary because of the
high costs of transporting the grasses, which are heavy and bulky.
"Otherwise, it would not be economically viable," said Julie Sibbing
of the National Wildlife Federation. "And we are bound and
determined to try to enroll in areas where there is a reasonable
chance it could be used."

Proposals would not use CRP.

Conservation groups have also been concerned about Congress possibly
using the Conservation Reserve Program as a vehicle for growth of
energy crops, but Peterson and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have both indicated that is not the direction
they are headed in interviews over the past week.

"There is some reticence to move ahead too aggressively on CRP,"
Harkin said, adding that he believes in the program.
CRP, the farm bill's largest conservation program, pays farmers a
certain amount per acre to retire land that once grew crops into
environmentally beneficial grasslands. Some lawmakers have suggested
using those acres for cellulosic ethanol.

Peterson said this week that his energy proposal's per-acre payments
would be similar to CRP, but it would not be linked to that
program. "The rules of CRP do not allow us to do what we're going to
do," he said.

Wildlife and hunting groups say CRP has been enormously beneficial
for ducks, pheasants and other birds. They say those benefits could
be lost if the focus of the program turned to energy crops that
would have to be harvested every year.

Julie M. Sibbing
Senior Program Manager for Agriculture and Wetlands Policy
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th St. N.W., Suite 501
Washington, DC  20036
(202) 797-6832
fax (202) 797-6646
sibbing@...
www.nwf.org
NWF's mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our
children's future.

The House Agriculture Committee has announced which members will be
Subcommittee Chairs, and who will serve on those subcommittees for
the new Congress, after a Janury 23 organizational meeting.

The Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research will
be Chaired by Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA). The Committee has jurisdiction
over soil, water, and resource conservation; small watershed
program; energy and biobased energy production; rural
electrification; agricultural credit; and agricultural research,
education and extension services. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) will serve
as Ranking Minority Member on the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee will play a key role in the 2007 Farm Bill, as it
will deal with most of the USDA conservation programs that provide
over 40 million acres of habitat across the USA. Subcommittee members are:

Rep. Tim Holden, D-PA, Chairman
Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-SD
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-TX
Rep. Jim Costa, D-CA
Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-IN
Rep. Zachary T. Space, D-OH
Rep. Timothy J. Walz, D-MN
Rep. David Scott, D-GA
Rep. John T. Salazar, D-CO
Rep. Nancy E. Boyda, D-KS
Rep. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-NY
Rep. Dennis A. Cardoza, D-CA
Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-IA
Rep. Steve Kagen, D-WI
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-OK, Ranking Minority Member
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-AL
Rep. Steve King , R-IA
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-NE
Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-OH
Rep. Timothy Walberg, R-MI
Rep. Terry Everett, R-AL
Rep. Jerry Moran, R-KS
Rep. Robin Hayes, R-NC
Rep. Sam Graves, R-MO
Rep. Jo Bonner, R-AL
Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave, R-CO
Rep. Collin Peterson, D-MN, who Chairs the full Agriculture
Committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Ranking Minority Member,
serve on all Subcommittees as well.

  Other Subcommittee Chairs were also announced:

Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) will Chair the Subcommittee on Department
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) will Chair the Subcommittee on General
Farm Commodities and Risk Management.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) will Chair the Subcommittee on
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, which includes pesticides.

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) will Chair the Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) will Chair the Subcommittee on Specialty
Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture.

The Committee increased the number of Subcommittees to six from
five, and shuffled the jurisdiction of several Subcommittees to
account for the addition.

A news release with all Subcommittee assignments is available at the
House Agriculture Committee web site, http://agriculture.house.gov.

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation

The National Wildlife Federation, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition,
and Izaak Walton League of America jointly released a report January
17 analyzing the wildlife benefits of the Farm Bill's Conservation
Security Program (CSP).  The report, Hidden Treasures: The
Conservation Security Program and Wildlife, says 1) the CSP provides
substantial wildlife benefits, 2) those wildlife benefits vary
considerably from state to state, and 3) with some changes in the
next farm bill and in the Department of Agriculture's implementation
of the program, the CSP could provide even greater wildlife benefits.

The report urges Congress to substantially increase funding for the
Conservation Security Program, require that USDA provide cost-share
under the program for new practices, and require that all Tier II and
Tier III contracts under the program address wildlife habitat.

The report's analysis of data provided by the US Department of
Agriculture finds that roughly one-half of CSP payments in contracts
signed by farmers during the 2006 CSP sign-up either support direct
wildlife habitat benefits, or promote pesticide use reduction
practices that will likely benefit some wildlife.

Wildlife habitat management is one of eleven CSP resource management
categories, and currently less than 10 percent of CSP payments are
for Habitat Management.  However, wildlife benefits are also gained
from practices that provide multiple benefits, especially grazing,
pest and nutrient management.

The report includes case studies of wildlife benefits provided by the
Conservation Security Program in the Chesapeake Bay region and six
states (California, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Texas). In some states, like Missouri, payments for direct wildlife
benefits plus pesticide use reduction practices exceed 85 percent of
total CSP payments. However, some states were far lower (in Nebraska,
26 percent of payments resulting from 2006 CSP contracts are for
practices that provide wildlife benefits).

The report also gives five recommendations for the US Department of
Agriculture that would improve the program, including giving farmers
more and better wildlife habitat options, and involving state and non-
profit wildlife professionals early in the process.

The Conservation Security Program is a comprehensive stewardship
incentives program created by Congress in the 2002 Farm Bill that
provides financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers
who develop and maintain conservation systems that solve critical
natural resource and environmental concerns on their land.

A copy of the full report is available at www.msawg.org, and we will
try to post a copy on our Farming for Wildlife USDA site.

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation

On January 18, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6, the Clean
Energy Act of 2007, which would roll back oil and gas industry tax
breaks and adjust royalties on federal oil and gas leases. The $13
billion in savings would be invested in a Strategic Energy Efficiency
and Renewables Reserve, to be used to promote energy conservation and
renewable energy and take important steps towards addressing global
warming.

Although the bill does not specifically allocate those funds, some of
the money could end up addressing America's energy conservation and
renewable energy needs through the 2007 Farm Bill.

The US Department of Agriculture has several energy conservation and
renewable energy programs, and the National Wildlife Federation has
proposed that Congress include a Biofuels Innovation Program in the
2007 Farm Bill. That program would provide incentives for the
development of biofuels production through projects that require
sustainable, wildlife-friendly systems using multi-species plantings
of grass or trees on existing cropland.

The vote on HR 6 was 264-163, and you can learn more about the
legislation, or see how your House Member voted at
http://www.nwf.org/congressandglobalwarming/cleanenergyact.cfm. The
legislation now moves to the US Senate.

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) has
announced the freshmen Democrats who were nominated to serve on the
House Agriculture Committee during the 110th Congress.

Chairman Peterson said the House Democratic Steering Committee,
which assigns all Democratic Members of Congress to committees,
nominated seven additional freshmen Democrats to serve on the House
Agriculture Committee.  They are:

. Congresswoman Nancy Boyda of Kansas
. Congressman Joe Donnelly of Indiana
. Congressman Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
. Congressman Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
. Congressman Tim Mahoney of Florida
. Congressman Zack Space of Ohio

Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota was presviously nominated to serve
on the Committee. The remaining assignments of returning Members of
Congress are expected to be released soon. (Generally, returning
Members of Congress can remain on the committees they have served on
in the past if they choose to do so.)

A major responsibility of the Agriculture Committee in the upcoming
Congress is reauthorization of federal Farm Bill, including the Farm
Bill conservation programs that provide millions of acres of
wildlife habitat across America. Those include the Conservation
Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program, Conservation Security Program and others.

As we hear of additional appointments to the committee, and to the
Agriculture subcommittees in the Senate and House, we will pass that
information on via this listserve.

Duane Hovorka
NWF Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) released
the full membership of the committee January 11.

The House Democratic Steering Committee and House Republican
Conference named the 25 Democrats, and 21 Republicans, who will serve
on the committee and write the 2007 Farm Bill, among other
responsibilities. So, these are good people to get to know, if you
don't already know them.

Below, sorted by state, are the 46 members of the Committee:

AL  Rep. Terry Everett (R)
AL  Rep. Jo Bonner (R)
AL  Rep. Mike Rogers (R)
CA  Rep. Joe Baca (D)
CA  Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D)
CA  Rep. Jim Costa (D)
CA  Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R)
CO  Rep. John Salazar (D)
CO  Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R)
FL  Rep. Tim Mahoney (D)
GA  Rep. David Scott (D)
GA  Rep. Jim Marshall (D)
GA  Rep. John Barrow (D)
IA  Rep. Leonard Boswell (D)
IA  Rep. Steve King (R)
IL  Rep. Timothy Johnson (R)
IN  Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D)
IN  Rep. Joe Donnelly (D)
KS  Rep. Nancy Boyda (D)
KS  Rep. Jerry Moran (R)
LA  Rep. Charles Boustany (R)
MI  Rep. Timothy Walberg (R)
MN  Rep. Collin Peterson (D), Chair
MN  Rep. Tim Walz (D)
MO  Rep. Sam Graves (R)
NC  Rep. Mike McIntyre (D)
NC  Rep. Bob Etheridge (D)
NC  Rep. Robin Hayes (R)
NC  Rep. Virginia Foxx (R)
ND  Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D)
NE  Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R)
NE  Rep. Adrian Smith (R)
NY  Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
NY  Rep. Randy Kuhl (R)
OH  Rep. Zack Space (D)
OH  Rep. Jean Schmidt (R)
OK  Rep. Frank Lucas (R)
PA  Rep. Tim Holden (D)
SD  Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D)
TN  Rep. Lincoln Davis (D)
TX  Rep. Henry Cuellar (D)
TX  Rep. Nick Lampson (D)
TX  Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R)
TX  Rep. Michael Conaway (R)
VA  Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) Ranking Republican
WI  Rep. Steve Kagen (D)

As we learn more on subcommittee assignments, we will pass on that
information.

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator

Steve,

I'll put a note up on the Farming for Wildlife site, but we were told the House
Committee appointments won't be made until January. I am assuming most of the
current members who were re-elected will remain on the committee if they want
to.

They announced that Collin Peterson (D-MN) will be Committee Chair, and Bob
Goodlatte will be Ranking Republican on the committee.

I am assuming that Rep. Jerry Moran will remain on the House Ag committee, and
Sen Pat Roberts will be on Senate Agriculture. Other than that, we are waiting
for more announcements.

I have been in touch with Troy about the farm tour/workshops, looks like a great
project. I look forward to working with you on Farm Bill issues, I know they are
big in Kansas!

Duane Hovorka
Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator
National Wildlife Federation
402-994-5995

House Agriculture Committee staff tell us that other than the new
Chair, Rep. Collin Peterson from Minnesota, and the new Ranking
Republican, Rep. Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, and Rep. Tim Walz from
Minnesota, there have been no official annoucements on who will be on
the House Agriculture Committee. The full roster should be named by
about mid-January.

In early December, Rep. Collin Peterson announced that the Agriculture
Committee will likely be restructured to have six rather than the
current five subcommittees. He indicated that the subcommittee chairs
will likely be Representatives Tim Holden (PA), Mike McIntrye (NC),
Bob Etheridge (NC), Joe Baca (CA), Dennis Cardoza (CA), and David
Scott (GA), but he did not indicate which members would chair which
committees. Rep. Tim Holden currently is Ranking Minority Member on
the subcommittee that handles USDA conservation programs.

I would expect that most of the current House Agriculture Committee
members will remain on the committee, but we won't know for sure until
then. And, there will likely be some new members added to replace the
7 committee members who either lost in November or did not run for re-
election. As soon as we know, we will pass on that information on this
listserve.

Duane Hovorka
NWF Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator

Senate Democratic and Republican party leaders have announced which
members will serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee in the next
Congress, which convenes in January. These 21 Senators will be
writing much of the 2007 Farm Bill in the Senate:

11 Democrats:

Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa, who will chair the committee
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Sen. Max Baucus, Montana
Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
	 New Democrats on the committee include:
Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania

10 Republicans:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, who will be Ranking Republican on the
committee
Sen. Mike Crapo, Idaho
Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
Sen. Richard Lugar, Indiana
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas
      New Republicans on the committee are:
Sen. Lindsay Graham, South Carolina
Sen. John Thune, South Dakota

Senator Blanche Lincoln will likely chair the subcommittee on
Forestry, Conservation & Rural Revitalization, which deals with USDA
conservation programs, and Senator Mike Crapo will likely be the
ranking Republican on that subcommittee.

Senators James Talent (Missouri) and Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania)
lost their bids for re-election, and Sen. Mark Dayton (Minnesota)
did not seek re-election. All three served on the Agriculture
committee this past Congress.

-- Duane Hovorka
NWF Farm Bill Outreach Coordinator

USDA won't say if it will ease land reserve exits
Mon Dec 4, 2006

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Agriculture Department declined to
say on Monday if it would ease stringent penalties for farmers who
want to cash in on high grain prices by pulling land out of the long-
term Conservation Reserve.
The reserve is seen as a potential source of land to expand U.S.
grain output, now strained by the ethanol boom. Corn prices are at a
10-year high and U.S. stockpiles are expected to be halved in the
coming year.
If landowners want to withdraw land before their Conservation Reserve
contracts expire, they must refund all rental payments they have
received plus interest and liquidated damages, said a USDA spokesman.
"We do not want to speculate on the question that USDA may be
considering changes," said spokesman Wayne Baggett in an e-mail.
Comparatively small amounts of land will be released from the 36.7
million-acre Conservation Reserve in the next couple of years as
contracts expire compared with the 325 million acres or so of U.S.
cropland.
About 3 million acres were released this fall, USDA data indicates,
with 1.1 million acres (440,000 hectares) expected to mature in
October 2007 and 3.6 million acres in September 2008.
Agricultural economist Otto Doering at Purdue University said last
week that growers were likely to turn some pasture land to corn
production next year. Farmers also are likely to shift land to corn
from other crops or stay with corn rather than following the pattern
of rotating to another crop, he said.
Ethanol is forecast to consume 20 percent of this year's corn crop.
Some agribusiness groups say the figure will reach 35 percent in
coming years and have suggested that USDA's land stewardship programs
should go on a diet.
Created in 1985, the Conservation Reserve pays landowners an annual
rent if they idle environmentally fragile land for at least 10 years.
Average rent is $43.88 an acre for a payment total of $1.8 billion a
year.

Ag bill divides House candidates
By JIM GRANSBERY of the Billings Gazette



When 2007 rolls around, Congress faces the task of producing a new
farm bill that covers five years of production, or it may just extend
the 2002 version for one to two years, giving the international trade
community an opportunity to salvage the Doha negotiations.

Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., believes Congress will produce a new
farm bill next year. Montana agricultural groups want one, he said,
and he is keen to do so.


Democratic challenger Monica Lindeen thinks it might not be bad idea
to extend the current version, giving international talks another
chance to work out ag trade policies. If there is a rewrite, she
wants some specific items in it for Montana farmers and ranchers.

Rehberg is seeking a fourth term in the U.S. House. Lindeen has
served four terms in the Montana House and is term-limited by state
law.

What is in the 2007 Farm Bill - if it is written - is critical to
every farmer and rancher in the state, if for no other reason than
they and their bankers will know what to plan for through 2012.

The Doha round is the World Trade Organization's effort to finally
bring agriculture commodities and products under the international
umbrella. It has floundered for five years. Talks were suspended
indefinitely in July.

Lindeen said the 2002 Farm Bill has not worked for Montana farmers,
especially the so-called safety net of direct, counter-cyclical and
loan deficiency payments and federal crop insurance.

However, waiting a couple of years for Doha to get finished could
prevent U.S. farm policy from being cross-ways with international
trade rules, she said.

Rehberg said Congress will not extend the 2002 version. One reason is
that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee favors writing new legislation in 2007, he said. Sen. Saxby
Chambliss, R-Ga., his counterpart in the Senate has said farmers need
more certainty than a one-year extension. The Bush administration
wants a new farm bill passed in 2007.

"That might be the great debate next year. Rewrite or wait," Rehberg
said.

But Montana's major farm groups want a new bill because they feel
shortchanged by the preference given to cotton and rice in 2002, he
said.

Rehberg said he wants to see farmers and ranchers allowed to use pre-
tax money set aside into a "rainy day" account similar to a medical
savings account. In good years, they could set aside a certain
amount, then use it in years when farm income is not so good.

He likened it to income averaging, which Congress eliminated a few
years ago.

Both candidates have an eye on an energy component in the farm bill.

To fund energy alternatives, Rehberg would open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and establish a trust fund with the proceeds.

With half the trust, he would fund projects such as coal-to-liquids
and ethanol from cellulose.

There needs to be expanded incentives for producers of alternative
energy, Lindeen said. Some of that assistance should go to grower-
owned cooperatives so there is a tie between farm programs and energy
costs.

"We can produce alternatives here with oilseeds, biodiesel, ethanol
from cellulose," she said. "We can spend our money on fuel produced
here versus the Middle East."

Lindeen has campaigned statewide in a school bus fueled with
biodiesel.

She emphasized that the farm bill should be developed from the bottom
up rather than a top down process. She noted that there will be less
money available for farm programs with more demand.

Commodity groups not now included in the farm bill - fruit and
vegetable producers - are clamoring to be covered by the next
version. That will make the subsidy pie, with decreased funding,
sliced thinner for all.

Last year, the U.S. government spent more than $20 billion on farm
subsidies mainly for corn, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat. The
European Union spent at least twice that amount or more.

Montana farmers and ranchers in 2004 had total cash receipts of $2.52
billion from crops and livestock. Of that, $282 million, or 11.2
percent, was from government payments, according to the Montana
Agricultural Statistics Service. The totals for 2005 will be released
later this month.

Rehberg said agriculture is just one area that he and Montana's two
senators have to "kick, scratch and fight for" every year.

As an example, in the past couple years, the fight for agricultural
disaster funds has been blunted by Congress. It appears unlikely
lawmakers, now gone home to campaign for the elections, will provide
weather-related disaster payments to farmers this year.

This is where the risk management accounts he favors would come into
play, Rehberg said. Additionally, they would help cover the shortfall
from crop insurance policies.

"We cannot assume the government will bail us out," Lindeen said.

At the same time, federal crop insurance must be affordable to
producers. Striking a balance is the hard part, she said.

Rehberg said Congress should consider crop insurance for cattle and
other livestock.

"At best crop insurance only covers 75 percent of the losses," he
said. "We would not need emergency assistance every year if the crop
insurance provided the adequate safety net needed in times of weather-
related disasters."

Other agricultural issues in this campaign are:

- Country of Origin Labeling. COOL was part of the 2002 Farm Bill,
but the meatpacking industry's supporters in Congress and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture have prevented it from being funded or put
into effect. The House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee has
denied funding for USDA to complete its guidelines for beef and pork
COOL.

Rehberg said, "Until they change the players, we don't have the
votes. George Bush doesn't want it. Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia don't
want it."

Lindeen said it should be implemented as soon as possible, "but we
know the people who are holding it up."

- Individual Animal Identification. In the wake of the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy - mad cow disease - controversy, USDA is
working on a national plan to register individual identification for
food animals.

"If the feds force it, it should be fully funded by the feds,"
Lindeen said. "COOL would be more effective. The states need the
power to regulate the animal identification if implemented."

Rehberg said he prefers a program like the Montana Beef Network,
which is voluntary and involves ear tags, electronic readers and
computer databanks for identification.

He said there are two problems with a federal program: privacy and
cost. "The government should not set the system. It will be costly,
bureaucratic and complicated.

"If COOL was in place, we wouldn't be having this argument," Rehberg
said.

- Imports and exports of cattle and beef. Because of the BSE presence
in Canada, cattle and beef coming into the United States from Canada
must be from animals 30 months old or younger. Japan imposes a 20-
month limit on U.S. beef exports for the same reason.

Rehberg said the 30-month rule for Canada should be retained. The
Japanese and Korean 20-month restriction "is based on a bogus human-
health argument and has cost us billions," he said.

Lindeen would retain the 30-month rule for Canada and Japan should do
the same for the United States. "It has become a non-tariff trade
barrier. The 30-month rule is a global standard and it should be the
same for the United States in Japan, she said.

- Sugar program. The food processing industry and candy makers have
put forward a proposal for a new sugar program in which farmers would
get direct subsidies, replacing the program that now includes price
supports, marketing allotments and quotas for foreign imports.

The sugar program does not cost taxpayers anything, except in rare
instances when processors forfeit sugar to the government when market
prices dip below the federal loan price. The proposal would require
$1.3 billion more in annual farm program payments to sugar producers.

Lindeen and Rehberg would keep the current sugar program.

- Agricultural research. Increasingly, agricultural research is
funded through private grants from companies with a vested interest
in the results. The agricultural research network, both nationally
and statewide has traditionally been funded through public money,
with results released to the public for its use.

Lindeen said there is a danger in industry paying for research
because it determines what research is done and not done. Government
research should be for the benefit of the citizens, not companies,
she said.

Rehberg said that "we cannot discount the source of the money if it
gets us where we want." He used the example of cellulose-to-ethanol
research and his proposal to use ANWR proceeds to do that research.

"The free market does not always prioritize, so there is a role for
government in ag research."

Great Falls Tribune, Montana 	 Originally published August
18, 2006
Alternative energy grabs 2007 Farm Bill spotlight
By JO DEE BLACK
Tribune Staff writer
Wet weather halted harvest activities Thursday but it didn't dampen
talk about farms, crops, cattle and fuel in Great Falls.
More than 130 people showed up at the University of Great Falls to
listen to grain farmers, cattle ranchers and other agricultural
producers offer input for the 2007 Farm Bill. The Senate Agriculture
Committee held a two-hour field hearing to take testimony.

The 14 official witnesses talked about everything from estate taxes
to marketing powdered milk to China, but it was alternative energy
that grabbed the most attention.
"In Montana we are a long way from an ocean and a long way from
imported oil," Gov. Brian Schweitzer told the committee members. "We
send our grain off the Pacific Coast to third world countries and
somewhere on the high seas, that ship meets another big ship with oil
from those countries coming to the United States. Our farmers are
paying the freight both ways."
Farmers are getting mixed signals about their role in the future of
energy in this country, he said. Crops such as camelina grow well in
Montana and can be used to make biodiesel, but federal crop insurance
programs don't cover the flowering oil seed plant.
"That needs to change so that when a farmer goes to the bank in the
spring for an operating loan, the banker will lend money to plant
alternative crops," Schweitzer said. "We need to send signals to the
market that we are serious about alternative energy."
The Farm Bill covers a number of agricultural programs, including
farm income support, trade, conservation, research and crop
insurance. The current programs, set in 2002, expire next year. Some
ag groups are calling to simply extend the current legislation and
others say an overhaul is needed, said Committee Chairman Saxby
Chambliss, R-Ga.
The Great Falls event was one of seven field hearings held so far.
Another is set for next month in Texas.
"It's always interesting, what you see at the end of the day is that
everyone wants more money in their commodity program, but they don't
want to take money away from someone else's program," Chambliss
said. "These are different times. When the 2002 Farm Bill was drafted
we had a budget surplus. Now we are operating with a budget deficit
and we will be next year too."
Sen. Max Baucus, D.-Mont., a member of the committee, called for
stronger safety nets for traditional Montana crops, including wheat
and barley, noting crops grown in other parts of the country, such as
cotton, have more protection in the current bill.
The target price that triggers counter cyclical payments, a program
designed to kick in when commodity prices fall, is $3.92 a bushel for
wheat, said Dale Schuler, a Carter-area farmer who testified on
behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers.
"The actual cost of production is closer to $5 a bushel today with
higher fuels costs," Schuler said. "The safety net for grain is too
low. The target prices for other crops, including corn and soybeans,
are much higher."
The topic of international trade also generated plenty of discussion.
The World Trade Origination trade talks in Idaho were suspended last
month after the director said gaps between key players are too wide.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., acknowledged that some people feel the
current farm bill should be extended until after there is a new WTO
agreement. Burns is not a member of the ag committee, but sits on
what Chambliss calls the "Ag Posse," a group of senators from ag
states who meet to discuss issues and offer input.
"If our trade partners are willing to get serious about things like
market access and tariff reduction, then a short extension is
something to be considered," he said. "But right now, we aren't
making a lot of progress and some issues that Montana wheat and
barley producers are facing just can't wait."
Burns wants the new Farm Bill to address high shipping rates paid by
farmers, including Montana's Hi-Line producers, served by a single
railroad.
Committee member Sen. Ken Salazar, D.-Colo., quizzed panelists about
the Conservation Reserve Program, originally created to essentially
pay landowners rent to take marginal cropland out of production.
Critics say idling the land hurts local economies because farmers
aren't buying supplies.
"What I hear in Colorado is that too much of the money for CRP goes
to landowners who have moved to other places like New York," he
said. "There is a real negative impact in the rural communities where
this program is used. I don't just hear that from farmers, I hear it
from county commissioners, I hear it from school trustees."
The program has value, but used in excess it prevents new farmers
from getting into the business, Doheny said.
"If a farmer wants to retire and put 25 percent of his land in CRP,
the other 75 percent is still available to lease to someone else," he
said. "But when a whole farm goes into CRP it's devastating."
CRP rental rates can also exceed rental values, Schuler said.
"Young producers shouldn't have to compete against the government for
land," he said.
Bob Racine of Browning called the hearing informative, albeit a
little overwhelming because of the large number of issues addressed.
He works with Colorado-based Coleman Natural Meats to market Native
American-raised beef products.
"We want to help small, individual producers retain ownership of
their livestock until slaughter to help raise their income," he
said. "We want the Farm Bill to include programs to help with
marketing of projects like this for Native Americans."

Brasher: Use of CRP land for ethanol scares wildlife groups
PHILIP BRASHER
WASHINGTON FARM REPORT
June 25, 2006

America's thirst for alternative motor fuels will take more than corn-
derived ethanol to satisfy.

Hence all the interest, from Craig Venter of human genome fame to
DuPont, in figuring how to cheaply make alcohol from plant cellulose,
the abundant, fibrous material that makes up cornstalks, wheat straw,
grass and trees.

But where is all that biomass going to come from?

One obvious source is the 36 million acres of former cropland now
idled under the federal Conservation Reserve Program.

Most of the CRP land is planted to grass, which could be harvested
for ethanol production without increasing erosion, the reason it's no
longer farmed in the first place.

And the grass would come cheap since the landowners already are
getting paid for the land: an annual government check that averages
about $50 an acre nationwide.

The U.S. Agriculture Department estimates that 42 million acres of
land, including CRP acreage, could be planted to bioenergy crops such
as switchgrass and produce nearly 17 billion gallons of ethanol a
year.

That's more than three times the amount of ethanol now being produced
from corn and represents more than 10 percent of the nation's annual
gasoline consumption.

In addition to switchgrass, a tall variety of prairie grass, there
are fast-growing willows and poplars that also can be grown for
ethanol production.

But Conservation Reserve land has also become critical habitat for a
wide variety of wildlife - pheasants, quail, ducks and turkeys, to
name a few. The idea of harvesting that acreage for biofuels has
raised alarms among wildlife and hunting groups.

Twenty organizations, including the National Wildlife Federation, the
Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, wrote Congress recently that
is was "premature" to consider using CRP land for biofuels without
more research.

"Altering the CRP without careful study would unravel the documented
benefits CRP currently provides," the groups wrote.

Not so, according to Iowa farmer John Sellers, one of a few
landowners who's already allowed to harvest CRP grass for bioenergy.
In Sellers' case, the grass is burned to generate electricity as part
of the eight-year-old Chariton Valley Biomass Project in southern
Iowa.

Farmers who harvest grass from Conservation Reserve land for the
project don't get paid for the crop, but there is no reduction in
their annual government payment either. (Most proposals for
harvesting CRP land for bioenergy envision offering farmers reduced
payments in exchange for allowing them to sell the crops for energy.)

Sellers' 140 acres of CRP land still support deer, wild turkeys,
pheasants and quail, and he claims he's got "more songbirds than I
ever have in my life."

"I don't see any downside" to using CRP land for energy crops," he
says. "I see jealousy from other organizations who think this would
hurt the absolutely perfect scenario for wildlife cover."

Indeed, the Chariton Valley project has had little impact on wildlife
numbers on CRP land, according to Bruce Trautman, an official with
the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.

That's because the grass isn't harvested until the fall to avoid
nesting seasons, and sensitive areas such as filter strips along
streams are left alone entirely, says Trautman, the USDA agency's
state conservationist for field operations.

Sellers also plants small plots of corn and milo to serve as feed for
the birds.

"It's not unheard of to jump 50 turkeys in a snowstorm in one of my
food plots," he says.

The concerns about CRP land have led to talk in Washington of
creating a second land-reserve program to set aside additional land
for energy crops.

But that could have significant costs: higher prices for food and
feed and increased government spending.

Using alternative fuels to reduce America's dependence of oil isn't
easy.

Below is a chart of the vote results on yesterday's vote to restore
WRP funding.  We lost 185-235.  As you will see, it certainly was not
a partisan issue!

At least now we know who are base of support is and can work to build
upon it for next year and for the farm bill.



No. RollCall Issue Date Question Result Title
	 Position
  1 188 H R 5384 5/23/2006 On Agreeing to the
Amendment Failed Gutknecht of Minnesota Amendment For


(+)Voted with our position  (-)Voted against our position  (?)Voted
present or not voted
()Blank indicates not in congress or no vote record

Alabama
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Bonner R - 0
002 Everett R - 0
003 Rogers R - 0
004 AderholtR - 0
005 Cramer D - 0
006 Bachus R + 100
007 Davis D - 0


Alaska
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Young R - 0


Arizona
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Renzi R - 0
002 Franks R + 100
003 Shadegg R - 0
004 Pastor D - 0
005 HayworthR - 0
006 Flake R - 0
007 GrijalvaD + 100
008 Kolbe R - 0


Arkansas
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Berry D - 0
002 Snyder D ? 0
003 Boozman R - 0
004 Ross D - 0


California
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 ThompsonD + 100
002 Herger R - 0
003 Lungren R - 0
004 DoolittleR - 0
005 Matsui D + 100
006 Woolsey D + 100
007 Miller D + 100
008 Pelosi D + 100
009 Lee D + 100
010 TauscherD + 100
011 Pombo R - 0
012 Lantos D - 0
013 Stark D - 0
014 Eshoo D + 100
015 Honda D + 100
016 Lofgren D + 100
017 Farr D - 0
018 Cardoza D - 0
019 RadanovichR - 0
020 Costa D - 0
021 Nunes R - 0
022 Thomas R - 0
023 Capps D + 100
024 GalleglyR - 0
025 McKeon R - 0
026 Dreier R - 0
027 Sherman D + 100
028 Berman D + 100
029 Schiff D + 100
030 Waxman D - 0
031 Becerra D + 100
032 Solis D + 100
033 Watson D - 0
034 Roybal-AllardD + 100
035 Waters D - 0
036 Harman D + 100
037 Mill-McDonaldD - 0
038 NapolitanoD + 100
039 Sanchez D - 0
040 Royce R + 100
041 Lewis R - 0
042 Miller R - 0
043 Baca D + 100
044 Calvert R - 0
045 Bono R + 100
046 RohrabacherR + 100
047 Sanchez D + 100
048 CampbellR + 100
049 Issa R ? 0
050
051 Filner D - 0
052 Hunter R ? 0
053 Davis D + 100


Colorado
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 DeGette D + 100
002 Udall D - 0
003 Salazar D - 0
004 Musgrave R - 0
005 Hefley R - 0
006 TancredoR + 100
007 BeauprezR - 0


Connecticut
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Larson D ? 0
002 Simmons R - 0
003 DeLauro D + 100
004 Shays R + 100
005 Johnson R + 100


Delaware
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Castle R + 100


Florida
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Miller R - 0
002 Boyd D - 0
003 Brown D ? 0
004 CrenshawR - 0
005 Brown-WaiteR + 100
006 Stearns R + 100
007 Mica R - 0
008 Keller R ? 0
009 BilirakisR - 0
010 Young R - 0
011 Davis D ? 0
012 Putnam R - 0
013 Harris R + 100
014 Mack R - 0
015 Weldon R - 0
016 Foley R - 0
017 Meek D - 0
018 Ros-LehtinenR - 0
019 Wexler D + 100
020 WasserSchultzD + 100
021 Diaz-BalartR - 0
022 Shaw R - 0
023 HastingsD - 0
024 Feeney R - 0
025 Diaz-BalartR - 0


Georgia
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 KingstonR + 100
002 Bishop D - 0
003 MarshallD + 100
004 McKinneyD + 100
005 Lewis D + 100
006 Price R + 100
007 Linder R - 0
008 WestmorelandR + 100
009 Norwood R - 0
010 Deal R - 0
011 Gingrey R - 0
012 Barrow D - 0
013 Scott D + 100


Hawaii
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Abercrombie D - 0
002 Case D + 100


Idaho
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Otter R - 0
002 Simpson R - 0


Illinois
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Rush D + 100
002 Jackson D + 100
003 LipinskiD + 100
004 GutierrezD + 100
005 Emanuel D + 100
006 Hyde R - 0
007 Davis D + 100
008 Bean D + 100
009 SchakowskyD + 100
010 Kirk R + 100
011 Weller R + 100
012 CostelloD + 100
013 Biggert R + 100
014 Hastert R
015 Johnson R + 100
016 ManzulloR - 0
017 Evans D ? 0
018 LaHood R - 0
019 Shimkus R - 0


Indiana
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 ViscloskyD + 100
002 Chocola R - 0
003 Souder R + 100
004 Buyer R - 0
005 Burton R - 0
006 Pence R - 0
007 Carson D + 100
008 HostettlerR - 0
009 Sodrel R - 0


Iowa
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Nussle R + 100
002 Leach R + 100
003 Boswell D - 0
004 Latham R - 0
005 King R + 100


Kansas
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Moran R - 0
002 Ryun R - 0
003 Moore D - 0
004 Tiahrt R - 0


Kentucky
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 WhitfieldR - 0
002 Lewis R - 0
003 Northup R - 0
004 Davis R - 0
005 Rogers R - 0
006 ChandlerD + 100


Louisiana
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Jindal R - 0
002 JeffersonD + 100
003 MelanconD - 0
004 McCrery R + 100
005 AlexanderR - 0
006 Baker R - 0
007 BoustanyR - 0


Maine
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Allen D - 0
002 Michaud D - 0


Maryland
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 GilchrestR - 0
002 RuppersbergerD + 100
003 Cardin D + 100
004 Wynn D + 100
005 Hoyer D - 0
006 BartlettR - 0
007 CummingsD + 100
008 Van HollenD + 100


Massachusetts
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Olver D + 100
002 Neal D + 100
003 McGovernD + 100
004 Frank D + 100
005 Meehan D + 100
006 Tierney D - 0
007 Markey D + 100
008 Capuano D - 0
009 Lynch D + 100
010 DelahuntD + 100


Michigan
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Stupak D + 100
002 HoekstraR - 0
003 Ehlers R + 100
004 Camp R + 100
005 Kildee D - 0
006 Upton R + 100
007 Schwarz R + 100
008 Rogers R - 0
009 KnollenbergR - 0
010 Miller R + 100
011 McCotterR - 0
012 Levin D - 0
013 KilpatrickD + 100
014 Conyers D - 0
015 Dingell D - 0


Minnesota
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Gutknecht R + 100
002 Kline R + 100
003 Ramstad R + 100
004 McCollumD + 100
005 Sabo D + 100
006 Kennedy R + 100
007 PetersonD + 100
008 OberstarD + 100


Mississippi
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Wicker R - 0
002 ThompsonD + 100
003 PickeringR - 0
004 Taylor D - 0


Missouri
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Clay D + 100
002 Akin R + 100
003 CarnahanD + 100
004 Skelton D - 0
005 Cleaver D - 0
006 Graves R - 0
007 Blunt R - 0
008 Emerson R - 0
009 Hulshof R - 0


Montana
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Rehberg R - 0


Nebraska
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 FortenberryR + 100
002 Terry R - 0
003 Osborne R + 100


Nevada
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Berkley D + 100
002 Gibbons R + 100
003 Porter R + 100


New Hampshire
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Bradley R + 100
002 Bass R + 100


New Jersey
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Andrews D + 100
002 LoBiondoR + 100
003 Saxton R - 0
004 Smith R + 100
005 Garrett R - 0
006 Pallone D + 100
007 FergusonR + 100
008 PascrellD + 100
009 Rothman D + 100
010 Payne D ? 0
011 FrelinghuysenR - 0
012 Holt D + 100
013


New Mexico
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Wilson R - 0
002 Pearce R - 0
003 Udall D - 0


New York
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Bishop D + 100
002 Israel D + 100
003 King R + 100
004 McCarthyD + 100
005 AckermanD - 0
006 Meeks D - 0
007 Crowley D - 0
008 Nadler D + 100
009 Weiner D - 0
010 Towns D - 0
011 Owens D + 100
012 VelazquezD - 0
013 FossellaR + 100
014 Maloney D - 0
015 Rangel D - 0
016 Serrano D - 0
017 Engel D - 0
018 Lowey D - 0
019 Kelly R + 100
020 Sweeney R + 100
021 McNulty D - 0
022 Hinchey D - 0
023 McHugh R - 0
024 BoehlertR - 0
025 Walsh R - 0
026 ReynoldsR - 0
027 Higgins D - 0
028 SlaughterD + 100
029 Kuhl R + 100


North Carolina
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 ButterfieldD + 100
002 EtheridgeD - 0
003 Jones R + 100
004 Price D + 100
005 Foxx R - 0
006 Coble R - 0
007 McIntyreD - 0
008 Hayes R - 0
009 Myrick R + 100
010 McHenry R - 0
011 Taylor R - 0
012 Watt D - 0
013 Miller D + 100


North Dakota
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Pomeroy D - 0


Ohio
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Chabot R + 100
002 Schmidt R - 0
003 Turner R - 0
004 Oxley R ? 0
005 Gillmor R - 0
006 StricklandD - 0
007 Hobson R - 0
008 Boehner R + 100
009 Kaptur D - 0
010 KucinichD + 100
011 Jones D + 100
012 Tiberi R + 100
013 Brown D + 100
014 LaTouretteR - 0
015 Pryce R + 100
016 Regula R - 0
017 Ryan D - 0
018 Ney R - 0


Oklahoma
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Sullivan R - 0
002 Boren D - 0
003 Lucas R - 0
004 Cole R - 0
005 Istook R - 0


Oregon
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Wu D - 0
002 Walden R - 0
003 BlumenauerD - 0
004 DeFazio D - 0
005 Hooley D - 0


Pennsylvania
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Brady D + 100
002 Fattah D + 100
003 English R + 100
004 Hart R - 0
005 PetersonR - 0
006 Gerlach R + 100
007 Weldon R + 100
008 FitzpatrickR + 100
009 Shuster R - 0
010 SherwoodR - 0
011 KanjorskiD + 100
012 Murtha D + 100
013 SchwartzD + 100
014 Doyle D + 100
015 Dent R - 0
016 Pitts R - 0
017 Holden D + 100
018 Murphy R - 0
019 Platts R + 100


Rhode Island
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Kennedy D ? 0
002 LangevinD + 100


South Carolina
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Brown R - 0
002 Wilson R - 0
003 Barrett R - 0
004 Inglis R + 100
005 Spratt D - 0
006 Clyburn D + 100


South Dakota
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Herseth D - 0


Tennessee
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Jenkins R + 100
002 Duncan R - 0
003 Wamp R - 0
004 Davis D - 0
005 Cooper D - 0
006 Gordon D + 100
007 Blackburn R - 0
008 Tanner D + 100
009 Ford D + 100


Texas
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Gohmert R - 0
002 Poe R - 0
003 Johnson R - 0
004 Hall R - 0
005 HensarlingR - 0
006 Barton R - 0
007 CulbersonR ? 0
008 Brady R - 0
009 Green D + 100
010 McCaul R - 0
011 Conaway R - 0
012 Granger R - 0
013 ThornberryR - 0
014 Paul R + 100
015 HinojosaD - 0
016 Reyes D + 100
017 Edwards D - 0
018 Jackson-LeeD + 100
019 NeugebauerR - 0
020 GonzalezD + 100
021 Smith R - 0
022 DeLay R - 0
023 Bonilla R - 0
024 MarchantR - 0
025 Doggett D + 100
026 Burgess R - 0
027 Ortiz D + 100
028 Cuellar D - 0
029 Green D + 100
030 Johnson D + 100
031 Carter R - 0
032 SessionsR + 100


Utah
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Bishop R - 0
002 MathesonD + 100
003 Cannon R - 0


Vermont
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Sanders I + 100


Virginia
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Davis R + 100
002 Drake R - 0
003 Scott D + 100
004 Forbes R - 0
005 Goode R - 0
006 GoodlatteR - 0
007 Cantor R - 0
008 Moran D + 100
009 Boucher D - 0
010 Wolf R - 0
011 Davis R + 100


Washington
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Inslee D - 0
002 Larsen D - 0
003 Baird D - 0
004 HastingsR - 0
005 McMorrisR - 0
006 Dicks D - 0
007 McDermottD - 0
008 ReichertR - 0
009 Smith D + 100


West Virginia
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 MollohanD + 100
002 Capito R - 0
003 Rahall D - 0


Wisconsin
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Ryan R + 100
002 Baldwin D + 100
003 Kind D + 100
004 Moore D + 100
005 SensenbrennerR + 100
006 Petri R + 100
007 Obey D + 100
008 Green R + 100


Wyoming
Dist Member of Congress P 1 Pct.
001 Cubin R - 0

The Wetlands Reserve Program is one of the most successful and
popular of the Farm Bill conservation programs.  At least three times
as many farmers are waiting to enroll in WRP than can be handled
under current funding levels. Unfortunately, those funding levels
just keep getting worse!

Its time to act and you can help!

The House Agriculture Appropriations bill has, once again, taken a
big chunk of funding from the Wetlands Reserve Program and used it to
pay for other programs.  Instead of funding the program at its fully
authorized level of 250,000 acres for FY07, the House committee
approved an all-time low (since the 2002 farm bill) of only 144,000
acres for next year.  The Bush Administration had pointedly asked
Congress to fully fund the program this year as part of ensuring the
success of the President's wetlands initiative.  Unfortunately, the
Appropriations Committee didn't listen.

Tomorrow, (6/18) the full House of Representatives is scheduled to
vote on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for 2007.  Rep. Gil
Gutknecht (R-MN), supported thus far by Rep. Benny Thompson (D-MS),
Kline (R-MN), Ramstad (R-MN), Leach (R-MN), and Kind (D-WI)  will
offer an amendment to restore full funding for the WRP program.

Calls to your member of the House of Representatives in support of
the "Gutknecht Wetlands Reserve Program Amendment" would be help
ensure that this amendment passes. Just tell them how much WRP
benefits landowners, the environment and wildlife!

Capital Switchboard Number:  (202) 224-3121 (just ask to be connected
to your member of Congress).

Julie M. Sibbing
Senior Program Manager for Agriculture and Wetlands Policy
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th St. N.W., Suite 501
Washington, DC  20036
(202) 797-6832
fax (202) 797-6646
sibbing@...

News from the House Agriculture Committee

http://agriculture.house.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:
May 8, 2006
Alise Kowalski (202) 225-0184

CHAIRMAN LAUNCHES WEB-BASED FARM BILL FEEDBACK FORM
Form Allows Producers Nationwide to Provide Input On Farm Policy

GREELEY, CO - Today Chairman Bob Goodlatte announced the launch of a
web-based farm bill feedback form on the House Committee on
Agriculture website.  The announcement was made at a farm bill field
hearing in Greeley, Colorado early this morning.  The web-based
form allows producers throughout the nation to provide the Committee
with feedback about current farm policy as well as input about
the future of farm policy.

"Farm bill policy directly impacts the lives of America's farmers and
ranchers; therefore, if we really want to know how farm policy
works in practice, it makes sense to hear directly from our
producers.
We've had the opportunity to hear from a wide variety of
producers through our field hearings and this information is helpful
to
the Committee as we prepare to consider the farm bill
reauthorization next year.  We also understand that there are many
other
producers that we haven't heard from and this feedback form
will hopefully garner feedback from broad range of producers.  By
having
a web-based feedback form, producers everywhere will have
the opportunity to provide the Committee with their thoughts and input
about future farm policy," said Chairman Goodlatte.

The Committee is conducting field hearings throughout the country to
gather feedback from producers and review current farm policy
in preparation for reauthorizing the 2002 Farm Bill.  The 2002 Farm
Bill
expires September 2007 and Chairman Goodlatte expects to
begin the farm bill debate in early 2007.  To date, the Committee has
convened five field hearings in various regions of the country
including North Carolina, Alabama, California, Nebraska and Colorado.
The sixth field hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2006
in San Angelo, Texas. The Chairman intends to conduct roughly a dozen
field hearings, as well as hearings in Washington, DC, to
review federal farm policy.

The form can be accessed at www.agriculture.house.gov and clicking on
the Farm Bill Feedback icon or directly at
www.agriculture.house.gov/inside/feedbackform.html.  The information
submitted to the Committee via the website will not be part of
the Congressional Record, but will be shared with Members of the House
Committee on Agriculture.

Ben-First a little background on what is happening in Minnesota.  About 77% of
Minnesota is private lands.  Much of the public lands are in the northern
forested 1/3 of the state.  Many counties in the southern portion of the state
are 90+% private lands.  Most of these private lands are working farms, very
productive lands, and not prone to be enrolled in set aside programs such as
CRP, WRP, etc.

An example of including wildlife habitat in CSP took place in our first CSP
signup in the Blue Earth River watershed in south-central Minnesota.  Landowners
had to demonstrate habitat projects on private lands that could show habitat
improvements for one or both bird species, Redheaded Woodpecker (forest bird)
and/or Dicksissel (sp?) (a prairie species), in order to obtain the Tier 3 level
of payment.  Both are non-game species, and using these species as habitat focus
gave us a way to measure landowner habitat measures for a wide range of forest
and prairie animals and plants.  Using specific species of concern as a
measuring device seemed to work well in this case, and should be expanded for
future signups.  In the mean time, landowners who were approved at Tier 1 or 2
are now adding conservation practices on their remaining lands in order to
qualify for Tier 3 payments.

That seems to be a win-win scenario in my mind.  The challenge seems to be, how
do we expand this effort across the landscape so that willing landowners are
encouraged to maintain their existing conservation work and willingly apply more
conservation measures on private lands?  This seems to be an excellent way of
encouraging more conservation measures on private lands.  The key to this
challenge is adequate funding, and adequate technical assistance at the local
level.

I hope this helps.  Feel free to give me call if you'd like to discuss in more
detail.

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
Phone: (651)259-5223
FAX:     (651)297-7272
Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us

>>> deeble@... 4/14/2006 12:20 PM >>>
Hi Wayne:

It sounds like the program may have a lot of potential there.

Could you give our group some examples of how you see funds being
spent, and what objective wildlife benefits are resulting from CSP in
MN?

Thanks,
Ben


>>> WAYNE.EDGERTON@... 4/13/2006 9:04 AM >>>
Ben-The CSP, if fully funded as an entitlement program has tremendous
potential in Minnesota, and across the nation.  It is the first "green
payment" that pays landowners for being the good conservation stewards
we want them to be.  They get payments for installing and maintaining
conservation practices, including a host of wildlife friendly measures.
CSP allows landowners to continue to "farm" their lands and doesn't
require them to retire lands, which many farmers can't afford to do.

Minnesota has had upwards of 7 watersheds eligible for CSP sign-up so
far.  We have had a lot of interest, but the way the program has been
made available to landowners to date has severely hamstrung the program.
  I feel that if fully funded and implemented as intended in the law, CSP
would be the cornerstone conservation program for this and future
federal farm bills.  Minnesota could enroll millions of acres into a
properly implemented CSP.  I'm sure other states could do likewise.

I'm not saying CSP should be funded at the sacrifice of the other land
retirement programs.  It is another tool in the tool box of applying and
maintaining conservation on working lands.

How a fully funded CSP will happen in the present federal budget
climate will be a challenge.  However, I think it's worth the effort.

Let me know if you have any questions or need additional
clarification.

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
Phone: (651)259-5223
FAX:     (651)297-7272
Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us

>>> deeble@... 4/10/2006 2:08 PM >>>
Hello Wayne:

Thanks for passing these draft recommendations alongs. Not knowing
all the specifics of the MN situation, this looks like a fairly solid
set of recommendations....

One thing it contains is recommendation for reauthorizing the
Conservation Security Program (CSP) at 2002 levels.

What has been MN's experience with CSP, and how much is it
incentivizing conservation practices in comparison to the other
programs?  Is it influencing more or fewer acres than the traditional
wildlife-friendly programs like CRP, WHIP, and CREP?  If the cap was
increased, how many acres do you think could be enrolled in MN?

Thanks,
Ben


--- In FarmingforWildlife_USA@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Edgerton"
<WAYNE.EDGERTON@...> wrote:
>
> FYI-Please see below.  This is still a draft for discussion
purposes.  Perhaps it can spur some comments.(?)
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
> Phone: (651)259-5223
> FAX:     (651)297-7272
> Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
> Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us
>
> [Cut and pasted by moderated into body of message]
>
> 2007 FEDERAL FARM BILL
>
> MN. DNR RECOMMENDATIONS
>       [12/01//05 DRAFT]
>
> Implementing the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill
on private lands has a significant impact on improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, improving forest resources, reducing flooding,
improving fish and wildlife habitat, and providing economic benefits
to the citizens of Minnesota.
>
> Following is a list of recommendations developed by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the upcoming 2007 Federal
Farm Bill debate:
>
> General Recommendations:
> *      Provide adequate funding for program implementation technical

assistance (e.g. NRCS, FSA, and/or pass thru funding to state
agencies);
> *      Streamline the overall implementation process;
> *      Eliminate competition for funding between commodity programs
and conservation programs.  For example, USDA currently offers
greater incentives to produce crops on certain farmed wetlands than
to protect those wetlands.  Commodity support payments should target
cropland that is not environmentally sensitive;
> *      Continue to seek broad constituent input in the rule making
process for each conservation program;
>
> Baseline Natural Resource Protection Issues:
> *      Protect natural resources when implementing all Farm Bill
programs.  Eliminate incentives that adversely affect soil, water,
air, forest resources, renewable energy production, and wildlife.
Payments to agricultural producers should provide public benefits in
the form of natural resource protection and enhancement.
> *      Strengthen and reauthorize Swampbuster and Sodbuster
provisions, and extend them to all USDA programs including crop
insurance.
> *      Apply conservation programs to lands based upon "whole farm"
resource plans.
> *      Authorize expanded research, and develop assistance programs
related to carbon sequestration, as well as environmentally
sustainable biomass energy production.
>
> Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)- CRP provides an opportunity to
place long-term contracts (10-15 years) for conservation cover
practices on eligible lands.
> *      Raise the national enrollment cap to at least 63.9 million
acres:
> - at least 54 million acres for general sign up
> - at least 8.7 million acres for continuous Conservation Reserve
Program (CCRP) sign up
> *      Enrolled acres must not have been brought into production
within 5 years of enrollment.
> *      Eliminate the requirement to establish trees on marginal
pasturelands where the existing cover is remnant native prairie, and
the landowner agrees to enhance the vegetative cover under an
approved conservation plan.
> *      Continue incentives for enduring cover types.
> *      Change the EBI to give credit for the establishment of
ecologically significant cover.  This would include prairie
restoration, tree restoration, or restoration of rare and declining
covertypes.
>
> *      Allow up to 15% of new CRP enrollment acres to be targeted to

multi-year (perennial) cover crops for renewable energy.
>
> Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)- In Minnesota, CREP
combines CRP with Minnesota's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve
Program to enroll and protect marginal agricultural land and other
environmentally sensitive land under long-term conservation easements
> *      Reauthorize CREP and provide adequate funding for additional
focused projects.
> *      Streamline the application process.
> *      Include perpetual easement options.
>
> Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)- GRP provides an opportunity to
protect and enhance private grasslands under long-term conservation
easements.
> *      Authorize protection of at least 1 million acres of
threatened grasslands annually, via voluntary, incentive-based long-
term easements.
>
> Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program- This program
provides an opportunity to enhance natural resource benefits on
existing grazing lands by converting exotic grass pastures to native
plant communities.
> *      Reauthorize and provide at least $60 million annually to
convert exotic grass pastures to native plant communities, and
provide financial assistance to offset forage losses during the
conversion process.
>
> Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)- WRP provides an opportunity to
protect and restore wetlands with long-term conservation easements.
> *      Increase cap to at least 250,000 acres annually and maintain
the perpetual easement option.
>
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)- WHIP provides technical
assistance and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish
and wildlife habitat.
> *      Increase funding to at least $100 million annually.
>
> Forest Programs-Assist private forest landowners who manage forest
resources for multiple resources benefits.
> *      Reauthorize the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), and
fully fund the program for at least 5 years for a total of $100
million ($20 million/year).
> *      Include forest and woodland establishment and management as a

practice for solving conservation problems in all
appropriate/applicable programs.
>
> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)- EQIP offers
financial and technical assistance to landowners to install or
implement structural and management practices.
> *      Provide adequate natural resource considerations in this
program and reauthorize at the 2002 Farm bill funding level.
> *      Funding to implement (technical assistance) EQIP should not
be taken from other conservation programs.
> *      Streamline the application process and provide flexibility
for local implementation.
>
> Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)- FRPP provides an
opportunity to protect farmlands under long-term easements.
> *      Reauthorize at a minimum of $200 million annually for long-
term easements to protect croplands and grazing lands from
development.
>
> Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)- SARE
provides assistance to help expand sustainable farming practices on
private lands.
> *      Reauthorize at a minimum of $50 million annually to fund
research, demonstration, and education projects that integrate
natural resource conservation and agriculture objectives.
>
> Conservation Security Program (CSP)- CSP provides annual
stewardship payments to landowners to recognize conservation measures
already applied and encourages additional conservation measures.
> *      Reauthorize as an entitlement program at the 2002 farm bill
funding level.
> *      Remove funding/acreage cap.
> *      Provide for adequate technical assistance to implement this
program.
>
>
> Questions/suggestions can be directed to:
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
>
> (651) 259-5223
> Internet:  "wayne.edgerton@..."
>










Yahoo! Groups Links










YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  Visit your group "FarmingforWildlife_USA" on the web.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  FarmingforWildlife_USA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.









Yahoo! Groups Links

Good or challenging for wildlife?

Article published Apr 10, 2006

Wind energy projects dot horizon

      By SONJA LEE
     

Great Falls Tribune Staff Writer
     

     
     
On the heels of Montana's first major wind-power project and
legislative changes that promote wind, several counties and developers
are surging forward with new projects.
     
For about six months, the Judith Gap Wind Energy Center, about
12 miles
north of Harlowton just off U.S. Highway 191, has produced power. The
site includes about 90 turbines. In January six wind turbines near the
Great Falls International Airport started spinning.
     
The wind turbines at the Horseshoe Bend Wind Park on Gore Hill
are part
of a private wind development project owned by United Materials of
Great Falls. Exergy Development Group in Helena is the project
developer.
     
A variety of other projects are being eyed in Montana. Teton,
Pondera,
Valley, Meagher and Chouteau counties have wind-power projects on the
drawing board. Other projects are being pursued by developers in
Whitehall, Reedpoint and at a handful of spots in eastern Montana.
     
Van Jamison, a former state energy official and wind-power
advocate
from Helena, said he believes a political climate that is more open to
wind development is responsible for the increase.
     
Last year legislators approved a bill requiring public
utilities by
2008 to buy at least 5 percent of their electricity from "renewable
resources," such as wind, solar, geothermal or new, small hydroelectric
projects. The minimum increases to 10 percent by 2010 and 15 percent by
2015.
     
Jamison said a growing number of Western states are adopting
portfolio standards.
     
"There also is market demand for this," he said.
     
More entrepreneurs are checking out the Montana market.
     
"Right after deregulation, not many people showed up, but we
are seeing
that change," Jamison said. "My view is that people who started
thinking about Montana when we moved to (open) markets are finally
beginning to show up."
     
Uncertainty about environmental regulations concerning mercury
and
carbon limits, for example, are part of the equation that has
developers looking into wind. Volatile fuel prices also add to the
drive.
     
Montana, however, still has to deal with its insufficient and
aging transmission system, he said.
     
"I don't know what's going to happen, but there's been a lot
of money
spent on some of the projects," Jamison said. "The policymakers must
step up and promote policies that will make these things happen. It
takes commitment and a lot of work."
     
The largest wind-power project on the radar in Montana is
proposed for
about 30 miles northwest of Glasgow. Wind Hunter LLC intends to build
and operate a wind-energy development in northcentral Valley County.
     
The project potentially could be the largest wind-power site
in
Montana. When complete, it would be twice as large as the Judith Gap
wind farm.
     
The Valley County Wind Energy Project, proposed on a patchwork
of
private land and public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management
and Montana School Trust Lands, will be built in phases and could reach
500 megawatts.
     
The first phase includes 33 turbines, intended to churn out 50
megawatts. Future capacity could increase with the addition of 300
turbines.
     
John Fahlgren, BLM assistant field manager in Glasgow, said
the
environmental assessment for the project is expected to be complete in
the next month. The report is a major step in moving the first phase of
the project forward.
     
Valley County Commissioner David Pippin said he is optimistic.
     
"They are looking at transmission routes," he said. "We are in
a holding pattern, but we think it is feasible."
     
In Teton County, wind developers from Windpark Solutions
America, LLC
in Big Sandy are working on a wind-power operation that would produce
less than 20 megawatts of power.
     
Dave Ryan, project manager, said Teton Ridge east of Choteau
is
promising. Ryan, who also is an energy specialist with the National
Center for Appropriate Technology in Butte, said the wind farm could
have 13 turbines.
     
"The wind characteristics there are similar to those at Judith
Gap,"
Ryan said. "We believe that there is adequate transmission."
     
Ryan said the developers are still working on agreements with
private
landowners where the project could be built. Ryan also said he believes
there is a customer for the power, although he said a confidentiality
agreement forbids him from providing details.
     
"If we can get the turbines, we hope to have this project
operational by 2007," he said.
     
Chouteau County Commission Chairman Jim O'Hara is pursuing a
hybrid
energy project in his county and is working with Montana's
congressional delegation to secure a $5 million federal appropriation.
     
"This would be a nonpolluting operation," he said.
     
Forty-percent of the power would be provided by
wind turbines. Backup
power would come from a biodiesel operation. And O'Hara believes that
the biodiesel's source can be grown right in Chouteau County. It would
come from safflower and other oil seed crops produced on land enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program. About 20 percent of the farmland
in Chouteau County is in CRP, and O'Hara said that land could be put to
work in the hybrid project.
     
"CRP is a big untapped resource," O'Hara said.
     
An unnamed developer is involved in the project, and the
county has
looked at some pieces of private property where the power plant could
be built, he said.
     
Three, large wind turbines would generate power when the wind
is blowing, and the biodiesel would come online for backup.
     
Chouteau County essentially would be "off-grid," providing its
own
power. It might cost a bit more, he said. But residents wouldn't have
to pay peak fees, which can be especially costly to irrigators.
     
"It could be a closed system," O'Hara said.
     
Initially a hybrid operation could provide power for the
schools and
hospital. Eventually, with a 3-megawatt plant, the entire county could
have hybrid power.
     
A number of potential wind developers are eyeing Pondera and
Glacier
counties because of the proposed Montana Alberta Tie, a 186-mile power
line developers want to build between Lethbridge and Great Falls, said
Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad.
     
Canadian developer, Montana Alberta Tie Ltd., is moving
forward with the MATL line.
     
"While there is all the wind in the world here, there is not a
line
with enough capacity to transfer that power," Jones said. "They are all
watching the MATL closely."
     
Developers have requested topographical maps, and others are
looking at
leasing land for additional anemometers, or wind gauges, he said.
     
In Pondera County, commissioners are working with developers,
said
Commissioner Cyndi Johnson. There is one anemometer in the county, she
said. A Minneapolis company that does wind studies owns it.
     
"We may be able to expand that relationship," she said.
     
Three regions of the county, all west of Conrad, are promising
for development.
     
"We support alternative energy and are happy to talk with
anyone who is interested," she said.

Hi Wayne:

It sounds like the program may have a lot of potential there.

Could you give our group some examples of how you see funds being
spent, and what objective wildlife benefits are resulting from CSP in
MN?

Thanks,
Ben


>>> WAYNE.EDGERTON@... 4/13/2006 9:04 AM >>>
Ben-The CSP, if fully funded as an entitlement program has tremendous
potential in Minnesota, and across the nation.  It is the first "green
payment" that pays landowners for being the good conservation stewards
we want them to be.  They get payments for installing and maintaining
conservation practices, including a host of wildlife friendly measures.
CSP allows landowners to continue to "farm" their lands and doesn't
require them to retire lands, which many farmers can't afford to do.

Minnesota has had upwards of 7 watersheds eligible for CSP sign-up so
far.  We have had a lot of interest, but the way the program has been
made available to landowners to date has severely hamstrung the program.
  I feel that if fully funded and implemented as intended in the law, CSP
would be the cornerstone conservation program for this and future
federal farm bills.  Minnesota could enroll millions of acres into a
properly implemented CSP.  I'm sure other states could do likewise.

I'm not saying CSP should be funded at the sacrifice of the other land
retirement programs.  It is another tool in the tool box of applying and
maintaining conservation on working lands.

How a fully funded CSP will happen in the present federal budget
climate will be a challenge.  However, I think it's worth the effort.

Let me know if you have any questions or need additional
clarification.

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
Phone: (651)259-5223
FAX:     (651)297-7272
Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us

>>> deeble@... 4/10/2006 2:08 PM >>>
Hello Wayne:

Thanks for passing these draft recommendations alongs. Not knowing
all the specifics of the MN situation, this looks like a fairly solid
set of recommendations....

One thing it contains is recommendation for reauthorizing the
Conservation Security Program (CSP) at 2002 levels.

What has been MN's experience with CSP, and how much is it
incentivizing conservation practices in comparison to the other
programs?  Is it influencing more or fewer acres than the traditional
wildlife-friendly programs like CRP, WHIP, and CREP?  If the cap was
increased, how many acres do you think could be enrolled in MN?

Thanks,
Ben


--- In FarmingforWildlife_USA@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Edgerton"
<WAYNE.EDGERTON@...> wrote:
>
> FYI-Please see below.  This is still a draft for discussion
purposes.  Perhaps it can spur some comments.(?)
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
> Phone: (651)259-5223
> FAX:     (651)297-7272
> Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
> Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us
>
> [Cut and pasted by moderated into body of message]
>
> 2007 FEDERAL FARM BILL
>
> MN. DNR RECOMMENDATIONS
>       [12/01//05 DRAFT]
>
> Implementing the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill
on private lands has a significant impact on improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, improving forest resources, reducing flooding,
improving fish and wildlife habitat, and providing economic benefits
to the citizens of Minnesota.
>
> Following is a list of recommendations developed by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the upcoming 2007 Federal
Farm Bill debate:
>
> General Recommendations:
> *      Provide adequate funding for program implementation technical

assistance (e.g. NRCS, FSA, and/or pass thru funding to state
agencies);
> *      Streamline the overall implementation process;
> *      Eliminate competition for funding between commodity programs
and conservation programs.  For example, USDA currently offers
greater incentives to produce crops on certain farmed wetlands than
to protect those wetlands.  Commodity support payments should target
cropland that is not environmentally sensitive;
> *      Continue to seek broad constituent input in the rule making
process for each conservation program;
>
> Baseline Natural Resource Protection Issues:
> *      Protect natural resources when implementing all Farm Bill
programs.  Eliminate incentives that adversely affect soil, water,
air, forest resources, renewable energy production, and wildlife.
Payments to agricultural producers should provide public benefits in
the form of natural resource protection and enhancement.
> *      Strengthen and reauthorize Swampbuster and Sodbuster
provisions, and extend them to all USDA programs including crop
insurance.
> *      Apply conservation programs to lands based upon "whole farm"
resource plans.
> *      Authorize expanded research, and develop assistance programs
related to carbon sequestration, as well as environmentally
sustainable biomass energy production.
>
> Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)- CRP provides an opportunity to
place long-term contracts (10-15 years) for conservation cover
practices on eligible lands.
> *      Raise the national enrollment cap to at least 63.9 million
acres:
> - at least 54 million acres for general sign up
> - at least 8.7 million acres for continuous Conservation Reserve
Program (CCRP) sign up
> *      Enrolled acres must not have been brought into production
within 5 years of enrollment.
> *      Eliminate the requirement to establish trees on marginal
pasturelands where the existing cover is remnant native prairie, and
the landowner agrees to enhance the vegetative cover under an
approved conservation plan.
> *      Continue incentives for enduring cover types.
> *      Change the EBI to give credit for the establishment of
ecologically significant cover.  This would include prairie
restoration, tree restoration, or restoration of rare and declining
covertypes.
>
> *      Allow up to 15% of new CRP enrollment acres to be targeted to

multi-year (perennial) cover crops for renewable energy.
>
> Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)- In Minnesota, CREP
combines CRP with Minnesota's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve
Program to enroll and protect marginal agricultural land and other
environmentally sensitive land under long-term conservation easements
> *      Reauthorize CREP and provide adequate funding for additional
focused projects.
> *      Streamline the application process.
> *      Include perpetual easement options.
>
> Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)- GRP provides an opportunity to
protect and enhance private grasslands under long-term conservation
easements.
> *      Authorize protection of at least 1 million acres of
threatened grasslands annually, via voluntary, incentive-based long-
term easements.
>
> Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program- This program
provides an opportunity to enhance natural resource benefits on
existing grazing lands by converting exotic grass pastures to native
plant communities.
> *      Reauthorize and provide at least $60 million annually to
convert exotic grass pastures to native plant communities, and
provide financial assistance to offset forage losses during the
conversion process.
>
> Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)- WRP provides an opportunity to
protect and restore wetlands with long-term conservation easements.
> *      Increase cap to at least 250,000 acres annually and maintain
the perpetual easement option.
>
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)- WHIP provides technical
assistance and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish
and wildlife habitat.
> *      Increase funding to at least $100 million annually.
>
> Forest Programs-Assist private forest landowners who manage forest
resources for multiple resources benefits.
> *      Reauthorize the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), and
fully fund the program for at least 5 years for a total of $100
million ($20 million/year).
> *      Include forest and woodland establishment and management as a

practice for solving conservation problems in all
appropriate/applicable programs.
>
> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)- EQIP offers
financial and technical assistance to landowners to install or
implement structural and management practices.
> *      Provide adequate natural resource considerations in this
program and reauthorize at the 2002 Farm bill funding level.
> *      Funding to implement (technical assistance) EQIP should not
be taken from other conservation programs.
> *      Streamline the application process and provide flexibility
for local implementation.
>
> Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)- FRPP provides an
opportunity to protect farmlands under long-term easements.
> *      Reauthorize at a minimum of $200 million annually for long-
term easements to protect croplands and grazing lands from
development.
>
> Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)- SARE
provides assistance to help expand sustainable farming practices on
private lands.
> *      Reauthorize at a minimum of $50 million annually to fund
research, demonstration, and education projects that integrate
natural resource conservation and agriculture objectives.
>
> Conservation Security Program (CSP)- CSP provides annual
stewardship payments to landowners to recognize conservation measures
already applied and encourages additional conservation measures.
> *      Reauthorize as an entitlement program at the 2002 farm bill
funding level.
> *      Remove funding/acreage cap.
> *      Provide for adequate technical assistance to implement this
program.
>
>
> Questions/suggestions can be directed to:
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
>
> (651) 259-5223
> Internet:  "wayne.edgerton@..."
>










Yahoo! Groups Links










YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  Visit your group "FarmingforWildlife_USA" on the web.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  FarmingforWildlife_USA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Ben-The CSP, if fully funded as an entitlement program has tremendous potential
in Minnesota, and across the nation.  It is the first "green payment" that pays
landowners for being the good conservation stewards we want them to be.  They
get payments for installing and maintaining conservation practices, including a
host of wildlife friendly measures.  CSP allows landowners to continue to "farm"
their lands and doesn't require them to retire lands, which many farmers can't
afford to do.

Minnesota has had upwards of 7 watersheds eligible for CSP sign-up so far.  We
have had a lot of interest, but the way the program has been made available to
landowners to date has severely hamstrung the program.  I feel that if fully
funded and implemented as intended in the law, CSP would be the cornerstone
conservation program for this and future federal farm bills.  Minnesota could
enroll millions of acres into a properly implemented CSP.  I'm sure other states
could do likewise.

I'm not saying CSP should be funded at the sacrifice of the other land
retirement programs.  It is another tool in the tool box of applying and
maintaining conservation on working lands.

How a fully funded CSP will happen in the present federal budget climate will be
a challenge.  However, I think it's worth the effort.

Let me know if you have any questions or need additional clarification.

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
Phone: (651)259-5223
FAX:     (651)297-7272
Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us

>>> deeble@... 4/10/2006 2:08 PM >>>
Hello Wayne:

Thanks for passing these draft recommendations alongs. Not knowing
all the specifics of the MN situation, this looks like a fairly solid
set of recommendations....

One thing it contains is recommendation for reauthorizing the
Conservation Security Program (CSP) at 2002 levels.

What has been MN's experience with CSP, and how much is it
incentivizing conservation practices in comparison to the other
programs?  Is it influencing more or fewer acres than the traditional
wildlife-friendly programs like CRP, WHIP, and CREP?  If the cap was
increased, how many acres do you think could be enrolled in MN?

Thanks,
Ben


--- In FarmingforWildlife_USA@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Edgerton"
<WAYNE.EDGERTON@...> wrote:
>
> FYI-Please see below.  This is still a draft for discussion
purposes.  Perhaps it can spur some comments.(?)
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
> Phone: (651)259-5223
> FAX:     (651)297-7272
> Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
> Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us
>
> [Cut and pasted by moderated into body of message]
>
> 2007 FEDERAL FARM BILL
>
> MN. DNR RECOMMENDATIONS
>  [12/01//05 DRAFT]
>
> Implementing the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill
on private lands has a significant impact on improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, improving forest resources, reducing flooding,
improving fish and wildlife habitat, and providing economic benefits
to the citizens of Minnesota.
>
> Following is a list of recommendations developed by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the upcoming 2007 Federal
Farm Bill debate:
>
> General Recommendations:
> * Provide adequate funding for program implementation technical
assistance (e.g. NRCS, FSA, and/or pass thru funding to state
agencies);
> * Streamline the overall implementation process;
> * Eliminate competition for funding between commodity programs
and conservation programs.  For example, USDA currently offers
greater incentives to produce crops on certain farmed wetlands than
to protect those wetlands.  Commodity support payments should target
cropland that is not environmentally sensitive;
> * Continue to seek broad constituent input in the rule making
process for each conservation program;
>
> Baseline Natural Resource Protection Issues:
> * Protect natural resources when implementing all Farm Bill
programs.  Eliminate incentives that adversely affect soil, water,
air, forest resources, renewable energy production, and wildlife.
Payments to agricultural producers should provide public benefits in
the form of natural resource protection and enhancement.
> * Strengthen and reauthorize Swampbuster and Sodbuster
provisions, and extend them to all USDA programs including crop
insurance.
> * Apply conservation programs to lands based upon "whole farm"
resource plans.
> * Authorize expanded research, and develop assistance programs
related to carbon sequestration, as well as environmentally
sustainable biomass energy production.
>
> Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)- CRP provides an opportunity to
place long-term contracts (10-15 years) for conservation cover
practices on eligible lands.
> * Raise the national enrollment cap to at least 63.9 million
acres:
> - at least 54 million acres for general sign up
> - at least 8.7 million acres for continuous Conservation Reserve
Program (CCRP) sign up
> * Enrolled acres must not have been brought into production
within 5 years of enrollment.
> * Eliminate the requirement to establish trees on marginal
pasturelands where the existing cover is remnant native prairie, and
the landowner agrees to enhance the vegetative cover under an
approved conservation plan.
> * Continue incentives for enduring cover types.
> * Change the EBI to give credit for the establishment of
ecologically significant cover.  This would include prairie
restoration, tree restoration, or restoration of rare and declining
covertypes.
>
> * Allow up to 15% of new CRP enrollment acres to be targeted to
multi-year (perennial) cover crops for renewable energy.
>
> Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)- In Minnesota, CREP
combines CRP with Minnesota's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve
Program to enroll and protect marginal agricultural land and other
environmentally sensitive land under long-term conservation easements
> * Reauthorize CREP and provide adequate funding for additional
focused projects.
> * Streamline the application process.
> * Include perpetual easement options.
>
> Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)- GRP provides an opportunity to
protect and enhance private grasslands under long-term conservation
easements.
> * Authorize protection of at least 1 million acres of
threatened grasslands annually, via voluntary, incentive-based long-
term easements.
>
> Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program- This program
provides an opportunity to enhance natural resource benefits on
existing grazing lands by converting exotic grass pastures to native
plant communities.
> * Reauthorize and provide at least $60 million annually to
convert exotic grass pastures to native plant communities, and
provide financial assistance to offset forage losses during the
conversion process.
>
> Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)- WRP provides an opportunity to
protect and restore wetlands with long-term conservation easements.
> * Increase cap to at least 250,000 acres annually and maintain
the perpetual easement option.
>
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)- WHIP provides technical
assistance and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish
and wildlife habitat.
> * Increase funding to at least $100 million annually.
>
> Forest Programs-Assist private forest landowners who manage forest
resources for multiple resources benefits.
> * Reauthorize the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), and
fully fund the program for at least 5 years for a total of $100
million ($20 million/year).
> * Include forest and woodland establishment and management as a
practice for solving conservation problems in all
appropriate/applicable programs.
>
> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)- EQIP offers
financial and technical assistance to landowners to install or
implement structural and management practices.
> * Provide adequate natural resource considerations in this
program and reauthorize at the 2002 Farm bill funding level.
> * Funding to implement (technical assistance) EQIP should not
be taken from other conservation programs.
> * Streamline the application process and provide flexibility
for local implementation.
>
> Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)- FRPP provides an
opportunity to protect farmlands under long-term easements.
> * Reauthorize at a minimum of $200 million annually for long-
term easements to protect croplands and grazing lands from
development.
>
> Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)- SARE
provides assistance to help expand sustainable farming practices on
private lands.
> * Reauthorize at a minimum of $50 million annually to fund
research, demonstration, and education projects that integrate
natural resource conservation and agriculture objectives.
>
> Conservation Security Program (CSP)- CSP provides annual
stewardship payments to landowners to recognize conservation measures
already applied and encourages additional conservation measures.
> * Reauthorize as an entitlement program at the 2002 farm bill
funding level.
> * Remove funding/acreage cap.
> * Provide for adequate technical assistance to implement this
program.
>
>
> Questions/suggestions can be directed to:
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
>
> (651) 259-5223
> Internet:  "wayne.edgerton@..."
>










Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello Wayne:

Thanks for passing these draft recommendations alongs. Not knowing
all the specifics of the MN situation, this looks like a fairly solid
set of recommendations....

One thing it contains is recommendation for reauthorizing the
Conservation Security Program (CSP) at 2002 levels.

What has been MN's experience with CSP, and how much is it
incentivizing conservation practices in comparison to the other
programs?  Is it influencing more or fewer acres than the traditional
wildlife-friendly programs like CRP, WHIP, and CREP?  If the cap was
increased, how many acres do you think could be enrolled in MN?

Thanks,
Ben


--- In FarmingforWildlife_USA@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Edgerton"
<WAYNE.EDGERTON@...> wrote:
>
> FYI-Please see below.  This is still a draft for discussion
purposes.  Perhaps it can spur some comments.(?)
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
> Phone: (651)259-5223
> FAX:     (651)297-7272
> Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
> Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us
>
> [Cut and pasted by moderated into body of message]
>
> 2007 FEDERAL FARM BILL
>
> MN. DNR RECOMMENDATIONS
>  [12/01//05 DRAFT]
>
> Implementing the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill
on private lands has a significant impact on improving water quality,
reducing soil erosion, improving forest resources, reducing flooding,
improving fish and wildlife habitat, and providing economic benefits
to the citizens of Minnesota.
>
> Following is a list of recommendations developed by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the upcoming 2007 Federal
Farm Bill debate:
>
> General Recommendations:
> • Provide adequate funding for program implementation technical
assistance (e.g. NRCS, FSA, and/or pass thru funding to state
agencies);
> • Streamline the overall implementation process;
> • Eliminate competition for funding between commodity programs
and conservation programs.  For example, USDA currently offers
greater incentives to produce crops on certain farmed wetlands than
to protect those wetlands.  Commodity support payments should target
cropland that is not environmentally sensitive;
> • Continue to seek broad constituent input in the rule making
process for each conservation program;
>
> Baseline Natural Resource Protection Issues:
> • Protect natural resources when implementing all Farm Bill
programs.  Eliminate incentives that adversely affect soil, water,
air, forest resources, renewable energy production, and wildlife.
Payments to agricultural producers should provide public benefits in
the form of natural resource protection and enhancement.
> • Strengthen and reauthorize Swampbuster and Sodbuster
provisions, and extend them to all USDA programs including crop
insurance.
> • Apply conservation programs to lands based upon "whole farm"
resource plans.
> • Authorize expanded research, and develop assistance programs
related to carbon sequestration, as well as environmentally
sustainable biomass energy production.
>
> Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)- CRP provides an opportunity to
place long-term contracts (10-15 years) for conservation cover
practices on eligible lands.
> • Raise the national enrollment cap to at least 63.9 million
acres:
> - at least 54 million acres for general sign up
> - at least 8.7 million acres for continuous Conservation Reserve
Program (CCRP) sign up
> • Enrolled acres must not have been brought into production
within 5 years of enrollment.
> • Eliminate the requirement to establish trees on marginal
pasturelands where the existing cover is remnant native prairie, and
the landowner agrees to enhance the vegetative cover under an
approved conservation plan.
> • Continue incentives for enduring cover types.
> • Change the EBI to give credit for the establishment of
ecologically significant cover.  This would include prairie
restoration, tree restoration, or restoration of rare and declining
covertypes.
>
> • Allow up to 15% of new CRP enrollment acres to be targeted to
multi-year (perennial) cover crops for renewable energy.
>
> Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)- In Minnesota, CREP
combines CRP with Minnesota's Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve
Program to enroll and protect marginal agricultural land and other
environmentally sensitive land under long-term conservation easements
> • Reauthorize CREP and provide adequate funding for additional
focused projects.
> • Streamline the application process.
> • Include perpetual easement options.
>
> Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)- GRP provides an opportunity to
protect and enhance private grasslands under long-term conservation
easements.
> • Authorize protection of at least 1 million acres of
threatened grasslands annually, via voluntary, incentive-based long-
term easements.
>
> Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program- This program
provides an opportunity to enhance natural resource benefits on
existing grazing lands by converting exotic grass pastures to native
plant communities.
> • Reauthorize and provide at least $60 million annually to
convert exotic grass pastures to native plant communities, and
provide financial assistance to offset forage losses during the
conversion process.
>
> Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)- WRP provides an opportunity to
protect and restore wetlands with long-term conservation easements.
> • Increase cap to at least 250,000 acres annually and maintain
the perpetual easement option.
>
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)- WHIP provides technical
assistance and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish
and wildlife habitat.
> • Increase funding to at least $100 million annually.
>
> Forest Programs-Assist private forest landowners who manage forest
resources for multiple resources benefits.
> • Reauthorize the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), and
fully fund the program for at least 5 years for a total of $100
million ($20 million/year).
> • Include forest and woodland establishment and management as a
practice for solving conservation problems in all
appropriate/applicable programs.
>
> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)- EQIP offers
financial and technical assistance to landowners to install or
implement structural and management practices.
> • Provide adequate natural resource considerations in this
program and reauthorize at the 2002 Farm bill funding level.
> • Funding to implement (technical assistance) EQIP should not
be taken from other conservation programs.
> • Streamline the application process and provide flexibility
for local implementation.
>
> Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)- FRPP provides an
opportunity to protect farmlands under long-term easements.
> • Reauthorize at a minimum of $200 million annually for long-
term easements to protect croplands and grazing lands from
development.
>
> Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)- SARE
provides assistance to help expand sustainable farming practices on
private lands.
> • Reauthorize at a minimum of $50 million annually to fund
research, demonstration, and education projects that integrate
natural resource conservation and agriculture objectives.
>
> Conservation Security Program (CSP)- CSP provides annual
stewardship payments to landowners to recognize conservation measures
already applied and encourages additional conservation measures.
> • Reauthorize as an entitlement program at the 2002 farm bill
funding level.
> • Remove funding/acreage cap.
> • Provide for adequate technical assistance to implement this
program.
>
>
> Questions/suggestions can be directed to:
>
> Wayne A. Edgerton
> DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
> 500 Lafayette Road
> St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
>
> (651) 259-5223
> Internet:  "wayne.edgerton@..."
>

Grand Forks Herald
Sunday, Feb. 26, 2006

OUR OPINION: Forecasting the Farm Bill's fate

Tourism and manufacturing count. But farming still drives the tractor
of the North Dakota economy. Farm products make up more than a
quarter of the state's "sales for final demand," or sales that bring
dollars into the state. And about 89 percent of the state is farmland.

Which means the coming of a new federal Farm Bill matters in North
Dakota. Here are the thoughts of two congressmen who themselves will
matter in the Farm Bill's fate.

Sen. Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy, both D-N.D., spoke to the
Herald editorial board last week about the bill's prospects.
President Bush signed the current, $190 billion farm Bill in 2002 and
it's up for reauthorization next year.

In a nutshell, Conrad stressed how the odds of passing an equally
generous bill have changed - and not for the better. Pomeroy agreed,
then outlined the strategy that farm-state congressmen will use to
make the best of that bad situation.

Congress faces whole new circumstances this time around, Conrad
said. "You'll recall that during the negotiations for the 2002 bill,
the federal budget was in surplus.

"That's no longer the case," Conrad said drily.

Coming from Conrad - whose office printer must go through several red-
ink cartridges a day, judging by how much of the color gets poured
into the senator's alarming deficit graphs - it was a hilarious
understatement. But too true, alas, given the $355 billion shortfall
the government is expected to incur in 2006. The figure matters
politically because it makes the Farm Bill's expense much harder to
justify.

Also during negotiations for the 2002 bill, Democrats held the
majority in the Senate. That helped in two ways, because Democrats
tend to be more open to traditional farm supports, and each state's
allotment of two senators lets farm states punch above their weight
class in the Senate.

(Pomeroy joked about his own status, by comparison, as North Dakota's
sole representative in the 435-member House. Basically, "I start
every poker round with a pair of 4s," he said.)

Last but not least, the president's status as a lame duck hurts the
new Farm Bill's prospects. In 2001 and 2002, Bush was a newly elected
leader who'd need farm-state support to win re-election. Again, today
that's no longer the case.

Conrad's not saying a good bill is impossible. He's saying it will be
tough - tougher than 2001-2002, and that it was plenty tough then.

Pomeroy explained how Farm Bill supporters will go about their
reauthorization strategy. It could be summarized something like this:
If at first you don't succeed, punt.

Punt the ball down field, that is, by trying to delay the
reauthorization process until important world-trade negotiations are
complete.

By far the most persuasive argument in favor of a generous Farm Bill
is the fact that other industrialized countries, especially those in
Europe, unapologetically subsidize agriculture - and the United
States mustn't "unilaterally disarm."

So, the next round of World Trade Organization farm-subsidy talks is
set to resume this year. Why not extend the current Farm Bill's
authority at least until those talks are complete? Pomeroy suggests.

Practically, that would give congressmen much better information to
use in crafting a new Farm Bill.

Politically, it would kick the negotiations well past the November
elections (which might seat more Democrats in Congress), and well
into the time when presidential candidates make the national rounds.
From North Dakota's perspective, it's a very good thing that, say,
Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton will start getting an earful at
Iowa town meetings in 2007.

The deficit will matter whenever Congress takes up the Farm Bill. But
it might not be a decisive factor, Pomeroy noted. Sad but true,
Congress seldom lets the deficit put a big crimp on its spending
plans. That held true through the 1980s and 1990s, and likely will be
true when the Farm Bill comes up for a vote.

The 2002 Farm Bill has worked fairly well, Pomeroy said. That success
will be useful evidence, too, when Conrad, Pomeroy and others take up
the bill's reauthorization in the months to come.

FYI-Please see below.  This is still a draft for discussion purposes.  Perhaps
it can spur some comments.(?)

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020
Phone: (651)259-5223
FAX:     (651)297-7272
Internet: wayne.edgerton@...
Visit the DNR website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us

[Cut and pasted by moderated into body of message]

2007 FEDERAL FARM BILL

MN. DNR RECOMMENDATIONS
	 [12/01//05 DRAFT]

Implementing the conservation provisions of the Federal Farm Bill on private
lands has a significant impact on improving water quality, reducing soil
erosion, improving forest resources, reducing flooding, improving fish and
wildlife habitat, and providing economic benefits to the citizens of Minnesota.

Following is a list of recommendations developed by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) for the upcoming 2007 Federal Farm Bill debate:

General Recommendations:
• Provide adequate funding for program implementation technical assistance (e.g.
NRCS, FSA, and/or pass thru funding to state agencies);
• Streamline the overall implementation process;
• Eliminate competition for funding between commodity programs and conservation
programs.  For example, USDA currently offers greater incentives to produce
crops on certain farmed wetlands than to protect those wetlands.  Commodity
support payments should target cropland that is not environmentally sensitive;
• Continue to seek broad constituent input in the rule making process for each
conservation program;

Baseline Natural Resource Protection Issues:
• Protect natural resources when implementing all Farm Bill programs.  Eliminate
incentives that adversely affect soil, water, air, forest resources, renewable
energy production, and wildlife.  Payments to agricultural producers should
provide public benefits in the form of natural resource protection and
enhancement.
• Strengthen and reauthorize Swampbuster and Sodbuster provisions, and extend
them to all USDA programs including crop insurance.
• Apply conservation programs to lands based upon “whole farm” resource plans.
• Authorize expanded research, and develop assistance programs related to carbon
sequestration, as well as environmentally sustainable biomass energy production.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)- CRP provides an opportunity to place
long-term contracts (10-15 years) for conservation cover practices on eligible
lands.
• Raise the national enrollment cap to at least 63.9 million acres:
- at least 54 million acres for general sign up
- at least 8.7 million acres for continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP)
sign up
• Enrolled acres must not have been brought into production within 5 years of
enrollment.
• Eliminate the requirement to establish trees on marginal pasturelands where
the existing cover is remnant native prairie, and the landowner agrees to
enhance the vegetative cover under an approved conservation plan.
• Continue incentives for enduring cover types.
• Change the EBI to give credit for the establishment of ecologically
significant cover.  This would include prairie restoration, tree restoration, or
restoration of rare and declining covertypes.

• Allow up to 15% of new CRP enrollment acres to be targeted to multi-year
(perennial) cover crops for renewable energy.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)- In Minnesota, CREP combines CRP
with Minnesota’s Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve Program to enroll and
protect marginal agricultural land and other environmentally sensitive land
under long-term conservation easements
• Reauthorize CREP and provide adequate funding for additional focused projects.
• Streamline the application process.
• Include perpetual easement options.

Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP)- GRP provides an opportunity to protect and
enhance private grasslands under long-term conservation easements.
• Authorize protection of at least 1 million acres of threatened grasslands
annually, via voluntary, incentive-based long-term easements.

Conservation of Private Grazing Lands Program- This program provides an
opportunity to enhance natural resource benefits on existing grazing lands by
converting exotic grass pastures to native plant communities.
• Reauthorize and provide at least $60 million annually to convert exotic grass
pastures to native plant communities, and provide financial assistance to offset
forage losses during the conversion process.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)- WRP provides an opportunity to protect and
restore wetlands with long-term conservation easements.
• Increase cap to at least 250,000 acres annually and maintain the perpetual
easement option.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)- WHIP provides technical assistance
and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
• Increase funding to at least $100 million annually.

Forest Programs-Assist private forest landowners who manage forest resources for
multiple resources benefits.
• Reauthorize the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), and fully fund the
program for at least 5 years for a total of $100 million ($20 million/year).
• Include forest and woodland establishment and management as a practice for
solving conservation problems in all appropriate/applicable programs.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)- EQIP offers financial and
technical assistance to landowners to install or implement structural and
management practices.
• Provide adequate natural resource considerations in this program and
reauthorize at the 2002 Farm bill funding level.
• Funding to implement (technical assistance) EQIP should not be taken from
other conservation programs.
• Streamline the application process and provide flexibility for local
implementation.

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)- FRPP provides an opportunity to
protect farmlands under long-term easements.
• Reauthorize at a minimum of $200 million annually for long-term easements to
protect croplands and grazing lands from development.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)- SARE provides assistance
to help expand sustainable farming practices on private lands.
• Reauthorize at a minimum of $50 million annually to fund research,
demonstration, and education projects that integrate natural resource
conservation and agriculture objectives.

Conservation Security Program (CSP)- CSP provides annual stewardship payments to
landowners to recognize conservation measures already applied and encourages
additional conservation measures.
• Reauthorize as an entitlement program at the 2002 farm bill funding level.
• Remove funding/acreage cap.
• Provide for adequate technical assistance to implement this program.


Questions/suggestions can be directed to:

Wayne A. Edgerton
DNR Agricultural Policy Coordinator
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4020

(651) 259-5223
Internet:  “wayne.edgerton@...”

Hi everyone,

I just thought that I'd introduce myself and get the ball rolling in
this group and start talking about what's going on with the Farm Bill.

I am Alicia Hines, a student at the University of Montana-Missoula,
studying Zoology/Pre-Veterinary Studies and Conservation.  I'm
originally from central Illinois farmland, so this issue really hits
home for me.

I grew up hunting on our family's farmland, but in the past few years
we have sold off some of the ground because we can't afford to keep
the farm running like we used to.  Other farmers around us have been
doing the same thing, so land that we have hunted and hiked in for
generations is now cut off and restricted to any trespassing or use.
We have more and more development creeping in on our open space, and
I am afraid that if the conservation programs in the Farm Bill are
not reauthorized and properly funded, then we will not have any
realistic alternatives for conserving our farmland.

That's just a small bit of insight to why I am so involved in this
issue, and I just thought I'd throw that out there for a start.

I hope to hear from the rest of you soon and look forward to
discussing how we can successfully pass a Farm Bill in 2007 that
contains the maximum amount of conservation programs!

Best,
Alicia Hines

Hello FarmingforWildlife_USA group members:

Well, we have the initial nucleus of group members now signed-up to participate in discussions about the benefits of the Farm Bill to wildlife populations and habitat.  I'm excited because some very good things can happen here!

Our goal is to have 500+ members on this listserv within 6 months, exchanging information about the programs, and stepping-up to support them as they are renegotiated at the federal level.

We would like to hear from you, whether you are a professional biologist, farmer, rancher, hunter, program administrator, or academic to help us make informed decisions about what to push for and when.

The next Farm Bill will likely look much different than previous ones.  Budgetary pressures may put some of the most valuable programs for wildlife, like CRP, on the chopping block.  At the same time, regulatory pressures like those coming from the World Trade Organization make "green" programs more appealing.  There are huge issues at stake before us.

Tell us about your experiences with the Farm Bill, wildlife, and other natural resources.  Start conversations on various Farm Bill/Wildlife topics, whether general or specific.  Fill out your profile, so we know what part of the country you are from. This is a big country, and various programs (whether EQIP, WHIP, CSP or CRP)work different ways in different places.  These geographic differences matter.

And please, invite other people who could be good listserv members to join!  Just press the "Invite" button.

Thank you again for joining this group.  When you get the chance post your first message...  just introduce yourselves and start some discussions.

Sincerely,

Ben Deeble, bird biologist
National Wildlife Federation
Missoula, MT

We plan to closely moderate this list, so you don't get overloaded with numerous or inappropriate postings.  You can also change the settings on this list so you receive regular notifications of new postings, only a daily digest of postings, or no notifications at all... whichever is appropriate to your email patterns.

Welcome to the FarmingForWildlife_USA Listserv! 

This listserv is intended to be a forum for exchange of information about issues relevant to the conservation of wildlife and resources on private lands, and more specifically regarding the conservation title of the federal Farm Bill and closely allied legislation.

The accomplishments of the federal Farm Bill's conservation programs in growing our wildlife populations, cleansing our waters and conserving our soils have been nothing short of spectacular.  But the future for many of these key private lands conservation programs, and related ones, are in question....

Other federal legislation and programs are also critical for fish and wildlife. The Wetlands Loan Act, state wildlife grants and annual funding appropriations all have important implications for conserving habitat and improving important wildlife populations. 

Many factors will influence how well these programs continue to serve the needs of the nation's wildlife and conservation-minded farmers, ranchers, hunters and anglers. 

With accurate, timely information about not only what various programs have accomplished and how new programs might do more, but also regular updates on the status of congressional negotiations, we believe you can become one of the factors making the Farm Bill and other important legislation as good as it can be.

Members are encouraged to post their own experiences and insights on the site, and invite other members of the public to engage in the listserv.  This is a "moderated" listserv, meaning member contributions will be managed if necessary to limit the number and scope of postings to keep the discussions on-topic and appropriate for the broader membership.

Thanks for joining!

Some of the key issues on the table for the 2007 Farm Bill include:

New and Revised Conservation Programs:

• What changes are needed to improve successful programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)? 
• How can we expand funding for private forestry to benefit wildlife? 
• Can the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP) be improved so they provide more benefits to wildlife? 
• How can we ensure that fish get their share of Farm Bill conservation program benefits?

Protecting Remaining Natural Habitats:

·        What can be done to restore the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) to its original intent to protect some of the last remaining unbroken native grasslands? 

·        The continued break-out of new land for crop production is having a serious impact on wildlife populations and native habitats, so many groups are calling for a "sod-saver" provision in the next Farm Bill to deny federal subsidies for newly broken land.

Alternative Energy:

·        This subject seems to be on everyone's mind, from Superbowl commercials by petroleum companies, to the President's State of the Union address citing the potential use of switchgrass for bio-fuel.  It seems a forgone conclusion that the next Farm Bill will include provisions supporting the expansion of alternative energy.  Yet, from wind turbine/wildlife conflicts to rapid expansion of monocultures of fuel crops, the needs of wildlife will need to understood and protected during the development of alternative energy programs.

Tight Federal Budgets:

·        Although Farm Bill conservation programs are very popular and greatly oversubscribed (3 out of every 4 farmers seeking to participate are currently turned away due to insufficient funding), it is unclear how much money Congress will authorize for these programs in this tight budget climate.  There likely will be a budgetary tug `o-war between the conservation programs and the commodities programs during reauthorization.

World Trade Organization (WTO) Negotiations:

·        While the latest round of World Trade talks continues, it is unclear precisely what impact they will have on the next Farm Bill.  But it is likely the U.S. will be faced with enormous pressure to phase-out traditional direct crop subsidies to farmers, while many conservation-related programs will likely be allowed by the WTO.  Most Agriculture Committee members seem reluctant to recognize this new global perspective, but haven't signaled whether conservation programs will be allocated more funding to offset fewer direct crop subsidies.

Timing of Hearings

·        Conservation Committee hearings are not anticipated to begin until early fall and will likely only be held in Washington, DC.  It is important, therefore, that those who care about Farm Bill conservation programs from a wildlife perspective weigh in directly with Agriculture Committee members and their staff throughout 2006. 

·        House Agriculture Committee field hearings have already begun and Senate field hearings will begin this summer, but testimony at these hearings is being limited to farmer and rancher perspectives.