[Federal Register: May 8, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 24847-24854]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08my03-121]
[[Page 24847]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Credit Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Service Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
on the Conservation Reserve Program; Notice
[[Page 24848]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement on the Conservation Reserve Program
AGENCIES: Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) prepared a Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and the Notice of Availability was published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2003. This document presents the Record
of Decision (ROD) regarding FSA implementation of the re-authorized CRP
according to the provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-121 (2002 Farm Bill). The CRP is
implemented through FSA on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) and is governed by regulations published in 7 CFR part 1410. This
decision record summarizes the reasons for FSA selecting the Proposed
Action Alternative based on the program's expected environmental and
socioeconomic impacts and benefits as documented in the PEIS, all of
which were considered in this decision.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Steck, USDA/FSACEPD/Stop 0513,
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0153, (202) 690-0224,
or e-mail at: don_steck@wdc.usda.gov. The final CRP PEIS, including
appendices and this ROD, are available on the FSA Environmental
Compliance Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/epb/impact.htm#final
.
More detailed information on these programs may also be obtained
from the FSA Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp
(general) http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/default.htm (CRP, CREP,
ECP, & NEPA).
Record of Decision
I. The Decision
A. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Proposed Action
Alternative as the Basis for Implementing and Expanding CRP
Based on a thorough evaluation of the resource areas affected by
CRP, a detailed analysis of four program alternatives, and a
comprehensive review of public comments on the Draft PEIS, CCC has
selected the Proposed Action Alternative to implement and expand the
re-authorized CRP in accordance with the provisions of the 2002 Farm
Bill.
B. Overview
CRP is the Federal Government's single largest conservation program
for private lands. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals
and the Government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers
and ranchers for establishing conservation practices that have a
beneficial impact on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages
participants to voluntarily plant permanent vegetative cover on land
that is subject to erosion. This vegetation safeguards millions of
acres of American topsoil from erosion, provides food and habitat for
wildlife, and protects water quality by reducing runoff and
sedimentation.
CRP provides annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to
participants for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers on
eligible land. CRP, in most cases, makes annual rental payments based
on the dry land agricultural rental value of the land, and provides
cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs
in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in
CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. FSA administers the program, with
technical support provided by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative State Research and
Education Extension Service, State forestry agencies, local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, and others.
C. Programmatic Changes to CRP
To implement the Proposed Action, FSA would incorporate the
provisions of the recently enacted 2002 Farm Bill into the CRP
regulations and revise the CRP Handbook. The 2002 Farm Bill, which
governs Federal farm programs for the next 6 years, was signed into law
on May 13, 2002. The 2002 Farm Bill reauthorizes CRP through 2007 and
stipulates the following changes be made to CRP:
[sbull] Increase the acreage enrollment authority to up to 39.2
million acres;
[sbull] Expand the Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) nationwide with
an aggregate acreage cap of up to 1 million acres;
[sbull] Change the cropping history requirement to be 4 out of 6
years prior to the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill;
[sbull] Provide a 1-year extension for certain contracts on land
planted to hardwood trees;
[sbull] Allow participants to enroll entire fields through certain
continuous CRP practices when more than 50 percent of the field is
enrolled as a buffer and the remainder of the field is infeasible to
farm;
[sbull] Allow participants to continue existing vegetative cover,
where practicable and consistent with the objectives of CRP; and
[sbull] Provide for managed haying (including for biomass),
grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands.
II. Description of the Conservation Reserve Program
CRP was initiated by Congress in Title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985, Public Law 99-198, was extended by the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 104-624, and then
extended to 2002 by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996, Public Law 107-171. It has currently been authorized to
continue through 2007 by the 2002 Farm Bill.
A. Conservation Reserve Program--General Sign-up
CRP General Sign-up was established in its current form in 1985.
This long-term land retirement program offers participants an annual
per-acre rental payment and up to half the cost of establishing a
permanent long-term conserving cover, in exchange for retiring
environmentally-sensitive cropland from production for a minimum of 10
years to a maximum of 15 years. Producers offer land for competitive
bidding based on an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) during periodic
announced signups. The current EBI is a form of environmental targeting
which ranks offers based on environmental indices and cost.
B. Continuous CRP (CCRP)
CCRP is a program initiated by FSA in 1996, with 4 million acres
reserved for enrollment of highly-environmentally sensitive land that
would produce optimal environmental benefits for soils, water quality,
and wildlife habitat enhancement through the implementation of high-
priority conservation practices such as riparian buffers, filter
strips, and grass waterways. Land eligible for these high-priority
practices can be enrolled at any time and the land does not have to
compete with other lands for enrollment under CRP general sign-up.
[[Page 24849]]
In April 2000, FSA authorized enhanced incentives to target highly
environmentally-sensitive land for continuous signup participation
which included: (1) An up-front Signing Incentive Payment (SIP) of $100
to $150 per acre (depending on the length of contract) for filter
strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, field windbreaks, shelter
belts, and living snow fences; (2) and a Practice Incentive Payment
(PIP) equal to 40 percent of the cost of installing practices for all
continuous signup practices. At that time, increased maintenance
payments for certain practices were also added along with updated
marginal pastureland rental rates to better reflect the agricultural
value of these types of lands.
C. Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP)
FWP was established as a pilot program by the 2001 Agricultural
Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-387, under which farmed wetland
acres were made eligible to be enrolled through a continuous sign-up
similar to that of CCRP for other high-priority conservation practices.
Payments were commensurate with those provided to landowners who
implemented CRP conservation practices like filter strips. The wetlands
and associated buffers enrolled under the pilot program were limited to
500,000 acres in six States: Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota, with no more than 150,000 acres enrolled in
any single State. Under the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill, FWP will
be expanded nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of up to 1 million
acres.
D. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
In 1997, FSA implemented CREP as a joint Federal-State land
retirement conservation program that uses the authorities of CRP in
combination with State resources to target specific conservation and
environmental objectives. It is a conservation partnership targeted to
address specific State and nationally significant water quality, soil
erosion, and wildlife habitat issues linked to agriculture and
agricultural production activities.
III. Impacts Under the Alternatives Considered
FSA developed the Proposed Action Alternative based on provisions
defined in the 2002 Farm Bill along with Agency scoping input provided
before passage of the 2002 Farm Bill. FSA conducted formal public
scoping for the PEIS and met with and solicited input from
representatives of other Federal, State, and local agencies and the
general public. The public scoping meetings were held in six cities
located around the country. FSA published notices in the Federal
Register and national newspapers that the agency was preparing a PEIS
and that input was being sought through multiple venues including the
public scoping meetings, a toll-free phone line, regular mail, and e-
mail. The Proposed Action and three Alternatives considered in detail
in the PEIS represented a range of program implementation choices that
reflected the array of ideas voiced and recommendations made during
that scoping process. The following alternatives are presented in
detail in the Final PEIS.
A. No Program Alternative (Baseline)
This alternative was used as an analytical device to establish a
baseline upon which to evaluate the other alternatives. The analysis
established a baseline by describing what would have happened if CRP
had never been implemented.
B. No Action Alternative (Current Program)
Under this alternative, FSA administration of CRP/CCRP/CREP would
continue as if the pre-2002 Farm Bill provisions remained in effect,
including the 4.2 million-acre holdback for CCRP and CREP.
C. Proposed Action Alternative (FSA's Preferred Alternative)
The Proposed Action is for FSA to implement changes in General CRP/
CCRP/CREP administration based on the requirements of the 2002 Farm
Bill. Some of the changes include: increasing the enrollment authority,
changing the eligibility and cropping history requirements,
implementing a nationwide farmable wetland program, and several
additional minor program changes. Environmental-based allocation under
the general sign-up would continue. FSA plans to utilize CCRP and CREP
in addition to General CRP in its administration of CRP in a balanced
way to maximize conservation benefits while minimizing adverse
environmental impacts.
D. Environmental Targeting Alternative
Under this alternative, FSA would alter the mix of program goals
and change acreage allocations to include CREP and continuous sign-up
practices in designated environmentally-sensitive areas. The CRP
general sign-up would be eliminated and the benefits produced directly
by use of the EBI would be lost. Administration of CRP would then be
accomplished using an environmental targeting approach that focuses
program resources on addressing national or regional priority
conservation goals. This targeting would be consistent with the current
primary objectives of the program by targeting soil erosion, water
quality, and wildlife habitat objectives in ecological regions, river
basins, or impaired watersheds. Different strategies for allocating the
additional acreage under the program cap would be evaluated by FSA.
If this alternative were selected, there would be no general sign-
up CRP. Therefore, the environmental targeting for general sign-up
under the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) would be lost and there
would be an increased risk in not enrolling all the acreage allocated
under the 2002 Farm Bill. This would mean less soil, water quality, air
quality, and wildlife habitat benefits because fewer acres would be
enrolled than under the Proposed Action.
IV. Impacts Under the Alternatives
The environment affected by CRP consists of both the socioeconomic
and natural environments associated with or affected by farming and
farm conservation programs in the U.S. The natural environment includes
the major terrestrial and aquatic eco-regions associated with eligible
lands in the U.S. and associated sensitive resources, including:
[sbull] Soils.
[sbull] Soil and Wind Erosion (including Air Quality).
[sbull] Water Resources & Aquatic Species.
[sbull] Surface water.
[sbull] Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
[sbull] Groundwater.
[sbull] Floodplains.
[sbull] Riparian Areas.
[sbull] Wetlands.
[sbull] Vegetation.
[sbull] Grasslands.
[sbull] Forestlands.
[sbull] Invasive Species.
[sbull] Wildlife.
[sbull] Wildlife Recreation.
[sbull] Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E).
[sbull] The social and economic aspects of the affected environment
consist of farming from a national perspective and of rural communities
that may be affected by CRP enrollment.
The following section summarizes some of the effects that would be
expected to occur to the above-mentioned resource areas under each of
the four alternatives. Due to the large programmatic scale of CRP, the
timing, location, and magnitude of the
[[Page 24850]]
environmental effects will differ under the various alternatives.
A. No Program Alternative (Eliminate CRP)
Soil
Soil erosion rates would most likely be greater than 1.9 billion
tons/year. Due to increased soil erosion rates, soil quality and
productivity would also be adversely impacted.
Water Quality
Surface water quality would be substantially worse due to the loss
of multiple benefits provided by vegetative cover established under CRP
over the last 16 years. Impact on surface water quality would be
significant and more streams would have a TMDL listing.
Groundwater quality and drinking water sources would be adversely
impacted due to increased contamination by pesticides and fertilizers
from land that would have been enrolled in CRP. Conservation practices
targeting water quality improvement would, therefore, not be
implemented.
Aquatic habitat and associated water quality would be severely
impacted due to high nutrient, pesticide, and sediment runoff from
cropland. See Surface and Groundwater impacts for No Program.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
Floodplain function would be decreased due to a decrease in
permanent vegetative cover and an increase in soil erosion, sediment,
and contaminant runoff from associated agricultural lands. There would
also be a decrease in associated wetland restoration and riparian areas
benefiting floodplain function; a decrease in riparian area function
due to a decrease in permanent vegetative cover and an increase in soil
erosion, sedimentation, and contaminant runoff from associated
agricultural lands; and a decrease in riparian area restoration by
400,000 acres.
Wetlands benefits would decrease due to increased soil erosion
rates resulting in sedimentation and contaminant runoff from farmlands.
There would be an increase in continued use of farmed wetlands and
associated uplands by approximately 3 million acres and a potential
increase in wetland conversion caused by agricultural producers not
participating in USDA programs regulated by Title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended. An estimated 600,000 acres of filter
strips and wetland buffers would not be installed as a result of
selecting this alternative.
Natural Vegetation
Without CRP, 25 million enrolled acres most likely would not have
been planted to conservation cover and it might be assumed that the
realized positive impacts of that cover type on cropland would be
absent or considerably less. Incurred benefits of forestlands to water
quality, wildlife, and soil stabilization would not have occurred in
the absence of CRP. Incentives to enroll land devoted to the Longleaf
Pine Conservation Priority Area (CPA) would not exist.
Wildlife
There would be significant negative impacts on local wildlife
populations along with the availability of localized wildlife-based
recreation such as viewing, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Continued
agricultural practices could have a significant adverse impact on
numerous T&E species but to what extent and to which species is
unknown. There are some T&E species credited with utilizing CRP-created
habitat.
Socioeconomic
On a national level, without CRP, the change in acreage planted to
the major crops is expected to be minimal. However, at the local or
regional level, there could be a moderate increase in planted acreage
creating economic benefits arising from the additional need for farm
labor, as well as demand for the services of agricultural businesses.
There could also be a possible loss of recreational opportunities and a
possible increased uncertainty of producer income, particularly for
those non-farming landowners and part-time farmers. The magnitude of
uncertainty is likely to be greater at the county or community level
than nationally.
Long-term expansion of cropland supply could be beneficial for
tenants, lowering rents. In the short term, the increased supply of
cropland could raise rents due to temporary increase in productivity. A
potentially significant decline in pheasant habitat and recreational
benefits nationally and regionally would be seen in the absence of CRP,
thus, potentially significantly declining of wildlife viewing benefits
currently seen in the Great Plains. A potential modest decline in
wildlife viewing benefits in the Northeastern region would also be
seen.
Land-use decisions made by producers disconnected from
environmental consideration would be based on maximizing market income.
This would result in losses in soil quality, water quality, air
quality, and wildlife habitat gains.
B. No Action Alternative (Continue CRP as Previously Implemented)
Soils
Soil erosion has decreased by 450 million tons since CRP's
inception and additional soil erosion rate reductions would continue
under this alternative. Soil quality has increased due to more topsoil
left on the land and would continue as additional acreage is enrolled.
Water Quality
Surface water quality would continue to improve as producers enroll
land under CRP, thus reducing runoff containing sediments, nutrients,
and pesticides. TMDL-listed streams would decrease as cropland is
enrolled but this would be based on the conservation practices
installed on contract land and whether they directly target the
impairments causing the listing.
Drinking water sources and groundwater in general would see a
continued positive impact on both water quality and quantity, as
cropland is taken out of production and enrolled in CRP. This would
result in reduced levels of pesticides and fertilizers being used.
Decreased sediment transport rates would produce a positive impact on
aquatic species as further cropland is enrolled in CRP. Maintenance of
high dissolved oxygen levels and cool water temperatures for aquatic
organisms would continue as agricultural land is enrolled as wetland
buffers.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
Floodplain function would increase due to an increase in permanent
vegetative cover and a decrease in soil erosion, sediment, and
contaminant runoff from agricultural lands. There would be an increase
in associated wetland restoration and riparian areas benefiting
floodplain function. Also, there would be an improvement and
restoration of natural riparian area functions through increased
vegetative cover, and reduced sediment and contaminant runoff from
associated agricultural lands. There would also be an increase in
riparian areas by 400,000 acres.
Water quality would improve from the reduction in sediment and
contaminant runoff from agricultural lands. Wetland function would be
restored to 542,278 acres of farmed wetlands and protection of 2.8
million acres of natural and farmed wetlands
[[Page 24851]]
from agricultural runoff. An additional 1.6 million acres of wetland
restoration and an additional 600,000 acres of filter strips and
wetland buffers protecting wetland water quality would be seen.
Natural Vegetation
Native and introduced grass species would continue to be planted on
eligible cropland producing residual benefits to water quality and
soils. Cropland enrolled and planted to tree practice acreage would
continue to cleanse runoff water, silt, and pollutants, protecting and
improving streams while simultaneously providing food and shelter for
wildlife. The Longleaf Pine CPA would continue to see enrollment of
additional tree planting acres and thus provide additional positive
benefits to water, soils, and wildlife in that region.
Wildlife
Areas devoted to permanent vegetation, wildlife habitat, and
wetlands would continue to provide critical elements for species as
more CRP acreage is enrolled. Enrollment targeted toward wildlife
habitat enhancement would continue to provide critical resources and
establish corridors between fragmented habitats. Continued benefits
from the availability of wildlife-based recreation would be a positive
impact under this alternative. Wetland restoration would continue to
benefit waterfowl and upland game bird species and provide valuable
habitat. Wetland buffers would continue to provide additional habitat
and protection from human disturbance. Continued enhancement of
wildlife habitat could produce positive impacts on T&E species.
Socioeconomic
No adverse impact on farm employment at the regional or state level
would occur. However, there could be possible adverse impacts at the
county or community level. There is insufficient research to support a
definitive conclusion as to the magnitude of either of those impacts. A
minimal impact of CRP on cropland supply would be seen. On a national
and regional level, the effect of CRP land rent appears to be
insignificant. At the State, county, or township level, the impact may
be adverse and nominal to moderate in magnitude. There would be no
change in recreational benefits.
Landowners would benefit from environmental improvements and stable
income stream. Local communities would benefit from enhanced recreation
and lower costs to residents and industry from air and water
improvements. There could be potentially adverse impacts to tenant
farmers and new farm startups.
C. Environmental Targeting Alternative
Soils
States with CREP Agreements would see additional soil erosion
reduction in areas targeted if approved practices consist of permanent
vegetative cover and approved soil conservation practices. Under most
targeting scenarios, erosion could increase as other objectives are
emphasized. Minor benefits on soil erosion could be accomplished if
multiple regions, States, and watersheds are targeted to specifically
address soil erosion by utilizing collaborative decision making of all
interested parties and an ecosystem driven conservation initiative.
Because of location, gross sheet and rill erosion may be less.
Associated soil benefits of wetlands would increase as the FWP is
opened to all States. Overall enrollment in general signup acreage
would decrease under this alternative. As this enrollment declines,
national benefits of soil erosion reduction would be significantly
less.
Water Quality
States with CREP Agreements would see additional water quality
benefits in areas targeted if approved practices consist of water
quality enhancement conservation practices. Moderate positive impacts
on water quality could be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and
watersheds are targeted to address water quality impairments by using
collaborative decision making of all interested parties and an
ecosystem driven conservation initiative. This idea could be most
beneficial when addressing effects in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Chesapeake Bay Region. TMDL-listed streams would likely decrease based
on the specific environmental targeting of those watersheds in the
National Environmental Target Area (NETA) that have been identified as
contributors to the large-scale water quality impairment problem.
Overall enrollment in general CRP signup acreage would decrease under
this alternative. As this enrollment declines, so would the positive
impacts these acres play at maintaining good water quality.
States with CREP Agreements would see additional groundwater
quality benefits if areas targeted are known groundwater source areas
and if approved practices consist of water quality enhancement
conservation practices. No real national impacts to groundwater quality
can be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and watersheds are
targeted to address groundwater quality impairments. This would be due
to the fact that groundwater issues tend to be more localized and could
therefore be better addressed through the CREP Agreements. TMDL-listed
streams could decrease based on the specific environmental targeting of
those watersheds in the NETAs that have been identified as having
common groundwater quality problems. Overall enrollment in general CRP
signup acreage would decrease under this alternative along with the
subsequent positive impacts on groundwater quality and quantity.
States with CREP Agreements would see additional water quality
benefits in areas targeted which would provide aquatic species with the
optimal conditions for species success but only if approved practices
consist of water quality enhancement conservation practices that have
been proven to directly benefit aquatic species and their associated
habitat. Minor national benefits to aquatic species could be
accomplished by targeting water quality issues in multiple regions,
States, and watersheds that are impaired severely. Overall, enrollment
in General CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to aquatic
species would decrease under this alternative.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
Beneficial impacts to floodplains as described under the No Action
Alternative would possibly be seen in States with CREP Agreements.
Positive benefits to floodplains could be accomplished by targeting
floodplain and related resource issues in multiple regions, States, and
watersheds. Overall enrollment in general CRP signup acreage and
associated benefits to floodplains and riparian areas would be
decreased under this alternative. However, the beneficial impacts to
riparian areas as described under the No Action Alternative would be
seen in States with CREP Agreements. Positive benefits to riparian
areas can be accomplished by targeting riparian areas and related
resource issues in multiple regions, States, and watersheds.
Natural Vegetation
Beneficial impacts to wetlands as described under No Action
Alternative in States with CREP Agreements. Benefits to wetlands could
be accomplished by targeting wetlands and related resource issues in
multiple regions, States, and watersheds. Overall,
[[Page 24852]]
enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and its associated benefits to
wetland areas would be decreased under this alternative.
States with CREP Agreements would see additional benefits
associated with grasslands in areas targeted by approved CREP
agreements, if approved practices consist of native grass species
establishment conservation practices. Overall, enrollment in General
CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to grasslands would be
decreased under this alternative.
States with CREP Agreements would see additional benefits
associated with forestlands targeted by approved CREP agreements, if
approved practices consist of tree planting conservation practices. The
direct positive impact of forestland restoration would benefit local
CREP regions in a State by improving and protecting soil quality, water
quality, and wildlife habitat, and by creating more opportunities to
enjoy nature. Benefits on forestlands if multiple regions, States, and
watersheds are targeted to address forestland restoration and
protection would be most beneficial in the current Longleaf Pine CPA
and other National Forestland areas in ecological impairment. Overall,
enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to
forestlands would be decreased under this alternative.
Wildlife
States with CREP Agreements would see additional wildlife benefits
in areas targeted if approved practices consist of wildlife enhancement
or wetland restoration conservation practices. Positive benefits to
wildlife could be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and
watersheds are targeted at specifically addressing wildlife habitat
enhancement by utilizing collaborative decision making of all
interested parties and an ecosystem-driven conservation initiative.
Overall enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and associated
benefits would be decreased under this alternative.
Benefits to T&E species and their habitat are not as likely at this
level unless the species or habitat targeted encompasses large
geographic areas, multiple States, or numerous watersheds. States with
CREP Agreements would see additional T&E species and habitat benefits
in areas targeted if approved practices consist of conservation
practices targeting the species or species habitat in question.
Socioeconomic
Insignificant effect would be demonstrated on agricultural
employment at the regional and State level with a potential increased
uncertainty of producer income particularly for those non-farming
landowners and part-time farmers. The magnitude of uncertainty is
likely to be greater at the county or community level than at the
regional or national level. There would likely be a change in the
regional distribution of enrolled land with the decreased probability
of the enrollment of entire fields providing a benefit in the increased
supply of rental land. A potential increase in the supply of cropland
and a possible reduction in enrollment due to it being a voluntary
program would not ensure that all allocated acres are enrolled. The
cost would be prohibitive. Some currently participating communities may
experience reduced benefits. These impacts would be more concentrated
in communities located in or near areas of program.
D. Proposed Action Alternative (FSA's Preferred Alternative)
Soils
Cumulative positive impacts on soils would continue as CRP is
reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 years with
additional acreage allocated toward the program. The increased acreage
could potentially reduce soil erosion by another 40 million tons.
Marginal pastureland being devoted to vegetative cover would allow
these areas to implement practices to help reduce soil erosion and
reduce sediment runoff on these land types. An increase in the cropping
history requirement has the potential to moderately impact soils by
targeting cropland that has been under more intensive production and
thus possibly more vulnerable to wind and water erosion than currently
required to enroll in CRP. However, positive impacts would continue on
those already vegetative areas because the new cropping history
provision makes the breaking of new ground to create a cropping history
impossible. Infeasible-to-farm areas smaller than 50 percent of the
field size enrolled along with a buffer would contribute to some
enhancement of soil quality, but only if enrolling it would contribute
to reduced soil erosion rates. The ability to continue with existing
cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP
would benefit soils by not removing the established vegetative cover.
The potential for wind and water erosion on plowed fields would
decrease. Managed haying, grazing, and harvesting will increase plant
diversity and vigor. These practices should not produce any adverse
impacts on soils because they must be included in the conservation plan
or in the land management plan prior to contract approval. CREP
Agreements would target areas within States to provide positive
benefits to soil quality. Continued positive impacts on long-term soil
quality would occur if States place CREP land under easement.
Associated soil benefits of wetlands would increase as the FWP is
opened to all States.
Water Quality
Major positive impacts on surface water quality would continue as
CRP is reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 more years
with additional acreage allocated toward the program and additional
acres being enrolled to replace expiring acres. A 40-million ton
decrease in sediment would correlate to an increase in water quality
and a decrease in nutrient and pesticide loads. Positive impacts in
terms of reduced nonpoint source (NPS) pollutant loading to achieve
TMDL's would occur when producers enroll land that has been cropped (4
out of 6 years prior to 2002 Farm Bill enactment), but the impact would
be important only if contract land is located within a watershed having
NPS issues. Marginal pastureland being devoted to vegetative cover
would allow these areas to implement practices to help improve water
quality and reduce sediment runoff on these land types. Infeasible to
farm areas smaller than 50 percent of the field size enrolled along
with a buffer would contribute to the enhancement of water quality, but
only if conservation practices targeted at improving water quality are
adopted. The ability to continue with existing cover where practicable
and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP would benefit water
quality by not removing established vegetative cover and decreasing the
potential for wind and water erosion on plowed fields. Managed haying,
grazing, and harvesting practices should not produce adverse impacts on
surface water based on the premise that the practices must be included
in the conservation plan or in the land management plan prior to
contract approval. Associated water quality benefits of wetlands would
increase as FWP goes nationwide. CREP Agreements would target areas
within States to provide positive benefits to water quality. CCRP would
provide buffers along streams to reduce sediment runoff and subsequent
water quality improvements would give direct positive benefits to
aquatic species.
There would be continued cumulative positive impacts on groundwater
quality
[[Page 24853]]
as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 years
with additional acreage allocated toward the program and additional
acres being enrolled to replace expiring ones. Drinking water sources
and groundwater in general would see a continued positive impact on
both water quality and quantity, as cropland is taken out of production
and enrolled in CRP. This would result in reduced levels of pesticides
and fertilizers being used. Marginal pastureland being devoted to
vegetative cover would allow these areas to implement practices to help
improve groundwater quality and reduce chemical leaching on these land
use types. An increase in the cropping history requirement has the
potential to produce a positive impact on groundwater by targeting
cropland that has been under more intensive production and thus
possibly more vulnerable to leaching than currently required to enroll
in CRP. Certain infeasible to farm areas less than 50 percent of the
field size enrolled along with a buffer would contribute to some
enhancement of groundwater quality, but only if conservation practices
targeted at improving water quality are installed. The ability to
continue with existing cover where practicable and consistent with
wildlife benefits of CRP would benefit water quality by not removing
established vegetative cover and decreasing the potential for wind and
water erosion on plowed fields. Managed haying, grazing, and harvesting
should not produce adverse impacts on surface water based on the
premise that it must be included in the conservation plan or in the
land management plan prior to contract approval. Associated groundwater
quality benefits of wetlands would increase as FWP goes expands to all
States. CREP Agreements would target areas within States to provide
positive benefits to groundwater quality.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
The expansion of FWP would allow for an increased distribution and
acreage of wetland restoration and buffers nationwide, decreasing the
rate of sediment transport to adjacent water bodies and increasing the
associated aquatic species benefits described under the No Action
Alternative. The size of eligible wetlands would be increased from 5
acres to 10 acres, providing an increase in potential acreage that
could benefit aquatic species by 2.8 million acres. Managed haying,
grazing, and harvesting should not produce adverse impacts to aquatic
species based on the premise that requirements for these practices must
be included in the conservation plan or in the land management plan
prior to contract approval, so aquatic species associated with the
environmentally targeted enrolled land are not adversely affected. CREP
Agreements would target areas within States to provide positive
benefits to aquatic species. CCRP would provide buffers along streams
to reduce sediment runoff, and subsequently improve water quality,
which would have direct positive benefits on aquatic species.
Beneficial impacts to floodplains, as described under the No Action
Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are
approved for 10 to 15 more years with additional acreage allocated
toward the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace
expiring acres. There would be an increase in potential acreage of
beneficial impacts to floodplains by 2.8 million acres. There would be
continued benefits from hardwood tree contracts associated with
floodplains for an additional year. Beneficial impacts to floodplains
in States with CREP Agreements in place would be the same as those
described under the No Action Alternative. Also, permanent easements
under CREP would provide continued maintenance of floodplains functions
and values.
Beneficial impacts to riparian areas, as described under the No
Action Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts
are approved for 10 to 15 years with additional acreage allocated
toward the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace
expiring ones. There would be an increase in potential acreage of
beneficial impacts to riparian areas by 2.8 million acres and continued
benefits from hardwood tree contracts associated with riparian areas
for an additional year. There would also be benefits from devotion of
marginal pastureland to vegetation, particularly trees in riparian
areas. The use of CCRP would target riparian areas by protecting them
as buffers with permanent vegetative cover, which would reduce runoff.
The ability to continue with existing cover where practicable and
consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP will benefit associated
riparian areas. Beneficial impacts to riparian areas in States with
CREP Agreements in place would be the same as those described under the
No Action Alternative. Also, permanent easements under CREP would
provide continued maintenance of these riparian areas functions and
values. Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other
emergencies should have minor impacts on riparian areas. Potential
increase in eligible acreage for buffer establishment when more than 50
percent of the field is eligible for enrollment and the other half is
infeasible to farm. The increased distribution and acreage of wetland
restoration and buffers nationwide through FWP expansion will benefit
eligible associated riparian areas.
Beneficial impacts to wetlands, as described under the No Action
Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are
approved for 10 to 15 years with additional acreage allocated toward
the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace expiring
ones. There would be an increase in potential acreage of beneficial
impacts to wetlands by 2.8 million acres. Land eligibility for CRP re-
enrollment will extend associated beneficial impacts to wetlands for
another 10 to 15 years. There would be continued benefits from hardwood
tree contracts associated with wetlands for an additional year and an
increase in potential wetland acres from conversion of marginal
pastureland to wetlands. The ability to continue with existing cover
where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP will
benefit wetland water quality by not removing established vegetative
cover and increasing the potential for wind and water erosion on
plowed-up fields. There would be beneficial impacts to wetland water
quality from increased conservation of surface and groundwater in
agricultural operations. An increased distribution of wetland
restoration and buffer acreage would potentially be seen nationwide
through the expansion of FWP. Wetland functions would potentially
increase through FWP expansion of allowable wetland restoration acreage
from 5 to 10 acres. State CREP Agreements could target sensitive areas
with large numbers of wetlands and permanent easements could provide
protection of wetlands and associated buffers.
Natural Vegetation
Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage is
enrolled implementing the establishment of grass cover. However, new
EBI scoring is currently being developed in connection with new
regulations to implement CRP in accordance with the provisions of the
2002 Farm Bill. Ecological benefits associated with tree planting
conservation practices would continue for an additional 10 to 15 years.
Additional croplands enrolled and planted with tree practices would
continue to cleanse silt and pollutants from runoff water, especially
if installed
[[Page 24854]]
in riparian areas, thereby protecting and improving streams while
simultaneously providing food and shelter for wildlife for an
additional 10 to 15 years of CRP contracts. Marginal pastureland in
additional tree practice acreage would continue to be enrolled along
with other continuous practices that involve tree plantings, such as:
Shelter belts, field windbreaks, and living snow fences implemented on
sensitive cropland enrolled. However, the new provision would allow
grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be planted on marginal pastureland along
with trees, resulting in a positive impact through the creation of
habitat from which multiple species may benefit. State CREP Agreements
would target areas where plantings of certain species, such as
hardwoods, would improve local ecosystems and provide associated
benefits to water quality and wildlife.
Wildlife
Land with wildlife habitat benefits could be increased by almost 3
million acres. However, the amount of quality habitat would be
dependent on the types of vegetation planted. Managed haying, grazing
and harvesting, along with wind turbine placement, if done correctly
and in accordance with conservation plans, would have little or no
impact on resident wildlife. Permitting existing cover to continue,
where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP, would
continue to have lasting positive impacts on wildlife habitat already
established with vegetative cover. This would be true as long as the
maintenance schedule documented in the conservation plan is followed.
An increase in acreage allocated to CRP could increase the amount of
upland game habitat, habitat used by birds and neo-tropical migrants
and the amount of protected wetlands, simultaneously and proportionally
increasing the recreation chances for those people who like to bird
watch, hunt, fish, and to enjoy nature. State CREP Agreements would
target specific areas with needs associated with wildlife habitat
protection and restoration and achieve additional benefits. Permanent
protection of wildlife through the use of easements could also be
achieved with the use of State CREP Agreements. CCRP could provide
positive benefits to certain wildlife species by establishing grassed
and forested buffers.
Additional acreage allocated to CRP could potentially have a
positive impact on almost 3 million additional acres of protected land
that could be used, in part, as habitat by many T&E species. States
with CREP Agreements would see additional T&E species and habitat
benefits in areas targeted by the approved CREP agreement, if approved
practices consist of conservation practices targeting the species or
species habitat in question.
Socioeconomic
There would be insignificant adverse impacts on agricultural
employment in areas gaining in CRP enrollment and potential
insignificant adverse impacts on agricultural employment in areas
losing CRP enrollment. No impact would be predicted on agricultural
land rents at the regional and national level. Reallocation of income
within the local economy with possible increased agricultural output,
income in non-agricultural sectors of the economy and additional
spending on agricultural inputs. Reallocation could affect leakage of
value added from the local economy. There would be potential
beneficial, long-term and nominal to moderate increase in agricultural
land values from a reduction in the cropland supply and the
capitalization of CRP income into land value. A potential increase in
recreational opportunities and shifts in recreational opportunities
between regions would provide certainty to the participants of CRP-
related income over the long term.
The impacts would be similar to those identified under No Action
Alternative. The changes would improve program performance and increase
flexibility but would not substantially alter program effects on social
community.
V. Rationale for Decision
The Proposed Action Alternative complies with the 2002 Farm Bill,
provides FSA the most flexibility in terms of program implementation
and environmental targeting, increases the significant positive
benefits of CRP, and is the most balanced approach to achieving long-
term program goals. The No Program Alternative was used as an
analytical baseline. The Current Program Alternative would continue to
produce positive benefits but without the enhancements of the 2002 Farm
Bill. The Environmental Targeting Alternative runs a risk of under-
enrollment and, therefore, lost environmental benefits. Many of the
beneficial aspects of the environmental targeting alternative are
already included in the proposed action through CREP and CCRP.
VI. Implementation and Monitoring
FSA will implement CRP, CREP, CCRP and FWP in a manner that
provides the greatest amount of benefits to the environment while
causing the least amount of adverse impacts. FSA will ensure that
impacts are minimized through a process of completing site specific
environmental evaluations for each approved contract as well as
programmatic environmental assessments for CREP agreements.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2003.
James R. Little,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency and Executive Vice President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 03-11406 Filed 5-5-03; 3:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P