[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65995-66007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26872]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65995]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1450
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
FSA implementation of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) as
provided for in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the
2008 Farm Bill). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm
Service Agency (FSA) prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for BCAP. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of that PEIS
was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2010. This decision
record summarizes the reasons FSA has selected the Proposed Action
Alternatives taking into account the program's expected environmental
and socioeconomic impacts and benefits as documented in the PEIS, all
of which were considered in this decision.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Decision
Having undertaken a thorough evaluation of the resource areas
affected by BCAP, a detailed analysis of the alternatives, a
comprehensive review of public comments on the Draft PEIS, comments
received on the Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) to the Matching
Payment component of BCAP, experience from administering the Matching
Payments component of BCAP, and public comments received on the
proposed rule, FSA has decided to implement Alternative 2, the Selected
Alternative, identified for BCAP. This decision was made after
comparing overall environmental impacts and other relevant information
with regard to the reasonable alternatives considered in the BCAP PEIS
and through the additional public input on the BCAP following the
guidance of the Administrative Procedures Act (Pub. L. 79-404) and
agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. Alternative 2
was selected as the alternative that was most consistent with the
intent and language of the 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-246), while
being environmentally responsible and reasonable to implement, and that
would not have significant negative impacts. The following briefly
describes the purpose and need for the proposed action and the
alternatives considered.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to establish and administer
BCAP, as specified the 2008 Farm Bill. The need for the Proposed Action
is to implement BCAP for the purposes specified in the 2008 Farm Bill,
specifically to promote the establishment and production of eligible
dedicated energy crops.
The purpose of the PEIS was to identify and assess the broad
implications to the human and natural environments of the national
implementation of those components of the BCAP that were discretionary
in nature as provided by the 2008 Farm Bill. It was determined that
BCAP provided incentives and assistance in the production of dedicated
energy crops similar to the incentives for production of traditional
agricultural row crops, which was the reasoning behind limiting the
analysis to establishment and production of dedicated energy crops.
Dedicated energy crops currently under consideration as economically
viable were determined to use similar cultivation techniques, grown in
areas with current traditional crop production, and have similar
transportation methods and mechanisms, and as such, would have similar
off-farm effects for delivery to markets, with these effects being site
specific. The range of final products that could be produced from
dedicated energy crops grown as part of BCAP is wide and changing with
new technology on a rapid basis. Cumulatively, the conversion of
dedicated energy crops into a final product was qualitatively analyzed
since the location, type, and technology to reach a final product from
a dedicated energy crop could not be quantifiably determined as part of
this program.
Overview of BCAP
BCAP is a new program provided for in Title IX of the 2008 Farm
Bill. BCAP is intended to assist agricultural and forest land owners
and operators with the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation
of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF)
and to support the establishment and production of eligible crops for
conversion to bioenergy in selected project areas. BCAP will be
administered by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs of the FSA
on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) with the support of
other Federal and local agencies. BCAP is composed of two components:
(1) The Matching Payments component for the collection harvest,
storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials, and (2) the
Establishment and Annual Payments component associated with BCAP
project areas.
BCAP Matching Payments Component
CCC and FSA published a NOFA for the Matching Payments component of
BCAP for eligible renewable biomass material on June 11, 2009 (74 FR
27767-27772). The NOFA announced the availability of funds beginning in
2009 for matching payments to eligible material owners for CHST of
eligible material delivered to qualified BCFs in advance of full
implementation of BCAP. FSA invited comments on the NOFA from all
interested individuals and organizations over a 60-day comment period.
On February 8, 2010, the proposed rule for full implementation of BCAP
was published (75 FR 6264-6288) which terminated the NOFA effective
February 3, 2010. With the publication of the proposed rule, the CCC
and FSA requested comments on the proposed rule, which included both
components of the BCAP.
The NOFA was published in response to the Presidential Directive
issued to the Secretary of Agriculture directing an aggressive
acceleration of investment in and production of biofuels. The
Presidential directive requested that the Secretary of Agriculture take
steps to the extent permitted by law to expedite and increase
production of and investment in biofuel development by making the
renewable energy financing available in the 2008 Farm Bill available
within 30
[[Page 65996]]
days. The NOFA was the first step in a multi-step process to provide
guidance and funding for CHST in response to the Presidential Directive
consistent with the 2008 Farm Bill. The NOFA provided a general summary
of the provisions that would be used to administer payments for CHST in
advance of the rule on BCAP. Specifically, the NOFA (1) provided
policies and processes for providing matching payments for the CHST of
eligible material, to qualified BCFs, and (2) described the process for
qualifying CHST BCFs. The Matching Payments component was implemented
under the guidance of the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, FSA
(Deputy Administrator), who is also the Executive Vice President of
CCC. The USDA determined that making these funds available as soon as
possible was in the public interest, and that withholding funds for
CHST to provide for public notice and comment would unduly delay the
provisions of the benefits associated with the program.
The Matching Payments component was determined not to be a major
Federal action per the NEPA definition since (1) the program was
understood to be a mandatory program subject to a final construction
and implementation of the statutory terms and the interim allocation of
funds while the final determinations were being made and (2) the
materials collected during the Matching Payments component were
currently being utilized in the marketplace for a similar, if not the
same, purpose. The Matching Payments component incentivized an existing
activity, which was fully seen from the data collected during the NOFA
authority, to continue production during current economic conditions.
The data from the NOFA indicated that approximately 80 percent of the
BCFs qualified were collecting renewable biomass materials prior to the
NOFA, indicating only a small number of qualified BCFs either were new
facilities, facilities newly brought on-line, but were in the
construction phases prior to the NOFA, or were facilities that
restarted production from an off-line state due to the incentive
created by the Matching Payments component encouraging delivery of the
energy feedstock. There is an indication from the data that there was a
redirection of some existing materials from pulp and paper
manufacturers to wood pellet mills.
The Matching Payments component of BCAP was analyzed in the PEIS as
a mandatory implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill for either alternative
in the economic modeling as a payment to producers within project
areas; it was not analyzed as a payment to others outside the contract
acreage producers. It was assumed for both alternatives that producers
would receive the $45 per ton as the maximum matching payment for
delivery of biomass to a qualified facility for two years from the
first delivery. Using this assumption would anticipate, per the model
limitations, the potential for maximum adoption of dedicated energy
crops by producers within project areas and therefore, estimated land
use conversion given the highest potential value, in total (annual
payment, delivery payment, and matching payment combination), for
delivered biomass. The maximum payment scenario was used to depict a
maximum adoption under limited funding and a scenario with unlimited
funding that would assist in meeting the goals of other legislation
(such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2)), which would indicate the
broad potential impacts to the human and natural environments from the
establishment and growth of dedicated bioenergy crops. The timing
within the model was estimated as five years from acreage contracted
during the last authorized fiscal year for herbaceous perennial crops
with a delivery estimate of two to three years from establishment. For
woody species, the contract period is 15 years with at least one
delivery; therefore, the model results were assumed for a period 15
years from acreage contracted during the last authorized fiscal year
with at least one delivery for some woody species and two deliveries
for other woody species.
BCAP Establishment and Annual Payments Component
BCAP is intended to support the establishment and production of
eligible crops on eligible land for conversion at a biomass conversion
facility (BCF) in selected BCAP project areas and to provide financial
assistance to producers of eligible crops in BCAP project areas. Under
the Establishment and Annual Payments component, the CCC would accept
BCAP project area proposals on a continuous basis. To be considered for
selection as a BCAP project area, a project sponsor consisting of a
group of producers or a BCF must submit to the Secretary a proposal
that includes (at a minimum): (1) A description of the eligible land
and eligible crops to be enrolled in the proposed BCAP project area;
(2) a letter of commitment from a BCF that the BCF would use eligible
crops intended to be produced in the BCAP project area; (3) evidence
that the BCF has sufficient equity available if the BCF is not
operational at the time the project area proposal is submitted; and (4)
other information that gives the Secretary a reasonable assurance that
the BCF would be in operation by the time that the eligible crops are
ready for harvest. BCAP project area proposals would be evaluated on
selection criteria that take into account:
The dry tons of eligible crops and the probability those
crops would be used for BCAP purposes;
The dry tons of renewable biomass potentially available
from other sources;
The anticipated economic impact within the project area;
The opportunity for producers and local investors to
participate in ownership of BCF;
The participation by beginning or socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers;
The impact on soil, water, and related resources;
The variety in biomass production approaches within a
project area;
The range of eligible crops among the project areas;
The ability to promote cultivation of perennial bioenergy
crops and annual bioenergy crops that show exceptional promise, and not
primarily grown for food or animal feed; and
Any additional criteria, as determined by the Secretary.
BCAP project areas would be subject to approval based on the above
selection criteria and the successful completion of a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) for a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA),
which would determine that there would be no significant effects to the
natural or human environment within the proposed project area. This
project area level NEPA document would identify regionally and locally
significant features and/or resources and the potential for effects to
those resources from the proposed project area implementation. If
certain mitigation measures could be undertaken to avoid significant
effects, those measures would be detailed in the project area EA.
Additional requirements at the producer level include conservation
planning in the form of a BCAP conservation plan or forest stewardship
plan (or an equivalent plan). In addition to an approved conservation
plan or forest stewardship plan (or the equivalent), a site-specific
BCAP environmental screening form would be completed to determine the
appropriate level of further environmental review necessary prior to
completion of the BCAP contract with the producer. That environmental
review and conservation
[[Page 65997]]
planning would provide site-specific mitigation measures, as necessary,
to conserve physical and biological resources at the contract level.
Those mitigation measures and practices approved through conservation
planning would be periodically monitored by USDA to determine the
success and compliance with those measures.
A producer within the project area may enter into a contract with
CCC to commit eligible land, which would then be called contract
acreage, to establish and/or produce eligible crops. Contract durations
may be up to five years for annual and non-woody perennial crops and up
to 15 years for woody perennial crops. The 2008 Farm Bill defined
eligible land for project areas as agricultural land and non-industrial
private forest land (NIPF), subject to certain exclusions. Eligible
agricultural land for BCAP includes cropland, grassland, pastureland,
rangeland, hayland, and other lands on which food, fiber, or other
agricultural products are produced or are capable of being produced for
which a valid conservation plan exists or is implemented. Eligible NIPF
land for BCAP includes rural lands with existing tree cover, or that
are suitable for growing trees, which are owned by any private
individual, group, association, corporation, Indian tribe, or other
private legal entity as provided by section 5(c) of the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2103a).
Agricultural and NIPF lands with already established energy crops or
already contracted for energy crops or planned energy crops would be
eligible lands for contract acreage. USDA FSA may consider waste lands,
brownfields, abandoned mine land, and environmental clean-up sites as
eligible land, if they meet the definition of agricultural land or
NIPF, as described above and in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Producers in project areas may be eligible for both BCAP
establishment payments and annual payments. Producers would be eligible
for establishment payments for not more than 75 percent of the cost of
establishing a perennial crop, which could include woody perennial
crops. Establishment payments were not authorized for annual crops and
would only be made for new perennial, eligible crops with a projected
initial harvest time occurring within the length of the contract
period. Existing eligible crops on agricultural lands and NIPF would
not be eligible for establishment payments; however, they could be
eligible for annual payments. Annual payments would be calculated on:
(1) A weighted average soil rental rate for cropland; (2) the
applicable marginal pastureland rental rate for all other land except
for NIPF; (3) for NIPF, the average county rental rate for cropland as
adjusted for forestland productivity; and (4) any incentive as
determined by the Deputy Administrator. The payments are intended to
support production of eligible crops.
Alternatives Analyzed
The following list contains action alternatives determined to be
reasonable, which were evaluated in detail in the BCAP PEIS as
developed during internal and public scoping processes, as described in
the following section. These alternatives were developed to provide
overall flexibility in the program with one alternative being
restrictive and with limited funding, while the other was broader and
could provide a greater level of funding. The No Action Alternative,
used as a baseline for comparison of the Proposed Action, assumed no
Federal program for the Establishment and Annual Payments Program
component of BCAP. Alternative 1 was determined to be the Preferred
Alternative in the Final PEIS.
Alternatives Considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1: Targeted Alternative 2: Broad implementation
implementation of BCAP of BCAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BCFs supported by BCAP project All bio-based products produced by
areas are limited to producing a BCF in BCAP project areas can be
energy. supported.
No new non-agricultural lands New non-agricultural lands allowed
allowed for BCAP project area crop for BCAP project area crop
production. production.
Cropland acres enrolled in the Cropland acres enrolled in the
program would be capped at 25 program would not be capped.
percent of cropland acres within a
given county.
Advanced biofuels produced by BCAP Advanced biofuels produced by BCAP
project area BCFs must meet the project area BCFs do not need to
greenhouse gas test. meet the greenhouse gas test.
Only new BCFs are allowed to be Existing BCFs that meet BCAP
part of BCAP project areas and eligibility requirements are
only newly established crops on supported.
BCAP contract acres are eligible
crops.
Only large commercial BCFs would be Small and Pilot BCFs would qualify
allowed in BCAP project areas. for BCAP project areas.
Payments would be limited to Payments would completely replace
provide some risk mitigation. lost potential income from non-
BCAP crops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Involvement
Responses to the Final SEIS public comments and FSA's analyses
supporting this Record of Decision are presented in the following
discussion.
Public Scoping
CCC first provided notice of its intent (NOI) to prepare the
proposed BCAP PEIS in the Federal Register on October 1, 2008 (73 FR
57047-57048). CCC provided an amended NOI to prepare the proposed BCAP
PEIS on May 13, 2009 (74 FR 22510-22511), and solicited public comment
on the proposed PEIS for BCAP. Six public scoping meetings were held in
May and June 2009 to solicit comments for the development of
alternatives and to identify environmental concerns. FSA performed a
density analysis of likely BCAP participation to determine those areas
that would utilize the program and meetings were planned for these six
locations. Public meetings were held in Washington, Texas, Iowa,
Louisiana, Georgia, and New York in the cities and dates as presented
in the table below. The PEIS has taken into consideration comments
gathered in the scoping process initiated with the October 1, 2008, NOI
to develop the alternatives proposed for the administration and
implementation of BCAP. Announcements of the scoping meetings were
posted in the FR (74 FR 22510-22511), State and county FSA offices, and
the FSA Web site prior to the meetings. A public website was created
that provided program information, scoping meeting locations and times,
and an electronic form for submitting comments via the internet. A
presentation was given at each meeting followed by a comment period for
attendees. Printed program information and comment forms were made
available at the meetings, along with
[[Page 65998]]
cards providing the public comment Web site address. Meetings were
attended by the FSA National Environmental Compliance Manager or FSA
Federal Preservation Officer, and were recorded by a court reporter.
List of Public Scoping Meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of meeting City, state Meeting location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 2009.................. Olympia WA....... Red Lion Hotel, 2300
Evergreen Park
Drive, Olympia, WA
98502.
June 2, 2009.................. Amarillo, TX..... Hilton Garden Inn,
9000 I-40 West,
Amarillo, TX 79124.
June 4, 2009.................. Alexandria, LA... Alexander Fulton
Hotel, 701 4th
Street, Alexandria,
LA 71301.
June 8, 2009.................. Des Moines, IA... Renaissance Savery
Hotel, 401 Locust
Street, Des Moines,
IA 50309.
June 10, 2009................. Albany, GA....... Hilton Garden Inn,
101 S. Front Street,
Albany, GA 31701.
June 11, 2009................. Syracuse, NY..... Hilton Garden Inn,
6004 Fair Lakes,
East Syracuse, NY
13057.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments received during the scoping process were recorded and
categorized, as applicable, to the stated purpose and need for the
Proposed Action, the Proposed Action itself, preliminary alternatives,
and environmental resource areas. The comments were evaluated by FSA to
determine the scope and significance of each issue and the depth at
which it would be analyzed in the PEIS.
Draft PEIS
The availability of the Draft PEIS was announced on August 10, 2009
(74 FR 39915). This Notice of Availability (NOA) marked the beginning
of a 45-day public comment period soliciting comments from interested
persons and agencies. Comments were received through October 9, 2009.
Copies of the Draft PEIS were provided to the headquarters and all the
regional offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Comments were received from
State and Federal agencies, non-government organizations, and
individuals. FSA responded to all substantive comments received and
either expanded the PEIS to address the comment or explained why the
PEIS was not expanded or clarified in accordance with the comment.
The Draft PEIS received comments from five Federal agencies, three
private individuals, 25 organizations or corporations, and the
Government of Canada. These 35 commenters generated 191 comments. The
individual comments addressed Air Quality (22), Biological Resources
(41), Cumulative Effects (9), Mitigation (4), Additional Language or
Further Clarification (14), Other (39), Proposed Action and
Alternatives (24), Purpose and Need (10), Recreation (1), Resources
Eliminated from Detailed Study (3), Socioeconomics and Land Use (21),
Soil Resources and Quality (11), and Water Quantity and Quality (10).
Comments concerning Air Quality included greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from biomass burning, carbon sequestration, soil carbon,
carbon sinks, primary/criteria air pollutants, and wind erosion.
Biological resources comments included effects to protected species,
primary nesting season (PNS) considerations, conversion of forest
lands, conversion of grasslands, genetically engineered (GE) organisms,
cumulative effects to vegetation and wildlife, types of crops planted,
grassland birds, and invasive and noxious species. Cumulative effects
comments included effects to higher-value product feedstocks, effects
from forest land conversion, and associated and related programs at the
state level. Mitigation comments included new tools to assess the
values of biomass production at the site-specific level to generate the
BCAP conservation plan and a request for greater details. Other
comments received included mechanisms associated with CHST, monitoring
programs, conversion of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres, the
inclusion of crop residues, greater description of forestry resources,
agricultural plastics, more precise definitions of eligible crops and
lands, and the use of only one crop type as an example of eligible
crops. Several comments were received on the number of alternatives
presented and analyzed. Comments on Socioeconomics and Land Use
included the effects on existing BCF, the use of residues, and the
inclusion of short rotation woody crops (SRWC) into the models. Soil-
related comments included increased erosion potential, soil carbon
sequestration, and the role of agricultural residues in soil formation.
Water-related comments included water quantity for BCF use, erosion and
pesticide transport, irrigation use, and Gulf of Mexico hypoxia.
Final PEIS
Public notices announcing the availability of the Final PEIS were
published on June 25, 2010 (75 FR 36386). The Final PEIS was available
for public review and comment for 30 days, and to ensure that all
potential comments from interested stakeholders were received and
reviewed, an extra 30 days was provided for FSA receipt of comments.
FSA received comments from two Federal agencies, 38 organizations or
corporations, one local government representative, and seven private
citizens. Approximately 54 percent of the commenters specifically
favored one alternative over the others, with 15 commenters favoring
Alternative 1, 10 commenters favoring Alternative 2, and one commentor
favoring the No Action Alternative.
Final PEIS commenters supported Alternative 2, the Selected
Alternative, for many of the following reasons: Provides the greatest
incentive for forest landowners to continue managing NIPF to produce
valuable ecosystem goods and services; discourages NIPF owners from
converting forest land to other land uses; provides more renewable
biomass than Alternative 1 or the No Action Alternative; creates the
greatest reduction in fossil fuel consumption; increases energy
security by increasing domestic energy production; socioeconomic
benefits; environmental benefits; allows the all qualified BCF to
participate regardless of size; Alternative 1 is too restrictive; more
closely supports State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) goals;
creates green jobs; and provides greater incentives to high potential
bioenergy crops.
Impacts Summary
The Final PEIS outlines and compares all of the alternatives'
potential impacts. Based upon the analyses and conclusions presented in
the Draft PEIS, FSA identified the Preferred Alternative as Alternative
1; however, with comments received on the NOFA, experience with the
Matching Payments component of BCAP, comments received on the proposed
rule, and from
[[Page 65999]]
the Final PEIS comment period, FSA has chosen Alternative 2 to be the
selected and implemented alternative. Within the context of the
Proposed Action's purpose and need, this alternative is both
environmentally responsible and reasonable to implement, would not have
significant negative impacts, and more closely matches the intent and
guidance of the 2008 Farm Bill. Both beneficial and potential adverse
effects of the alternatives analyzed for implementing BCAP are
identified and discussed below.
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 1, the BCAP Establishment and Annual Payments
component would be implemented on a more restrictive or targeted basis.
Project areas would be authorized for those that support only large,
new commercial BCFs that are limited to producing energy in part from
only newly established crops on BCAP contract acres. No new non-
agricultural lands (for example, NIPF converted to herbaceous crop
lands) would be allowed to enroll for BCAP crop production.
Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects
Modeling indicates that at the national level, direct impacts to
realized Net Farm Income are expected to remain unchanged from that of
the No Action Alternative due to limited funding. However, net returns
are likely to improve for those producers selected to participate in a
BCAP project area. Total net returns for most potential project
locations are positive, ranging between $2.7 and 7.3 million in Year 1
of the program. Modeling shows that positive Net Returns would still be
expected over the long term (Year 3), indicating that the BCAP project
areas remain capable of supplying a BCF with required feedstock.
Alternative 1 would cause land use changes only at the local level
(that is, county or multi-county region). Land use changes range
between 22,000 to 44,000 acres of crop (for example, corn, wheat, soy,
etc.) and hay land being converted to dedicated energy crops
(switchgrass) from that of the No Action Alternative.
Overall, scientific literature and the modeling for the BCAP PEIS
indicated that the vast majority of cropland for dedicated energy crops
would come from cropland currently in production for traditional row
crops and from pastureland. Additionally, recent literature indicates
that potentially nine million to 15 million expiring CRP acres could
return to crop production by 2025, with an estimated one million acres
potentially being planted in dedicated energy crops. This was based on
the probable higher value of traditional row crops without the
incentives provided by BCAP for dedicated energy crop production. The
impact of expiring CRP acres on total CRP enrollment would be offset
through re-enrollments into CRP and new acres being enrolled in CRP to
reach the 32 million acre CRP cap as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill.
The PEIS found that Alternative 1 would cause only minor conversion
of natural landscapes, including native habitats and forests, due to
(1) the economic costs associated with supplying infrastructure (for
example, roads, temporary irrigation for establishment) to those lands
and (2) the restrictions inherent in the 2008 Farm Bill that limit and
protect unique native habitats such as native sod, which would include
rangelands that have never been in crop production. Economic indirect
impacts under this alternative vary by project location.
The analysis method used in the PEIS did not address international
indirect land-use change. This can be done, for example, by coupling
output from the Policy Analysis System (POLYSYS) economic simulation
model to an international economic sector model, such as the Global
Change Assessment Model (GCAM) at the Joint Global Change Research
Institute. Associating carbon coefficients to the economic sectors (for
example, forest, croplands, fossil fuels, etc), allow for estimates of
indirect land-use change associated with the changes in land-use
occurring nationally. However, it is important to recognize that the
ratio of land-use change (for example, one acre of soybeans taken out
of production in the United States equals one acre of tropical
deforestation) has not been adequately established through scientific
literature. The social drivers of indirect land-use change are not
clear, not substantiated, and cannot be modeled in a fact-based
analysis at this time.
Growing dedicated energy crops, and subsequent land use changes for
those crops in a region, would impact the agricultural sector by the
creation of a new market. The exact amount of land that may be
converted is limited to 25 percent of the acreage within each county
being eligible for BCAP payments. This equates to a relatively small
amount of vegetation being converted from traditional crops or
pastureland to approved dedicated energy crop species. It is estimated
that producing a dedicated energy crop would require $60 per dry ton
(approximately $10 million) to establish the crop. To receive payments
to establish a dedicated energy crop, producers must first convert
their land from traditional crops. This would result in negative
impacts within the community as inputs from the traditional crops are
not purchased. Costs vary based on the community and the amount of land
use changes required and range between $1.5 million to $5 million.
Total economic impacts range between $19 million and $28 million.
Net positive impacts for the top five projects are between $21 million
and $25 million for their region. However, land use changes would
create negative impacts, through reduced purchases of inputs for
traditional farming, within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10
million depending on location.
Biological Resources
Due to the small scope of this alternative, and provided
established provisions, standards, and guidelines are followed, and
provided the BCAP conservation plan, forest stewardship plan (or the
equivalent) are adapted to resource conditions, Alternative 1 would
have no significant negative impacts on vegetation or wildlife.
It is unlikely there would be significant negative impacts to
wildlife populations from the conversion to dedicated energy crops at a
regional scale. However, the potential always exists for site-specific
fluctuations in wildlife populations without the proper adaptive
management techniques being applied during the establishment and
harvesting stages of crop production. The proper use of adaptive
management and appropriate mitigation techniques related to
agricultural processes can help minimize any potential negative direct
effects. There are not expected to be large scale impacts to regional
wildlife populations because of the limited scope of land use change
under this alternative. Indirect impacts to wildlife are related to
habitat change. Some degree of wildlife mortality from collisions or
nest destruction from farm equipment is unavoidable. Provided
establishment and harvest of feedstock does not occur during the
primary nesting season (PNS), these impacts should be minimized.
Reptiles and amphibians could experience negative and positive
responses to the conversion to dedicated energy crops. The increase of
native vegetation may increase the abundance of invertebrates, a source
of food for many reptiles and amphibians. There may be short-term
reductions in population sizes the year that
[[Page 66000]]
conversion occurs from agricultural activity to biomass establishment
from collisions or crushing by farm equipment. The techniques described
above, if properly planned and applied, are designed to minimize the
impacts to wildlife of these activities. Likewise, because of the
limited implementation under this alternative, these impacts would not
be regional nor are they anticipated to affect regional wildlife
population levels.
Impacts to invertebrates are related to habitat, and would vary
based on specific lifestyle and habitat preference. Direct impacts to
invertebrates are dependent on the degree of exposure and the mobility
of a given species. Impacts from the establishment include destruction
of nest sites, crushing, and the removal of food sources. These impacts
can be reduced if activities are not conducted during periods of
highest florescence or when flowers are in bloom.
Impacts to aquatic wildlife are associated with the dangers of
sedimentation, and nutrient and agricultural chemical deposition into
water bodies. However, provided established procedures for erosion and
runoff control are followed, these potential impacts are not expected
to be significant.
Air Quality
The analysis of potential air quality impacts was intended to
estimate changes in land management associated with the adoption of
dedicated biomass energy cropping practices and to estimate changes in
greenhouse gases (GHG) and carbon stocks associated with those changes
in land management. The analysis considered the range of potential
effects associated with the establishment of the dedicated energy crop
including crop production inputs through the harvesting of the
dedicated energy crop to the farm gate.
The air quality analysis was developed through the output from the
economic forecasting model associated with predicted changes in land
management. This model (POLYSYS) is based on over 3,500 unique cropping
practices that capture greater than 90 percent of all cropland
production in the United States, using an annual time step and at a
county level. When considering changes in land-use and soil carbon
stocks, the model works at a sub-county level. The annual time step
allows for near-term estimates of dedicated energy crop adoption and
potential changes in GHG emissions. Changes in GHG emissions included
upstream emissions from the production of agricultural inputs (for
example, fertilizers, pesticides, energy for irrigation), on-site
fossil fuel emissions, on-site soil carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from organic carbon (soil organic matter and plant residue)
and inorganic carbon (agricultural lime), and soil nitrous oxide
(N2O) emissions.
This method was chosen, because the economic modeling components
within the POLYSYS model are of a spatial resolution (county) and
temporal resolution (annual) needed to address dedicated energy crop
adoption rates both locally and nationally. This information was used
to assess the impact of annual adoption rates on GHG emissions. Fossil-
fuel offsets from the use of cellulosic ethanol occur outside the farm
gate; therefore, they were not included in this analysis. Inclusion of
fossil-fuel offsets would likely contribute to larger carbon savings
and less net CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, than is
accounted for in the current analysis.
Positive changes to air quality are expected under Alternative 1.
However, since the scope of this alternative is limited, these changes
would not be significant. Direct impacts relate to the energy and/or
emissions from agricultural production activities. Under this
alternative, energy consumption within the top five regions would be
reduced by 3,664 gigajoules (GJ) through the conversion to switchgrass
when compared to the No Action Alternative. This energy change is
minor, in most cases less than 0.1 percent. Carbon emissions were less
than those of the No Action Alternative, yet small, usually less than
0.1 percent reduction. Due to the limited scale of conversion under
this alternative, the amount of fugitive dust emissions would be minor,
temporary, local, and nearly equal to that of the No Action
Alternative. Yet, over the long term, given the conversion to perennial
dedicated energy crops and reduction tillage, there would be a
reduction in fugitive dust emissions. These effects would be positive,
but minor.
Limited indirect impacts would occur from emissions from equipment
exhaust or other mobile sources necessary for the establishment of
dedicated energy crops. However, since machinery is already utilized on
these fields, these impacts are similar to those of the No Action
Alternative.
Site-specific mitigation measures would be determined based on the
local or regional Air Quality Control Region, as prescribed in the
conservation plan or through local or State regulations concerning air
emissions of criteria pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
reduce mobile sources include proper maintenance of equipment and dust
suppression activities.
Soil Resources
Under Alternative 1, a reduction in erosion from all sources is
expected. Conversion of croplands from traditional crops to switchgrass
is estimated to reduce topsoil loss from these acres by 0.4 inches per
year; which equates to four inches over a ten year period. Soil carbon
would increase between 0.2 and 10.1 percent over that of the No Action
Alternative. Indirect impacts under Alternative 1 would be increased
biodiversity of soil biota as a result of increased soil organic matter
and the presence of perennial vegetation. The use of BMPs would further
reduce the potential for soil loss. Provided established conservation
standards, provisions and guidelines are implemented, Alternative 1
would have no significant negative impact on soil resources.
Water Quality and Quantity
Under Alternative 1, direct impacts to water quality are expected
from the changes to the use of nutrients and agricultural chemicals for
the establishment and production of switchgrass in the potential BCAP
project locations. Decreases in the use of potassium (3.1 percent),
lime (4.0 percent), herbicides (5.5 percent), insecticides (11.2
percent), and other agricultural chemicals (3.6 percent) are expected;
while the use of nitrogen (2.1 percent) and phosphorus (2.9 percent)
within the top five project areas are expected to increase over that of
the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and
agricultural chemical, erosion, total suspended solids (TSS), and
sedimentation would provide positive impacts on water quality from
implementation of this alternative. However, due to the limited amount
of acreage under this alternative, these benefits would be local.
The change in the quantity of water required under this alternative
would be minimal. The amount of water used for irrigation in the top
five regions would only decrease approximately 0.25 percent over that
of the No Action Alternative, saving an estimated 1.2 million gallons
of water per day. When compared across all project area States, 23.6
million gallons of water per day would be conserved. Switchgrass has a
higher water use efficiency (WUE) than other traditional crops, and is
highly tolerant of various water regimes and is more drought tolerant
than traditional crops.
[[Page 66001]]
Indirect impacts under Alternative 1 result from the reduction in
sedimentation and nutrient and agricultural chemical deposition into
surface water bodies that move downstream, benefiting larger water
stream courses and regional water quality.
To further reduce impacts to water quality, buffer strips comprised
of mixed native species between biofuel crop fields and surface water
bodies should be established for sediment and nutrient retention.
Adherence to established conservation standards, provisions, and
guidelines ensures Alternative 1 would have no significant negative
impact on water quality.
Recreation
Under Alternative 1 there could be localized positive or negative
impacts on wildlife habitat, but they are expected to be small due to
the relatively small amount of land converted to energy crops. The
impacts to recreation involving wildlife are expected to be small
locally and also not significant at the regional or national level.
Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative)
Alternative 2 expands the BCAP Establishment and Annual Payments
component, allowing anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements of
the BCAP provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill to participate. In addition,
existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot
BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would
qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands (for
example, NIPF converted into herbaceous cropland) would be allowed to
enroll and the number of cropland acres would not be capped.
Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects
Significant changes are expected in net revenues as total revenue
values increase more than the feedstock production costs and as
feedstock production reduces the supply of other crops and subsequently
increases their prices. Price increases are most significant for wheat,
corn, and soybeans, with price changes expected to increase by 15 to 20
percent during the period 2009 to 2023. The addition of more forestry
resources as feedstock would reduce pressures on crop prices somewhat,
as would any future increase in crop yields. It is expected that
government commodity payments would increase due to the price impacts
triggered by the increased demand for cropland.
Overall, scientific literature and the modeling for the BCAP PEIS
indicated that the vast majority of cropland for dedicated energy crops
would come from cropland currently in production for traditional row
crops and from pastureland. Additionally, recent literature indicates
that potentially nine to 15 million expiring acres of CRP could return
to crop production by 2025, with an estimated one million acres
potentially being planted in dedicated energy crops. This was based on
the probable higher value of traditional row crops without the
incentives provided by BCAP for dedicated energy crop production. The
impact of expiring CRP acres on total CRP enrollment would be offset
through re-enrollments into CRP and new acres being enrolled in CRP to
reach the 32 million acre cap as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Land use shifts, especially among the major crops, are expected
under this alternative. The amount and type of land, both traditional
cropland and non-cropland, converted to dedicated energy crop
production would depend on which areas are designated as project areas.
Modeling indicates that by 2023, planting of dedicated energy crops
would increase production cropland by over 50 million acres, while
resulting in a reduction in traditional cropland acreage by
approximately 17 million acres, with corn acreage estimate to increase
by less than one million acres. Of the estimated 350 million acres in
current use as pastureland, approximately 34 million acres would shift
to the production of dedicated energy crops while 15 million acres
would shift to hay production. Overall, scientific literature and the
modeling for the BCAP PEIS indicated that the vast majority of cropland
for dedicated energy crops would come from cropland currently in
production for traditional row crops and from cropland pastureland.
Natural landscapes and native habitats and forests would be anticipated
to have only minor conversion due to (1) the economic costs associated
with supplying infrastructure (for example, roads, temporary irrigation
for establishment) to those lands and (2) the restrictions inherent in
the 2008 Farm Bill that limit and protect unique native habitats such
as native sod, which would include rangelands that have never been in
crop production.
There would be both positive and negative indirect impacts from the
establishment of dedicated energy crops which would flow through the
rest of the economy. While payments for the establishment of dedicated
crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the matching payments
component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, the
costs associated with land use changes required to meet the demand for
dedicated energy crops and crop residues may bring a decline of $3.2
billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Overall, the total economic impact
from implementation of Alternative 2 is anticipated to be positive with
an estimated $88.5 billion in economic activity throughout and the
creation of nearly 700,000 jobs.
Biological Resources
As with Alternative 1, provided established provisions, standards,
and guidelines (that is, BMPs similar to those used in CRP conservation
plan) are followed and the BCAP conservation plans, forest stewardship
plans, or equivalent plans, are adapted to resource conditions,
Alternative 2 would have no significant negative impacts on vegetation
or wildlife. Conversion may have both negative and positive impacts.
The loss of forest land (for example, NIPF converted to herbaceous
cropland) or native grasslands, not native sod (for example, CRP acres
planted to native grass that have expired and gone back into
production) would decrease the habitat quality for several wildlife
species; however the effects would be limited given the minor amount of
conversion anticipated from these land types. Yet, as described in
Alternative 1, many of the dedicated energy crop options have a higher
habitat quality than traditional crops. The types of impacts to
wildlife during the establishment of dedicated energy crops would be
similar to those described in Alternative 1; yet, with the potential to
occur at a much broader scale. Again, the scale of this impact is
dependent on the types and amount of land converted to dedicated energy
crops. Negative impacts to large mammals, small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians, and invertebrates are not expected to be significant.
Similarly, impacts to birds are not expected to impact population
densities. However, the largest potential negative impact to grassland
birds would occur during conversion or harvesting activities. Provided
these activities do not occur during the PNS, and the small portion of
grasslands in potential BCAP project area locations, impacts to
grassland birds are minimal.
Air Quality
Implementing Alternative 2 on a broader scale would reduce overall
direct carbon equivalent emissions during perennial dedicated energy
crop
[[Page 66002]]
growth. Total energy use was approximately one to two percent higher in
most years due to the indirect energy requirement for increased
equipment manufacturing. Direct energy usage was either neutral or
decreased over time. The effects of fugitive dust emissions during the
establishment phase would be similar to those of Alternative 1. After
establishment, fugitive dust emissions would decrease due to the
alteration of cropping systems to perennial species. In the long term,
these effects would be on a regional scale and would be positive.
Indirect impacts are similar to those of Alternative 1. Site-specific
mitigation measures and BMPs as described in Alternative 1 would reduce
potential impacts to Air Quality under Alternative 2.
Soil Resources
Alternative 2 would result in reductions at both the local and
regional level of soil erosion due to the transition from traditional
crops to perennial vegetation used for dedicated energy crops. As
indicated in the modeling results, dedicated energy crop production
would increase production cropland by approximately 50 million acres
under Alternative 2, with that acreage being shift from traditional row
crops and cropland pasture, rather than natural landscapes, native
habitats and forests. Overall, the shift toward more perennial
vegetation on production croplands from traditional annual row crops
would provide benefits to soil quality and soil carbon sequestration.
Perennial crops, and the use of corn stover and wheat straw, would
shift away from conventional tillage to no tillage practices. This
shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would
conserve approximately 40 million tons of soil each year over that of
the No Action Alternative. As with Alternative 1, the biological
diversity of the soil would also increase. As with Alternative 1, the
use of BMPs would further reduce the potential for soil loss. Provided
established conservation standards, provisions and guidelines are
implemented, Alternative 2 would have no significant negative impact on
soil resources.
Water Quality and Quantity
The direct and indirect impacts to water quality under Alternative
2 would be similar to those described in Alternative 1. However, as the
amount of acreage converted from traditional crops to perennial crops
increases, the benefits to both water quality and quantity increase.
The same mitigation methods described in Alternative 1 would reduce
potential impacts to water quality. Adherence to established
conservation standards, provisions, and guidelines ensures Alternative
2 would have no significant negative impact on water quality.
Recreation
Under Alternative 2 there could be localized positive or negative
impacts on wildlife habitat, but they are expected to be small due to
the relatively small amount of land converted to energy crops. The
impacts to recreation involving wildlife are expected to be small
locally and also not significant at the regional or national level.
Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices
In addition to the required BCAP conservation and/or forest
stewardship plan (or the equivalent), all project sponsors and
producers must follow all environmental rules and regulations as
required through participation in other USDA programs. Each project
proposal will be subject to NEPA analysis prior to approval. A BCAP
Environmental Screening worksheet must be completed for each contract
offer. This worksheet would provide the necessary environmental
information to FSA so they can accurately and expeditiously complete an
environmental evaluation, consistent with FSA's regulations on
environmental quality found at 7 CFR part 799, for enrollment of a
particular site in BCAP. This worksheet can also be used in conjunction
with the BCAP conservation and/or forest stewardship plan (or the
equivalent) to develop methods/activities that could mitigate any
potential minor site specific environmental effects for individual
producers applying to the program while still meeting the overarching
goal of BCAP and NEPA. Prior to execution of the BCAP Project Area
contract, NRCS or an authorized technical service provider (TSP) would
complete a site-specific environmental evaluation that would reveal any
protected resources on or adjacent to the proposed program lands. When
sensitive resources, such as nesting birds, wetlands or cultural
resources are present or in the vicinity of the proposed lands,
consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency would occur.
Specific mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
potential localized negative impacts to those sensitive resources would
be identified. If the environmental evaluation concludes that species
or critical habitat protected under ESA are potentially present, and
the proposed conservation activity on the land is determined to have
negative impacts and no alternatives exist, it is not likely the land
would be eligible for that activity. Any mitigation measures and
practices approved through conservation planning would be periodically
monitored by USDA to determine the success and compliance with those
measures.
If through completion of the environmental evaluation, it is
determined that there is no potential for the proposed BCAP activity to
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
environmental evaluation serves as FSA's documented compliance with
NEPA as well as the requirements of other environmental laws,
regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs).
However, if after completion of the environmental evaluation it is
determined that protected resources could potentially be adversely
impacted, consistent with FSA's internal guidance, then no further
action can occur until the BCAP applicant completes an EA. EAs would be
required when the results of the environmental evaluation are unclear
as to whether the proposed activities would significantly impact the
quality of the human environment.
If the EA determines that there could be a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment then a proposed BCAP project area
or site specific EIS could be necessary. These EISs and all EAs would
be tiered to this PEIS consistent with 40 CFR 1508.28.
Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects
To mitigate the socioeconomic effects of BCAP, the final rule
provides that the eligibility for payment of vegetative wastes, such as
wood wastes and wood residues, collected or harvested from both public
and private lands will be limited to only those that would not
otherwise be used for a higher-value product. This specifically
excludes wood wastes and residues derived from mill residues or other
production processes that create residual by-products that are
typically used as inputs for higher value-added production.
Additionally, industrial or other process wastes or by-products, such
as black liquor or pulp liquor that is a waste by-product of the pulp
and kraft paper manufacturing process, would not be included in the
definition of biobased products because they are not significantly
composed of organic or biological products collected or harvested from
land. The final rule also continues the exclusion of commercially-
produced timber, lumber, wood, or other finished products that
[[Page 66003]]
otherwise would be used for higher value products. Also, urban wood
wastes have been excluded as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Biological Resources
As specified in the 2008 Farm Bill, a conservation plan or forestry
stewardship plan (or equivalent plan) is a fundamental component for
ensuring appropriate and sustainable agricultural practices for
specific programs. Consistent with accepted BMPs (for example, for CRP
and associated programs), a BCAP conservation plan or forest
stewardship plan (or the equivalent) that includes appropriate
conservation practice standards and sustainable agriculture practices
must be developed before implementation to reduce the negative impacts
to biological resources. Dedicated energy crops should be chosen based
on local ecosystem characteristics to minimize potential disturbance to
native wildlife species and vegetation by providing habitats comparable
to those found in natural habitats. Sustainable agricultural techniques
should be used, if possible, to reduce negative impacts to biological
resources. Specific county Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) conservation practice standards, as well as State or county
specific technical notes and specific guidance on mitigation measures,
should be incorporated in the conservation plan and forest stewardship
plan or equivalent. Applicable NRCS conservation practice standards
should be followed on lands where conserving wildlife species is an
objective of the landowner or forest stewardship plan. Site-specific
environmental evaluation on the project site in conjunction with either
informal or formal consultation with the appropriate USFWS office would
protect species included on the endangered species list. Use of BMPs
such as washing vehicles upon leaving and entering a work area would
minimize the potential to spread invasive or noxious plant species.
Other eligible crops, such as animal wastes, food and yard wastes,
and algae, have site-specific requirements in regards to potential for
environmental effects. To lessen potential effects associated with
animal wastes, appropriate guidance from State and Federal regulatory
agencies concerning confined animal feeding operation practices and
standard industry practices associated with animal production should be
followed to ensure that collection of materials does not adversely
impact localized vegetation and wildlife resources through secondary
effects associated with water and air quality.
Air Quality
BMPs associated with dedicated energy crop production include the
use of limited and no tillage components, which decrease the potential
for fugitive dust emissions associated with exposed ground cover. Also,
all producers would follow local air quality regulations, which may
define other BMPs associated with agricultural activities, including
transportation and chemical usage.
Soil Resources
BMPs associated with dedicated energy crop production include the
use of limited and no tillage components which decreases exposed ground
cover and allows for greater retention of topsoil through perennial
root systems. Other eligible crops, such as animal wastes, food and
yard wastes, and algae, have site specific requirements in regards to
potential for environmental effects. To lessen potential effects
associated with animal wastes, appropriate guidance from State and
Federal regulatory agencies concerning confined animal feeding
operation practices and standard industry practices associated with
animal production should be followed to ensure that collection of
materials does not adversely impact soil resources through secondary
effects associated with water and air quality.
Water Quality and Quantity
Algae production, due to the specialized nature of the
demonstration practices currently in effect, should move to minimize
the use of potable water supplies, where feasible, to reduce effects on
water consumption. BMPs for dedicated energy crop production that
reduce the amount of agricultural chemicals used for production would
benefit water quality through reduced transport in runoff. Also, the
use of limited or no tillage cropping systems reduces the potential
transported sediments by leaving ground cover on site and through the
stability associated with perennial root systems. Agricultural
irrigation systems are generally becoming more efficient, allowing for
an overall reduction in irrigated water uses, and the inclusion of more
dedicated energy crops with lower water demands and higher water use
efficiencies would benefit water quantity by reducing the levels
necessary for production.
Recreation
Given the site specific nature of the BCAP project areas and the
practices best suited to those conditions, effects to the abundance of
wildlife for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses would vary.
Practices that encourage more foraging habitat for game species could
induce changes in relation to decreased traditional row crop fields;
however, changes to pasture of hayland could indicate small adverse
effects. As such, operators should be encouraged to comply with the
goals for wildlife habitat enhancements associated with the
conservation plans and forest stewardship plans, at the recommendation
of the technical advisors (that is, NRCS and U.S. Forest Service).
Cumulative Effects--Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects
Cumulative effects to socioeconomic conditions and land use would
be highly dependent upon the location of the BCAP project areas and
level of funding; however, overall the benefits associated with the
establishment and production of dedicated energy crops should outweigh
the losses associated with the land use shifts from traditional row
crops. With limited funding, BCAP projects areas would be few and would
be anticipated to provide local positive effects to the socioeconomic
conditions from the conversion to dedicated energy crops; however, the
effects would be balanced through the losses associated with input
suppliers for traditional crops under Alternative 1. The limited
funding assumption and the county acreage limitation would not induce
national level changes in agricultural prices.
Under Alternative 2, the greater funding for BCAP could create
numerous BCAP project areas with the potential to affect national crop
prices. Alternative 2 would encourage greater regionalization, which
could encourage more land use changes to dedicated energy crops, where
traditional row crops only produced marginally positive income streams.
Also, the Matching Payments component has encouraged the use of
woody biomass as a feedstock for many of the BCFs qualified during the
NOFA period. More than 3.1 million tons of biomass was from woody
resources during the NOFA period (85.6 percent of total biomass
collected). Only 4.3 percent of woody resources were derived from
Federal lands, with the remainder from non-Federal lands. During the
short term, these resources could be an important source of
[[Page 66004]]
feedstock, until the sustainable harvest of dedicated energy crops
would be available.
Biological Resources
Changes to vegetation structure and type could cause potential
negative cumulative effects on native fish and wildlife through
fragmented, degraded, or destroyed habitats. Cumulative effects to
wildlife would be localized and site-specific as not all species are
harmed by conversion of land to more intensive uses. While the
footprints of the areas considered under conversion are relatively
small (less than one percent of the area inside the 50-mile buffer),
potential impacts may occur if land configuration and relative location
of converted areas combined with existing habitat fragmentation
patterns has a multiplicative effect on the overall regional habitat
fragmentation values. The establishment of new crops in areas
previously fallow or cropped with a different style of agriculture may
cause direct mortality and range shifting at the local scale of
wildlife. The use of BMPs and environmental assessments would prevent
and minimize significant impacts; however, fragmentation is
unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to vegetation would occur from the
conversion of native pastureland or native vegetation to dedicated
energy crops. The cap on the amount of acreage that may be used for
dedicated energy crops under Alternative 1 (that is 25 percent in any
single county within the 50-mile radius) also is designed to reduce
these impacts. Similarly, because of the limited funding that would
only provide for a limited number of BCFs, the amount of land that
potentially would be converted is negligible.
Direct impacts to wildlife would occur by conflicts with haying
machinery that may result in mortality. Under Alternative 1, direct
impacts are expected to occur during the establishment and harvest
stages of BCAP crops; yet, these impacts are expected to be short-term
and localized. These habitat changes would impact such aspects as food
availability, type and quantity of cover for escape and breeding, and
the availability of adequate nesting sites. Wildlife in lands adjacent
to the dedicated energy cropland may either be positively or negatively
impacted depending on the habitat quality provided by the biofuel
crops.
Cumulative effects through implementation of Alternative 2 would
lead to direct and indirect impacts to vegetation and wildlife at a
regional scale. As with Alternative 1, direct impacts are not expected
to impact wildlife at a population level; however, the significance of
indirect impacts are dependent on potential land use changes. The
quantity and habitat quality of any land converted from native grasses,
forest land or pastureland for dedicated energy crops would determine
the level of cumulative impacts. Under Alternative 2, depending upon
the level of land use changes, the cumulative impacts to vegetation and
wildlife could be significant.
No cumulative impacts under the No Action Alternative would occur
as the program would not convert land from one use to a dedicated
energy crop.
Air Quality
In general, the maturation of the biofuels and bioenergy industries
should result in significantly positive energy balance in relation to
first generation biofuels and bioenergy supported by grain feedstocks
and fossil fuels. With a limited level of BCAP funding that would only
provide for two commercial-scale facilities, the range of potential
cumulative effects would be broad depending upon the location of the
facilities. However, it was estimated that the BCAP program would
generate net energy savings and greater soil carbon sequestration as
lands are converted to dedicated energy crops. The effects were
estimated to only be locally or regionally significant and not
nationally significant.
Cumulatively, under Alternative 2, the unlimited funding of the
BCAP to support all scales of BCFs could lead to national level
effects, such as a decline in soil carbon sequestration due to an
increased use of crop residues to meet the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) volume requirements. It could be surmised
that under Alternative 1, to meet EISA requirements there would be a
greater use of first generation biomass (that is, corn) and second
generation biomass (that is, agricultural crop residues) than from
Alternative 2, given the potential funding difference between the two
alternatives. This would indicate that the greater use of crop residues
for biofuels feedstock could reduce soil carbon levels below currently
seen in traditional row crops where the crop residues remain. However,
in the analysis it was assumed that EISA targets could not be met under
Alternative 1 as indicated by the anticipated waivers for production
under the base scenario.
Overall, it was indicated that soil carbon would increase under
Alternative 2, as traditional row crops were replaced with perennial
dedicated energy crops; however, in combination with EISA requirements
for advanced biofuels percentages, traditional sources (for example,
corn and crop residues) would be required in combination with BCAP
project areas to meet the overall demand. It was estimated that there
would be benefits from the conversion of lands associated with total
carbon flux and overall energy use, but there would also be negative
effects from the greater use of residues, which would generate
additional GHG emissions and reduce soil carbon sequestration. In the
longer term, as more acreage is planted to dedicated energy crops and
regionally competitive crops (that is, SRWC), there would be some off-
set from the anticipated soil carbon losses associated with residue
removal and use.
Overall, the discussion of the EISA RFS2 program within the BCAP
PEIS, including the characterization of indirect land-use impacts and
GHG emissions, is appropriate given the limited overlap between the two
programs. While both programs generally support the Administration's
goals to expand domestic bioenergy production and consumption and
decrease reliance on fossil fuels, BCAP supports a broader range of
bioenergy conversion technologies as well as biobased products, which
the RFS2 does not incentivize.
Soil Resources
The implementation of BCAP would generate positive effects from a
reduction in soil erosion and increased soil carbon sequestration from
the conversion of Title I crops to perennial dedicated energy crops.
The conversion to a perennial dedicated energy crop provide greater
soil retention due to anticipated cropping practices and the plant
structure holding soil in place.
Under Alternative 1, with the limited BCAP funding, the benefits
associated with reduced soil erosion would be only locally significant
and would provide for positive changes to water quality, soil organisms
biodiversity and overall biological diversity.
Under Alternative 2, depending upon the level of agricultural crop
residue use to meet EISA requirements, the effects could be either
insignificant or significant, cumulatively. When combined with the U.S.
Forest Service measures to increase woody biomass utilization for
bioenergy, there may be short term increases in soil erosion from
forest lands in some regions; however, these should be minimal if
harvest and management BMPs are implemented per the forest stewardship
plan or the equivalent, and all applicable Federal, State, and local
harvest regulations.
[[Page 66005]]
Also, in some regions, soil erosion on forest lands would be
insignificant due to the species and understory cover provided. The
increased use of crop residues is anticipated to lead to changes in
cropping practices, which should provide greater soil cover by standing
crop residues and reduced tillage practices to promote residues use.
Water Quality and Quantity
The conversion to a perennial dedicated energy crop provides
greater water use efficiency than traditional row crops such as corn.
This conversion would be anticipated to limit runoff from agricultural
fields and potential need for irrigation past the initial establishment
period. Under Alternative 1, with the limited BCAP funding, the
benefits associated with increased water quality and decreased water
quantity would be only locally significant and would provide for
positive changes. Under Alternative 2, depending upon the level of crop
residue use, the effects could be either insignificant or significant,
cumulatively. The implementation of BCAP would generate positive
effects from (1) a potential reduction of irrigated cropland acres, (2)
greater water use efficiency on non-irrigated and irrigated acreage,
and (3) a general reduction in agricultural chemical use from the
conversion of Title I crops to perennial dedicated energy crops.
The majority of water consumption associated with corn-based
ethanol is from irrigation to grow the crop. A potential reduction in
the amount of irrigated acres would reduce the total water consumption
to produce ethanol. Also, studies have indicated that conversion of
biomass at co-generation or combined heat and power (CHP) power plants
for electricity is more efficient in the reduction than conversion into
transportation fuels. However, water consumption for this use should
also be considered. Other studies indicate that traditional liquid
biofuels used as a fuel source for power generation are the most water
inefficient when compared to traditional fuels, such as natural gas,
which was the most water efficient.
Recreation
Impacts to recreation could be positive or negative based on the
locality for BCAP project regions. However, they would be small
regionally and nationally under either alternative and would not
substantively or cumulatively change the recreational aspects of
participation in wildlife activities.
Basis for the Decision
Proposed Action
Alternative 2 is selected as the alternative to implement the
Proposed Action. Alternative 2, the Selected Alternative, complies with
the 2008 Farm Bill, provides FSA flexibility in terms of program
implementation and development of a sustainable industry, and is the
most balanced approach to achieving long-term program goals, while
being consistent with the intent and language of the 2008 Farm Bill.
The No Action Alternative was used as an analytical baseline.
Alternative 1 provided for a targeted application of the BCAP; however,
this alternative was restrictive in the types of potential sized
facilities that could participate in the program, thus limiting the
overall scope.
The broader scope of implementation, as analyzed under Alternative
2, would have the potential to open new non-agricultural lands (that
is, NIPF) into dedicated energy crop production, which, if the effects
were unmitigated could create losses of biodiversity at a regional
scale. However, conversion from non-agricultural lands should be minor,
since modeling results indicated that the majority of the cropland for
dedicated energy crops would be converted from traditional row crops
and pastureland. Also, the use of the BCAP conversation plan and forest
stewardship plan (or the equivalent) would avoid and mitigate those
effects through appropriate BMPs and sustainable practice approaches.
No significant impacts would occur from implementation of the Proposed
Action and no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Potential
negative impacts would be minimized by employment of site-specific
environmental evaluations prior to contract approval, BMPs,
incorporation of practical mitigation measures in the BCAP conservation
plan or forest stewardship plan (or the equivalent), and, if indicated,
EAs would be tiered to the Final PEIS for those areas requiring further
NEPA analysis prior to contract approvals, consistent with 40 CFR
1508.28.
BCAP Components
BCAP is divided into two distinct components as specified in the
2008 Farm Bill. The Matching Payment component was determined to be
largely mandatory and non-discretionary in nature. Implementation of
the Establishment and Annual Payment component required an exercise of
discretion by the Secretary of Agriculture. The separation of the two
components in the 2008 Farm Bill and the mandatory nature of the
Matching Payments allowed for the NOFA to be used to initiate that
component before final rule-making on the entire BCAP. An appropriate
comment period and inclusion of the reference to the BCAP Establishment
and Annual Payments components PEIS, which included the Matching
Payments component in the cumulative effects analysis, made inclusion
of the Matching Payments component as part of the alternatives analysis
for BCAP PEIS unnecessary per standard, as such with the publication of
the Final BCAP PEIS, this analysis including the cumulative effects
would be complete. The range of reasonable alternatives, given the
geographic scope of the analysis, provided valid consideration of the
scale of the program with unlimited funding authorized for both the
Matching Payments component and the Establishment and Annual Payments
component of BCAP in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Geographic Scale and Approach to the Analysis
The geographic scale of potential BCAP project area sites
encompasses the entire United States and its territories and as a
result land use changes, farming practices, weather conditions, soil
types, water resources, natural ecosystems, and economies vary widely
at the site-specific level. Therefore, the PEIS assessed the potential
impacts of implementing the Establishment and Annual Payments component
of BCAP on a broad scale that required that certain assumptions be made
to assess the impacts of the program.
Since the BCAP supports the production of dedicated energy crops,
the analysis focused only on the potential impacts associated with crop
production and not the impacts associated with conversion of biomass
into various types of energy (that is ethanol, electricity, burning for
combined power and heat, etc.) since the intent of the program was for
the successful establishment of dedicated energy crop production
throughout the United States, which could be used in a myriad of end
product components based on the facilities available to the producers.
The PEIS evaluated the impacts of establishing a bioenergy crop (on
BCAP eligible lands) and managing, and transporting to a BCF a specific
crop from each of the three broad classes of cellulosic energy crops
(woody crops, perennial herbaceous, and annual herbaceous). Hybrid
poplar and willow (woody species), switchgrass (perennial herbaceous
species), and forage sorghum (annual herbaceous species) were chosen
[[Page 66006]]
because they have the most widely available data; it is feasible that
they can be established within the time frame of the program, and
represent likely energy crops that would be grown for biofuels/
bioenergy across varied regions of the United States. These
representative dedicated energy crops in no way represent the entire
range of possible bioenergy crops that could qualify as an eligible
crop under the BCAP. The production of switchgrass, forage sorghum,
hybrid poplar, and willow utilize agricultural practices that are
similar to those used in traditional crop agriculture with some
variations in equipment and techniques. Production operations and
multi-year characteristics for each selected bioenergy crop would vary.
Although algae is an eligible crop under the Establishment and
Annual Payments Program component of BCAP, it currently is not
considered likely to be commercially feasible and suitable for
inclusion in a BCAP project area by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2012,
the expiration of the authority for BCAP. As such, algae as an eligible
crop is briefly discussed, but is not included in the detailed analysis
within this document.
Additionally, existing forestry resources on NIPF would be eligible
for the Annual Payments. These resources are identified by approximate
locations throughout the United States through association with private
forest lands as detailed within the Forest Inventory and Analysis data
publicly provided by the U.S. Forest Service.
Model Development and Approach
To determine the potential locations for BCAP projects based on
prevailing economics of dedicated energy crop production, a model-based
approach was used, which contained information on prevailing cropland
uses, factors of production for an herbaceous energy crop (that is,
switchgrass), factors for the use of crop residues as a bioenergy
feedstock, and transportation costs. The model currently incorporates
switchgrass and residues (crop and forestry) as feedstock for BCF.
However, it is important to note that switchgrass can be seen as a
generic dedicated energy crop which would represent the land use
requirements implicit in the use of other energy crops for which data
is not readily available. The use of switchgrass as a model crop
representing other dedicated energy crops, could underestimate the
production potential of feedstock that has a yield that could be
significantly larger than switchgrass, and consequently underestimate
the potential of specific regions of the country as candidate locations
for potential BCAP projects locations. In an effort to address those
shortcomings, the model was complemented with preliminary data in an
effort to include poplars, willows, and forage sorghum as eligible
crops.
The analysis included prices for switchgrass ranging from $35 to
$80 per dry ton. The $60 per dry ton analysis provided a good regional
coverage of feedstock potential supply for herbaceous perennial and
annual crops, and consequently was selected to perform the GIS analysis
to locate the potential BCAP projects; while $70 per ton was needed for
poplars and $90 per ton for willows. The analysis assumed that farmers
or land owners would receive $45 per ton in payment through BCAP plus a
match from the plant demanding the cellulosic feedstock. This
assumption was made based on the information provided in the 2008 Farm
Bill and the Matching Payments component of the BCAP NOFA. It was
assumed that producers would receive this matching payment for two
years from the first date of delivery of feedstock to a BCF.
The model was developed to first determine approximate project
locations based on the regional availability of feedstock and price
levels. Then through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
program and land use data at the county level, areas were identified
that had the potential for higher feedstock concentrations. The
analysis incorporated projected land use and proprietor income changes,
government payment changes, along with an increase in transportation
and the development of a dedicated energy crop. The approximate
predicated project locations were developed for each of the proxy
feedstocks analyzed. These predicted project locations were then used
for each of the resource areas to determine potential impacts, both
positive and negative, from the alternatives.
Under Alternative 2, funding for BCAP was assumed to be unlimited
and a driving factor was to produce enough biomass feedstock to meet
the demands of EISA (that is, approximately 15 billion gallons of
advanced biofuels). The analysis for Alternative 2 was conducted at
both a regional and the national level. The analysis focused on the
impacts to net farm income; farm prices; government payments; land use
shifts; and direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts as a result
of changes in the aforementioned variables. To model this, POLYSYS was
used to estimate the quantity and price of feedstock necessary to
achieve the EISA targets through 2023. To meet the Department of Energy
(DOE) goals of $1.76 per gallon of ethanol and $51 per dry ton of
herbaceous feedstock by 2012, the role, size, and funding of a
potential expanded BCAP was estimated, based on the estimated prices of
feedstock. The analysis assumed that farmers or land owners would
receive $45 per ton in matching payments through BCAP in addition to
payment from the plant demanding the cellulosic feedstock. This
assumption was made based on the initial matching payments distribution
as described in the 2008 Farm Bill and implemented in the NOFA. This
analysis for Alternative 2, built on the models developed for
Alternative 1, which analyzed a suite of specific potential project
areas.
Resource Specific Attributes
Based on the model results, assuming unlimited funding for the
Establishment and Annual Payments component, the Proposed Action would
create a balance of the objectives and goals of the program (that is,
create the framework for a dedicated energy crop production industry in
the United States) with overall natural and human-built environmental
benefits, while minimizing potential negative effects through a
comprehensive project area proposal process and site-specific
environmental evaluation of each contract holding.
Overall, air quality; soil resources; and water quality and
quantity; would have benefits from either alternative with Alternative
2 providing for greater effects given the overall potential size of the
program. It was estimated that there would initially be greater adverse
effects, though not significant, during the establishment phases;
however, after initial establishment there would be greater amassed
benefits from a greater reduction in soil erosion, more soil carbon
sequestration, and reduced irrigation demand for perennial dedicated
energy crops, including SRWC over more land areas.
Socioeconomic effects and land use changes would initially have a
decline in economic activity within certain sectors (that is, services
for traditional row crops) as a shift occurs into dedicated energy
crops; however, a new equilibrium would be reached as those traditional
row crop sectors convert into supporting dedicated energy crops.
Through the analyzed period (2009 to 2023) the overall balance for
socioeconomics and land use would be positive economic activity in
excess of $88 billion with the potential for an increase in crop prices
over the period by greater than 15 percent. There would
[[Page 66007]]
be the potential for regional effects to biological resources, however,
it would be limited by the anticipated minor amount of conversion of
non-agricultural lands (for example, NIPF converted to herbaceous
cropland) and native grasslands, not native sod (for example, expired
CRP acres that had been planted to native grass) to dedicated energy
crops; however, those effects could be avoided and minimized through
the use of accepted BMPs and BCAP environmental screening. On balance
the Proposed Action, with the BMPs and practical mitigation measures
associated in the BCAP conservation plan or forest stewardship plan (or
the equivalent) in conjunction with project level NEPA analysis and the
site-specific environmental evaluations prior to accepting contact
holdings, would create a beneficial environment for the establishment
of long-term dedicated energy crop industry in local and regional areas
based on their unique dynamics, while growing those crops in a diverse
and environmentally sustainable manner.
The Decision
FSA would implement the Selected Alternative as described in this
ROD. This alternative provides overall benefits to the environment,
allows for flexibility in implementation, and follows the intent and
language of the statute when compared to the other alternatives
analyzed. FSA would ensure impacts are minimized by employment of
appropriate practice standards in conservation plans and forest
stewardship plans (or equivalent), site-specific environmental
evaluations prior to each approved contract, and supplemental EAs or
EISs for those areas requiring further NEPA analyses.
After the publication of the Final PEIS on June 25, 2010, the later
enactment of the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-212)
on July 29, 2010, provided a limitation of funding for BCAP of
$552,000,000 in fiscal year 2010 and $432,000,000 in fiscal year 2011.
FSA does not have the authority to limit the scope of BCAP to a smaller
or more restrictive program than the 2008 Farm Bill authorizes, except
as may be needed to confine the program within these newly provided
spending limits. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9, FSA has determined that
a Supplemental PEIS may be required for changes to BCAP.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2010.
Carolyn B. Cooksie,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation and
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-26872 Filed 10-22-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P