[Federal Register: March 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10307-10311]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr04-106]
[[Page 10307]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
on the Emergency Conservation Program; Notice
[[Page 10308]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement on the Emergency Conservation Program
AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
the changes made by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to improve and expand
the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) to make the program easier to
administer, reduce the potential for abuse, and make the program's
cost-share rates consistent with other USDA programs. FSA prepared a
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for ECP and
published it in the Federal Register on March 7, 2003, along with a
Notice of Availability (NOA). This notice summarizes the long-term
environmental, social, and economic impacts of ECP identified in the
PEIS that were considered in this decision, and why FSA selected the
Proposed Action Alternative that it did in revising ECP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Steck, USDA/FSA/CEPD/Stop 0513,
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0153, (202) 690-0224,
or email at: don_steck@wdc.usda.gov. The Final ECP 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
.
More detailed information on this program may also be obtained from
the FSA Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/ecp00.htm
.
Record of Decision
I. The Decision
A. PEIS Proposed Action Alternative as the Basis for Implementing and
Expanding ECP
Based on a thorough evaluation of the resource areas affected by
ECP, a detailed analysis of three program alternatives, and a review of
public comments on the Draft PEIS, the Proposed Action Alternative was
selected as a means to improve and expand ECP in accordance with the
provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.), with regulations set forth at 7 CFR part 701.
B. Overview
ECP provides emergency cost-share assistance to farmers and
ranchers to restore agricultural lands damaged by severe wind erosion,
floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters and for carrying out
emergency water conservation measures during periods of severe drought.
It is administered by FSA state committees (STC) and FSA county
committees (COC) and is currently authorized by the Agricultural Credit
Act of 1978. This program does not require a major disaster
determination by the President or Secretary of Agriculture to provide
local assistance. Except for drought, the COC may implement the program
with the concurrence of the STC. During periods of severe drought, the
determination to implement the program is made by the FSA's Deputy
Administrator for Farm Programs or his or her designee.
Funding for ECP is appropriated by Congress, usually through
supplemental appropriations in response to disasters, and is held in
reserve at the national level. Funds are allocated after a
determination has been made authorizing ECP designation. Funds are
allocated to States based on the estimate of funds needed to begin
implementing ECP.
Participants are not allowed to receive funding under the ECP for
land on which the landowner or producer has or will receive funding
from: the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Emergency Wetland Reserve
Program (EWRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program (EWP), or any other FSA, Commodity Credit
Corporation, or other government program that covers similar expenses
that duplicate ECP payments.
C. Programmatic Changes to ECP
ECP is authorized by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), with regulations set forth at 7 CFR part 701. On August
1, 2002, FSA published a proposed rule to amend part 701 (67 FR 49879).
The proposed rule removed references to the Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) and the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP). ACP was
repealed by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
and FIP was reassigned from FSA to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994 (Pub. L. 103-94). The rule proposed to clarify and expand
provisions of the ECP to reflect current policy and to make the program
more efficient and easier to administer. The proposed rule 60-day
comment period ended on September 30, 2002.
A final rule, with no substantive policy changes from the proposed
rule, is published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register.
The changes to ECP regulations will result in no significant additional
costs while making the ECP cost-share rates consistent with other USDA
programs. The provisions added to reduce the potential for abuse and
improve program delivery will ensure that ECP is carried out in an
economically, environmentally, socially, and technically sound manner.
FSA will also increase ECP funding for limited resource producers to
deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed previously.
The Proposed Action is comprised of four main elements:
Eliminate tiered level cost sharing and allow
for a more consistent cost-share rate;
Tentatively provide measures dealing with
confined livestock;
Provide more cost-share assistance for limited
resource producers; and
Require completion of an environmental
evaluation checklist prior to approving cost-share assistance.
The final rule changes little with regard to land eligibility or
existing ECP conservation practices in the current program. One change
that is made is that, in certain instances, such as to supply water
during a severe drought, measures dealing with confined livestock are
eligible for ECP, although it may not be used to replace or repair
buildings. Provisions were added to strengthen the fiscal integrity of
the program, including the prohibition of schemes and devices, and debt
avoidance. Further, the new ECP provides special consideration for
limited resource producers so that ECP funds may be targeted to those
with the most need.
Also, the final rule changes how the maximum ECP cost-share level
is computed. Under the current regulations, the maximum rate of cost-
share is calculated according to a sliding scale, with a higher cost-
share percentage being allowed for the first part of the costs of the
practice up to a certain limit, and a lower percentage being allowed
for additional costs. To eliminate confusion, the new rule provides,
instead, for a standard maximum percentage to be used for all costs
associated with the practice for which the cost-share is to be
received. Program costs will not rise because payments will still be
limited by other criteria and by limiting reimbursement to $200,000 per
``person'' per disaster. The FSA county committee may permit
reimbursements of up to 75 percent for all reimbursable costs, subject
to current per ``person'' limitations, and a 90
[[Page 10309]]
percent rate for limited resource producers. The 75 percent rate, like
the current sliding rate, is used to determine the maximum amount to be
paid to all participants involved with all practices applied for the
applicable disaster. However, the $200,000 limit per ``person'' will
remain.
In addition, an environmental evaluation checklist will be
completed by appropriately trained FSA personnel prior to approval of
any ECP cost share assistance. The completion of this checklist will
provide a mechanism for reviewing each action's impacts, documenting a
finding of no significant impact, and compliance with applicable
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This checklist will
discuss the need for any environmental assessment and provide a format
for assessing potential impacts and reviewing alternatives and
mitigation measures when potential impacts to any of the protected
resources listed on the checklist are identified. These protected
resources include: wetlands, floodplains, sole source aquifer recharge
areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species,
wilderness, coastal barrier in coastal barrier resources system or
approved coastal zone management areas, natural landmarks, and
historical and archaeological sites.
II. Description of the Current Emergency Conservation Program
To be eligible for ECP assistance, the applicant must be an
agricultural producer and the land receiving the assistance must be
physically located in the county in which the ECP has been implemented.
Immediately following a natural disaster event, the county
committee will make an overall assessment of the damage to ensure that
the damage meets the minimum ECP requirements. The county committee
then consults with the state committee to obtain concurrence for all
ECP disasters, except drought, before approving the disaster damage for
cost-share assistance. The state committee administers ECP within the
state according to national policy. Additional eligibility for the
program is established after the county committee determines whether:
The natural disaster has created new
conservation problems which, if not treated, would impair or endanger
the land;
Materially affect the productivity of the land;
The damage represents unusual damage in that it
does not occur frequently; or
The damage would be so costly to repair that
Federal assistance is required to return the land to productive
agricultural use.
The County committee establishes cost-share levels up to 64
percent, according to a sliding scale: 64 percent for the first $62,500
in reimbursable costs, 40 percent for the next $62,500 in reimbursable
costs, and 20 percent for the remaining eligible costs. Cost-sharing
involves payments made to producers to cover a specified portion of the
cost of installing, implementing, or maintaining conservation
practices. Individual or cumulative requests for cost sharing of
$20,000 or less per person per disaster may be approved by the county
committee, and requests of $20,001 to $62,500 by the state committees.
The Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs must approve requests for
over $62,500. The payment limit for the program is $200,000 per person
per disaster. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) may
provide technical assistance to resource managers and landowners
participating in the ECP.
Before requesting ECP funds, the county committee shall, to the
extent possible, use other available program funds instead of ECP.
Except in the case of severe drought, the county committee may
implement ECP after receiving the state committee's concurrence. County
offices maintain a permanent file on natural disasters that have
severely damaged agricultural lands in the county, regardless of
whether disasters were approved for ECP. This information is used as a
basis for future program requests and designations.
Pre-existing conservation problems are not eligible for cost-
sharing assistance through ECP. Other lands considered ineligible for
cost-share assistance include those lands:
Owned or controlled by the United States.
Owned or controlled by a State or State agency.
Protected by a levee or dike that was not
effectively and properly functioning prior to the disaster or is
protected or is intended to be protected by a levee or dike not built
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, or comparable standards.
Located in areas frequently inundated by floods,
or having significant possibility of being flooded.
Damaged as a result of continuous use of poor
farming practices.
Utilized as greenhouses or other confined
structures, such as land in corrals, milking parlors, barn lots, or
feeding areas; and
Devoted to trees for timber production and
Christmas tree farms.
III. Alternatives Considered
FSA developed the ECP Proposed Action through internal scoping. FSA
then conducted formal scoping for the ECP PEIS, meeting with and
soliciting input from representatives of other Federal, State, and
local agencies, and the general public. Public scoping meetings were
held in six cities located around the country. The Federal Register and
national newspapers published notices stating that FSA was preparing a
PEIS and input was being sought through public scoping meetings, a
toll-free phone line, regular mail, and email. The Proposed Action
Alternative best reflects the ideas voiced and recommendations made
during that scoping process. The following alternatives are presented
in detail in the Final PEIS.
A. Alternative 1--No Program (Baseline)
The No Program alternative is used as an analytical device to
establish a baseline upon which to evaluate the other alternatives.
This alternative represents a true baseline rather than a ``permanent
legislation'' alternative, since not enough information exists to
define the latter. The analysis will establish a baseline by describing
what would happen if ECP had never existed.
B. Alternative 2--No Action (Current Program)
Under the No-Action Alternative, FSA state and county committees
would continue to administer the ECP under its current regulations. FSA
would not make substantive changes in its administration, the
mechanisms for review of projects before funding, or follow-up on the
program's procedures after completion. FSA would continue to set cost-
share levels up to 64 percent based on a sliding rate. FSA would not
have a special cost-share level for limited-resource producers. This
alternative simply continues the current program.
C. Alternative 3--Proposed Action (FSA's Preferred Alternative)
Under the Proposed Action, FSA would institute changes to
facilitate the administration of the program without incurring
significant additional costs while making the ECP cost-share rates
consistent with other USDA programs. Also, it is meant to prevent
abuse, such as when a large practice is subdivided into several smaller
practices to avoid lower reimbursement rates applicable at the higher
loss levels. It is also meant to improve program delivery and ensure
the economic, environmental, and social defensibility and technical
soundness of its decisions and practices. FSA would
[[Page 10310]]
also expand the ECP to provide funding to limited resource producers to
deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed previously.
IV. Impacts Under the Alternatives
This following section summarizes some of the effects that would be
expected to occur to such resource areas as water resources, wetlands,
soil and air quality, vegetation, wildlife and their habitat, and
socio/economic resources under each of the three alternatives.
A. No Program Alternative
Disaster recovery efforts would likely be reduced or not undertaken
in some floodplain locations with damaged marginal agricultural
production areas being abandoned and could potentially revert to
natural vegetative cover in the long term. This might reduce some of
the impacts of farming on affected watersheds and wetlands. In areas
where wildfires or drought have eliminated protective cover over upland
areas the lack of restoration measures would leave these sites
vulnerable to water and wind erosion that could adversely impact water
resources, wetlands, air quality, and damage valuable topsoil.
Plant associations such as bottomland hardwood forests might expand
in the long term under this alternative with rare plant species
potentially benefiting from these changes. However, when a natural
disaster destroys the protective cover over upland areas including
hillsides, lack of restoration measures would leave these sites
vulnerable to wind and water erosion that could adversely affect any
natural re-vegetation that might occur in the short term. This would
also adversely affect any wildlife cover or food provided by the
vegetation in the long term for those wildlife species dependent in
part on farming to maintain earlier successional and transitional
habitats. Wildlife requiring later successional and relatively
undisturbed habitats may benefit where farming is reduced.
Farm owners and operators would experience a greater exposure to
the risk and uncertainty associated with a natural disaster.
B. No Action Alternative
Minor short-term effects on water resources such as sedimentation
from restoration practices would temporarily add to any adverse impacts
that may be resulting from farming activities such as soil erosion or
pesticide or fertilizer use. These effects may be important in
watersheds already stressed by farming and other factors such as
development pressure or areas that are already sensitive to natural
disasters.
Wetlands on agricultural lands would not be affected by continuing
the current ECP program. FSA would ensure that any disaster recovery
measures to be taken would not adversely affect wetlands although some
minor impacts to wetlands downstream in the watershed may continue to
occur to the extent that any deleterious farming practices resume after
disaster recovery.
Short-term minor effects from restoration practices would continue
to occur, and could add to any erosion and soil quality impacts that
are currently a part of general agricultural production. FSA would
ensure that highly erodible land soils are protected from wind or water
erosion by making certain the producer is in compliance with highly
erodible land requirements. The restoration of crop production,
pasture, and shelterbelt sites would also maintain sites currently in
managed use that would likely otherwise revert to natural vegetation.
Some wildlife species dependent in part on farming to maintain
earlier successional and transitional habitats and to provide a portion
of their food may benefit from restoration measures. Wildlife requiring
later successional and relatively undisturbed habitats would not
benefit where farming is restored.
The primary beneficial impact of the program is to provide repair
funds and inject necessary capital into the local economy at a time
when individual producers/operators and their surrounding communities
are under stress as the result of the natural disaster event.
C. Proposed Action Alternative
The same short-term effects on water quality as under the No Action
Alternative would occur and temporarily add to any agricultural
degradation of water quality. Until specific practices are determined
for confined livestock operations, no additional impacts are expected
from any programmatic changes. Completion of the environmental
evaluation checklist will ensure that any of these temporary adverse
effects are considered and mitigated if necessary.
Wetlands would not be affected by instituting the proposed ECP
program. FSA would not allow any disaster recovery measures to be taken
that would adversely affect wetlands although some impacts to
downstream wetlands may continue to occur to the extent that any
deleterious farming practices resume after disaster recovery.
Short-term minor effects from restoration practices would continue
to occur, and could add to any erosion and soil quality impacts that
are currently a part of general agricultural production. FSA would
ensure that highly erodible land soils are protected from wind or water
erosion by making certain the producer is in compliance with highly
erodible land requirements. The restoration of crop production,
pasture, and shelterbelt sites would also maintain sites currently in
managed use that would likely otherwise revert to natural vegetation.
Some wildlife species dependent in part on farming to maintain
earlier successional and transitional habitats and to provide a portion
of their food may benefit from restoration measures. Wildlife requiring
later successional and relatively undisturbed habitats would not
benefit where farming is restored.
The primary effect of ECP under this alternative would be similar
to those outlined for the no action alternative with the beneficial
aspect of repairing and restoring the affected area to its pre-disaster
condition and use.
V. Rationale for Decision
The Proposed Action Alternative clarifies, expands, and changes
provisions of the ECP to reflect current policy and to make the program
more efficient and easier to administer. ECP would be administered
without incurring significant additional costs while making the ECP
cost-share rates consistent with other USDA programs. The prevention of
potential programmatic abuse and improved program delivery would ensure
the economic, environmental, and social defensibility and technical
soundness of FSA decisions and practices with regard to ECP. FSA would
also expand the ECP to provide extra funding to limited resource
producers to deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed
previously.
VI. Implementation and Monitoring
FSA will implement ECP 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 cost-share assistance to ensure compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws.
[[Page 10311]]
Signed in Washington, DC on February 11, 2004.
James R. Little,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 04-4862 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P