[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24848-24854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11406]



[[Page 24847]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Commodity Credit Corporation



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Farm Service Agency



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
on the Conservation Reserve Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2003 / 
Notices  

[[Page 24848]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

Farm Service Agency


Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement on the Conservation Reserve Program

AGENCIES: Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) prepared a Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP) and the Notice of Availability was published in the 
Federal Register on January 17, 2003. This document presents the Record 
of Decision (ROD) regarding FSA implementation of the re-authorized CRP 
according to the provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-121 (2002 Farm Bill). The CRP is 
implemented through FSA on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
(CCC) and is governed by regulations published in 7 CFR part 1410. This 
decision record summarizes the reasons for FSA selecting the Proposed 
Action Alternative based on the program's expected environmental and 
socioeconomic impacts and benefits as documented in the PEIS, all of 
which were considered in this decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Steck, USDA/FSACEPD/Stop 0513, 
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0153, (202) 690-0224, 
or e-mail at: [email protected]. The final CRP PEIS, including 
appendices and this ROD, are available on the FSA Environmental 
Compliance Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/epb/impact.htm#final.
    More detailed information on these programs may also be obtained 
from the FSA Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp 
(general) http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/default.htm (CRP, CREP, 
ECP, & NEPA).

 Record of Decision

I. The Decision

A. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Proposed Action 
Alternative as the Basis for Implementing and Expanding CRP

    Based on a thorough evaluation of the resource areas affected by 
CRP, a detailed analysis of four program alternatives, and a 
comprehensive review of public comments on the Draft PEIS, CCC has 
selected the Proposed Action Alternative to implement and expand the 
re-authorized CRP in accordance with the provisions of the 2002 Farm 
Bill.

B. Overview

    CRP is the Federal Government's single largest conservation program 
for private lands. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals 
and the Government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers 
and ranchers for establishing conservation practices that have a 
beneficial impact on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages 
participants to voluntarily plant permanent vegetative cover on land 
that is subject to erosion. This vegetation safeguards millions of 
acres of American topsoil from erosion, provides food and habitat for 
wildlife, and protects water quality by reducing runoff and 
sedimentation.
    CRP provides annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to 
participants for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers on 
eligible land. CRP, in most cases, makes annual rental payments based 
on the dry land agricultural rental value of the land, and provides 
cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs 
in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in 
CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. FSA administers the program, with 
technical support provided by the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative State Research and 
Education Extension Service, State forestry agencies, local Soil and 
Water Conservation Districts, and others.

C. Programmatic Changes to CRP

    To implement the Proposed Action, FSA would incorporate the 
provisions of the recently enacted 2002 Farm Bill into the CRP 
regulations and revise the CRP Handbook. The 2002 Farm Bill, which 
governs Federal farm programs for the next 6 years, was signed into law 
on May 13, 2002. The 2002 Farm Bill reauthorizes CRP through 2007 and 
stipulates the following changes be made to CRP:
    [sbull] Increase the acreage enrollment authority to up to 39.2 
million acres;
    [sbull] Expand the Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) nationwide with 
an aggregate acreage cap of up to 1 million acres;
    [sbull] Change the cropping history requirement to be 4 out of 6 
years prior to the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill;
    [sbull] Provide a 1-year extension for certain contracts on land 
planted to hardwood trees;
    [sbull] Allow participants to enroll entire fields through certain 
continuous CRP practices when more than 50 percent of the field is 
enrolled as a buffer and the remainder of the field is infeasible to 
farm;
    [sbull] Allow participants to continue existing vegetative cover, 
where practicable and consistent with the objectives of CRP; and
    [sbull] Provide for managed haying (including for biomass), 
grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands.

II. Description of the Conservation Reserve Program

    CRP was initiated by Congress in Title XII of the Food Security Act 
of 1985, Public Law 99-198, was extended by the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 104-624, and then 
extended to 2002 by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996, Public Law 107-171. It has currently been authorized to 
continue through 2007 by the 2002 Farm Bill.

A. Conservation Reserve Program--General Sign-up

    CRP General Sign-up was established in its current form in 1985. 
This long-term land retirement program offers participants an annual 
per-acre rental payment and up to half the cost of establishing a 
permanent long-term conserving cover, in exchange for retiring 
environmentally-sensitive cropland from production for a minimum of 10 
years to a maximum of 15 years. Producers offer land for competitive 
bidding based on an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) during periodic 
announced signups. The current EBI is a form of environmental targeting 
which ranks offers based on environmental indices and cost.

B. Continuous CRP (CCRP)

    CCRP is a program initiated by FSA in 1996, with 4 million acres 
reserved for enrollment of highly-environmentally sensitive land that 
would produce optimal environmental benefits for soils, water quality, 
and wildlife habitat enhancement through the implementation of high-
priority conservation practices such as riparian buffers, filter 
strips, and grass waterways. Land eligible for these high-priority 
practices can be enrolled at any time and the land does not have to 
compete with other lands for enrollment under CRP general sign-up.

[[Page 24849]]

    In April 2000, FSA authorized enhanced incentives to target highly 
environmentally-sensitive land for continuous signup participation 
which included: (1) An up-front Signing Incentive Payment (SIP) of $100 
to $150 per acre (depending on the length of contract) for filter 
strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, field windbreaks, shelter 
belts, and living snow fences; (2) and a Practice Incentive Payment 
(PIP) equal to 40 percent of the cost of installing practices for all 
continuous signup practices. At that time, increased maintenance 
payments for certain practices were also added along with updated 
marginal pastureland rental rates to better reflect the agricultural 
value of these types of lands.

C. Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP)

    FWP was established as a pilot program by the 2001 Agricultural 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-387, under which farmed wetland 
acres were made eligible to be enrolled through a continuous sign-up 
similar to that of CCRP for other high-priority conservation practices. 
Payments were commensurate with those provided to landowners who 
implemented CRP conservation practices like filter strips. The wetlands 
and associated buffers enrolled under the pilot program were limited to 
500,000 acres in six States: Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North 
Dakota, and South Dakota, with no more than 150,000 acres enrolled in 
any single State. Under the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill, FWP will 
be expanded nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of up to 1 million 
acres.

D. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

    In 1997, FSA implemented CREP as a joint Federal-State land 
retirement conservation program that uses the authorities of CRP in 
combination with State resources to target specific conservation and 
environmental objectives. It is a conservation partnership targeted to 
address specific State and nationally significant water quality, soil 
erosion, and wildlife habitat issues linked to agriculture and 
agricultural production activities.

III. Impacts Under the Alternatives Considered

    FSA developed the Proposed Action Alternative based on provisions 
defined in the 2002 Farm Bill along with Agency scoping input provided 
before passage of the 2002 Farm Bill. FSA conducted formal public 
scoping for the PEIS and met with and solicited input from 
representatives of other Federal, State, and local agencies and the 
general public. The public scoping meetings were held in six cities 
located around the country. FSA published notices in the Federal 
Register and national newspapers that the agency was preparing a PEIS 
and that input was being sought through multiple venues including the 
public scoping meetings, a toll-free phone line, regular mail, and e-
mail. The Proposed Action and three Alternatives considered in detail 
in the PEIS represented a range of program implementation choices that 
reflected the array of ideas voiced and recommendations made during 
that scoping process. The following alternatives are presented in 
detail in the Final PEIS.

A. No Program Alternative (Baseline)

    This alternative was used as an analytical device to establish a 
baseline upon which to evaluate the other alternatives. The analysis 
established a baseline by describing what would have happened if CRP 
had never been implemented.

B. No Action Alternative (Current Program)

    Under this alternative, FSA administration of CRP/CCRP/CREP would 
continue as if the pre-2002 Farm Bill provisions remained in effect, 
including the 4.2 million-acre holdback for CCRP and CREP.

C. Proposed Action Alternative (FSA's Preferred Alternative)

    The Proposed Action is for FSA to implement changes in General CRP/
CCRP/CREP administration based on the requirements of the 2002 Farm 
Bill. Some of the changes include: increasing the enrollment authority, 
changing the eligibility and cropping history requirements, 
implementing a nationwide farmable wetland program, and several 
additional minor program changes. Environmental-based allocation under 
the general sign-up would continue. FSA plans to utilize CCRP and CREP 
in addition to General CRP in its administration of CRP in a balanced 
way to maximize conservation benefits while minimizing adverse 
environmental impacts.

D. Environmental Targeting Alternative

    Under this alternative, FSA would alter the mix of program goals 
and change acreage allocations to include CREP and continuous sign-up 
practices in designated environmentally-sensitive areas. The CRP 
general sign-up would be eliminated and the benefits produced directly 
by use of the EBI would be lost. Administration of CRP would then be 
accomplished using an environmental targeting approach that focuses 
program resources on addressing national or regional priority 
conservation goals. This targeting would be consistent with the current 
primary objectives of the program by targeting soil erosion, water 
quality, and wildlife habitat objectives in ecological regions, river 
basins, or impaired watersheds. Different strategies for allocating the 
additional acreage under the program cap would be evaluated by FSA.
    If this alternative were selected, there would be no general sign-
up CRP. Therefore, the environmental targeting for general sign-up 
under the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) would be lost and there 
would be an increased risk in not enrolling all the acreage allocated 
under the 2002 Farm Bill. This would mean less soil, water quality, air 
quality, and wildlife habitat benefits because fewer acres would be 
enrolled than under the Proposed Action.

IV. Impacts Under the Alternatives

    The environment affected by CRP consists of both the socioeconomic 
and natural environments associated with or affected by farming and 
farm conservation programs in the U.S. The natural environment includes 
the major terrestrial and aquatic eco-regions associated with eligible 
lands in the U.S. and associated sensitive resources, including:
    [sbull] Soils.
    [sbull] Soil and Wind Erosion (including Air Quality).
    [sbull] Water Resources & Aquatic Species.
    [sbull] Surface water.
    [sbull] Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
    [sbull] Groundwater.
    [sbull] Floodplains.
    [sbull] Riparian Areas.
    [sbull] Wetlands.
    [sbull] Vegetation.
    [sbull] Grasslands.
    [sbull] Forestlands.
    [sbull] Invasive Species.
    [sbull] Wildlife.
    [sbull] Wildlife Recreation.
    [sbull] Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E).
    [sbull] The social and economic aspects of the affected environment 
consist of farming from a national perspective and of rural communities 
that may be affected by CRP enrollment.
    The following section summarizes some of the effects that would be 
expected to occur to the above-mentioned resource areas under each of 
the four alternatives. Due to the large programmatic scale of CRP, the 
timing, location, and magnitude of the

[[Page 24850]]

environmental effects will differ under the various alternatives.

A. No Program Alternative (Eliminate CRP)

Soil
    Soil erosion rates would most likely be greater than 1.9 billion 
tons/year. Due to increased soil erosion rates, soil quality and 
productivity would also be adversely impacted.
Water Quality
    Surface water quality would be substantially worse due to the loss 
of multiple benefits provided by vegetative cover established under CRP 
over the last 16 years. Impact on surface water quality would be 
significant and more streams would have a TMDL listing.
    Groundwater quality and drinking water sources would be adversely 
impacted due to increased contamination by pesticides and fertilizers 
from land that would have been enrolled in CRP. Conservation practices 
targeting water quality improvement would, therefore, not be 
implemented.
    Aquatic habitat and associated water quality would be severely 
impacted due to high nutrient, pesticide, and sediment runoff from 
cropland. See Surface and Groundwater impacts for No Program.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
    Floodplain function would be decreased due to a decrease in 
permanent vegetative cover and an increase in soil erosion, sediment, 
and contaminant runoff from associated agricultural lands. There would 
also be a decrease in associated wetland restoration and riparian areas 
benefiting floodplain function; a decrease in riparian area function 
due to a decrease in permanent vegetative cover and an increase in soil 
erosion, sedimentation, and contaminant runoff from associated 
agricultural lands; and a decrease in riparian area restoration by 
400,000 acres.
    Wetlands benefits would decrease due to increased soil erosion 
rates resulting in sedimentation and contaminant runoff from farmlands. 
There would be an increase in continued use of farmed wetlands and 
associated uplands by approximately 3 million acres and a potential 
increase in wetland conversion caused by agricultural producers not 
participating in USDA programs regulated by Title XII of the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended. An estimated 600,000 acres of filter 
strips and wetland buffers would not be installed as a result of 
selecting this alternative.
Natural Vegetation
    Without CRP, 25 million enrolled acres most likely would not have 
been planted to conservation cover and it might be assumed that the 
realized positive impacts of that cover type on cropland would be 
absent or considerably less. Incurred benefits of forestlands to water 
quality, wildlife, and soil stabilization would not have occurred in 
the absence of CRP. Incentives to enroll land devoted to the Longleaf 
Pine Conservation Priority Area (CPA) would not exist.
Wildlife
    There would be significant negative impacts on local wildlife 
populations along with the availability of localized wildlife-based 
recreation such as viewing, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Continued 
agricultural practices could have a significant adverse impact on 
numerous T&E species but to what extent and to which species is 
unknown. There are some T&E species credited with utilizing CRP-created 
habitat.
Socioeconomic
    On a national level, without CRP, the change in acreage planted to 
the major crops is expected to be minimal. However, at the local or 
regional level, there could be a moderate increase in planted acreage 
creating economic benefits arising from the additional need for farm 
labor, as well as demand for the services of agricultural businesses. 
There could also be a possible loss of recreational opportunities and a 
possible increased uncertainty of producer income, particularly for 
those non-farming landowners and part-time farmers. The magnitude of 
uncertainty is likely to be greater at the county or community level 
than nationally.
    Long-term expansion of cropland supply could be beneficial for 
tenants, lowering rents. In the short term, the increased supply of 
cropland could raise rents due to temporary increase in productivity. A 
potentially significant decline in pheasant habitat and recreational 
benefits nationally and regionally would be seen in the absence of CRP, 
thus, potentially significantly declining of wildlife viewing benefits 
currently seen in the Great Plains. A potential modest decline in 
wildlife viewing benefits in the Northeastern region would also be 
seen.
    Land-use decisions made by producers disconnected from 
environmental consideration would be based on maximizing market income. 
This would result in losses in soil quality, water quality, air 
quality, and wildlife habitat gains.

B. No Action Alternative (Continue CRP as Previously Implemented)

Soils
    Soil erosion has decreased by 450 million tons since CRP's 
inception and additional soil erosion rate reductions would continue 
under this alternative. Soil quality has increased due to more topsoil 
left on the land and would continue as additional acreage is enrolled.
Water Quality
    Surface water quality would continue to improve as producers enroll 
land under CRP, thus reducing runoff containing sediments, nutrients, 
and pesticides. TMDL-listed streams would decrease as cropland is 
enrolled but this would be based on the conservation practices 
installed on contract land and whether they directly target the 
impairments causing the listing.
    Drinking water sources and groundwater in general would see a 
continued positive impact on both water quality and quantity, as 
cropland is taken out of production and enrolled in CRP. This would 
result in reduced levels of pesticides and fertilizers being used. 
Decreased sediment transport rates would produce a positive impact on 
aquatic species as further cropland is enrolled in CRP. Maintenance of 
high dissolved oxygen levels and cool water temperatures for aquatic 
organisms would continue as agricultural land is enrolled as wetland 
buffers.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
    Floodplain function would increase due to an increase in permanent 
vegetative cover and a decrease in soil erosion, sediment, and 
contaminant runoff from agricultural lands. There would be an increase 
in associated wetland restoration and riparian areas benefiting 
floodplain function. Also, there would be an improvement and 
restoration of natural riparian area functions through increased 
vegetative cover, and reduced sediment and contaminant runoff from 
associated agricultural lands. There would also be an increase in 
riparian areas by 400,000 acres.
    Water quality would improve from the reduction in sediment and 
contaminant runoff from agricultural lands. Wetland function would be 
restored to 542,278 acres of farmed wetlands and protection of 2.8 
million acres of natural and farmed wetlands

[[Page 24851]]

from agricultural runoff. An additional 1.6 million acres of wetland 
restoration and an additional 600,000 acres of filter strips and 
wetland buffers protecting wetland water quality would be seen.
Natural Vegetation
    Native and introduced grass species would continue to be planted on 
eligible cropland producing residual benefits to water quality and 
soils. Cropland enrolled and planted to tree practice acreage would 
continue to cleanse runoff water, silt, and pollutants, protecting and 
improving streams while simultaneously providing food and shelter for 
wildlife. The Longleaf Pine CPA would continue to see enrollment of 
additional tree planting acres and thus provide additional positive 
benefits to water, soils, and wildlife in that region.
Wildlife
    Areas devoted to permanent vegetation, wildlife habitat, and 
wetlands would continue to provide critical elements for species as 
more CRP acreage is enrolled. Enrollment targeted toward wildlife 
habitat enhancement would continue to provide critical resources and 
establish corridors between fragmented habitats. Continued benefits 
from the availability of wildlife-based recreation would be a positive 
impact under this alternative. Wetland restoration would continue to 
benefit waterfowl and upland game bird species and provide valuable 
habitat. Wetland buffers would continue to provide additional habitat 
and protection from human disturbance. Continued enhancement of 
wildlife habitat could produce positive impacts on T&E species.
Socioeconomic
    No adverse impact on farm employment at the regional or state level 
would occur. However, there could be possible adverse impacts at the 
county or community level. There is insufficient research to support a 
definitive conclusion as to the magnitude of either of those impacts. A 
minimal impact of CRP on cropland supply would be seen. On a national 
and regional level, the effect of CRP land rent appears to be 
insignificant. At the State, county, or township level, the impact may 
be adverse and nominal to moderate in magnitude. There would be no 
change in recreational benefits.
    Landowners would benefit from environmental improvements and stable 
income stream. Local communities would benefit from enhanced recreation 
and lower costs to residents and industry from air and water 
improvements. There could be potentially adverse impacts to tenant 
farmers and new farm startups.

C. Environmental Targeting Alternative

Soils
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional soil erosion 
reduction in areas targeted if approved practices consist of permanent 
vegetative cover and approved soil conservation practices. Under most 
targeting scenarios, erosion could increase as other objectives are 
emphasized. Minor benefits on soil erosion could be accomplished if 
multiple regions, States, and watersheds are targeted to specifically 
address soil erosion by utilizing collaborative decision making of all 
interested parties and an ecosystem driven conservation initiative. 
Because of location, gross sheet and rill erosion may be less. 
Associated soil benefits of wetlands would increase as the FWP is 
opened to all States. Overall enrollment in general signup acreage 
would decrease under this alternative. As this enrollment declines, 
national benefits of soil erosion reduction would be significantly 
less.
Water Quality
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional water quality 
benefits in areas targeted if approved practices consist of water 
quality enhancement conservation practices. Moderate positive impacts 
on water quality could be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and 
watersheds are targeted to address water quality impairments by using 
collaborative decision making of all interested parties and an 
ecosystem driven conservation initiative. This idea could be most 
beneficial when addressing effects in the Gulf of Mexico and the 
Chesapeake Bay Region. TMDL-listed streams would likely decrease based 
on the specific environmental targeting of those watersheds in the 
National Environmental Target Area (NETA) that have been identified as 
contributors to the large-scale water quality impairment problem. 
Overall enrollment in general CRP signup acreage would decrease under 
this alternative. As this enrollment declines, so would the positive 
impacts these acres play at maintaining good water quality.
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional groundwater 
quality benefits if areas targeted are known groundwater source areas 
and if approved practices consist of water quality enhancement 
conservation practices. No real national impacts to groundwater quality 
can be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and watersheds are 
targeted to address groundwater quality impairments. This would be due 
to the fact that groundwater issues tend to be more localized and could 
therefore be better addressed through the CREP Agreements. TMDL-listed 
streams could decrease based on the specific environmental targeting of 
those watersheds in the NETAs that have been identified as having 
common groundwater quality problems. Overall enrollment in general CRP 
signup acreage would decrease under this alternative along with the 
subsequent positive impacts on groundwater quality and quantity.
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional water quality 
benefits in areas targeted which would provide aquatic species with the 
optimal conditions for species success but only if approved practices 
consist of water quality enhancement conservation practices that have 
been proven to directly benefit aquatic species and their associated 
habitat. Minor national benefits to aquatic species could be 
accomplished by targeting water quality issues in multiple regions, 
States, and watersheds that are impaired severely. Overall, enrollment 
in General CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to aquatic 
species would decrease under this alternative.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
    Beneficial impacts to floodplains as described under the No Action 
Alternative would possibly be seen in States with CREP Agreements. 
Positive benefits to floodplains could be accomplished by targeting 
floodplain and related resource issues in multiple regions, States, and 
watersheds. Overall enrollment in general CRP signup acreage and 
associated benefits to floodplains and riparian areas would be 
decreased under this alternative. However, the beneficial impacts to 
riparian areas as described under the No Action Alternative would be 
seen in States with CREP Agreements. Positive benefits to riparian 
areas can be accomplished by targeting riparian areas and related 
resource issues in multiple regions, States, and watersheds.
Natural Vegetation
    Beneficial impacts to wetlands as described under No Action 
Alternative in States with CREP Agreements. Benefits to wetlands could 
be accomplished by targeting wetlands and related resource issues in 
multiple regions, States, and watersheds. Overall,

[[Page 24852]]

enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and its associated benefits to 
wetland areas would be decreased under this alternative.
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional benefits 
associated with grasslands in areas targeted by approved CREP 
agreements, if approved practices consist of native grass species 
establishment conservation practices. Overall, enrollment in General 
CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to grasslands would be 
decreased under this alternative.
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional benefits 
associated with forestlands targeted by approved CREP agreements, if 
approved practices consist of tree planting conservation practices. The 
direct positive impact of forestland restoration would benefit local 
CREP regions in a State by improving and protecting soil quality, water 
quality, and wildlife habitat, and by creating more opportunities to 
enjoy nature. Benefits on forestlands if multiple regions, States, and 
watersheds are targeted to address forestland restoration and 
protection would be most beneficial in the current Longleaf Pine CPA 
and other National Forestland areas in ecological impairment. Overall, 
enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and associated benefits to 
forestlands would be decreased under this alternative.
Wildlife
    States with CREP Agreements would see additional wildlife benefits 
in areas targeted if approved practices consist of wildlife enhancement 
or wetland restoration conservation practices. Positive benefits to 
wildlife could be accomplished if multiple regions, States, and 
watersheds are targeted at specifically addressing wildlife habitat 
enhancement by utilizing collaborative decision making of all 
interested parties and an ecosystem-driven conservation initiative. 
Overall enrollment in General CRP signup acreage and associated 
benefits would be decreased under this alternative.
    Benefits to T&E species and their habitat are not as likely at this 
level unless the species or habitat targeted encompasses large 
geographic areas, multiple States, or numerous watersheds. States with 
CREP Agreements would see additional T&E species and habitat benefits 
in areas targeted if approved practices consist of conservation 
practices targeting the species or species habitat in question.
Socioeconomic
    Insignificant effect would be demonstrated on agricultural 
employment at the regional and State level with a potential increased 
uncertainty of producer income particularly for those non-farming 
landowners and part-time farmers. The magnitude of uncertainty is 
likely to be greater at the county or community level than at the 
regional or national level. There would likely be a change in the 
regional distribution of enrolled land with the decreased probability 
of the enrollment of entire fields providing a benefit in the increased 
supply of rental land. A potential increase in the supply of cropland 
and a possible reduction in enrollment due to it being a voluntary 
program would not ensure that all allocated acres are enrolled. The 
cost would be prohibitive. Some currently participating communities may 
experience reduced benefits. These impacts would be more concentrated 
in communities located in or near areas of program.

D. Proposed Action Alternative (FSA's Preferred Alternative)

Soils
    Cumulative positive impacts on soils would continue as CRP is 
reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 years with 
additional acreage allocated toward the program. The increased acreage 
could potentially reduce soil erosion by another 40 million tons. 
Marginal pastureland being devoted to vegetative cover would allow 
these areas to implement practices to help reduce soil erosion and 
reduce sediment runoff on these land types. An increase in the cropping 
history requirement has the potential to moderately impact soils by 
targeting cropland that has been under more intensive production and 
thus possibly more vulnerable to wind and water erosion than currently 
required to enroll in CRP. However, positive impacts would continue on 
those already vegetative areas because the new cropping history 
provision makes the breaking of new ground to create a cropping history 
impossible. Infeasible-to-farm areas smaller than 50 percent of the 
field size enrolled along with a buffer would contribute to some 
enhancement of soil quality, but only if enrolling it would contribute 
to reduced soil erosion rates. The ability to continue with existing 
cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP 
would benefit soils by not removing the established vegetative cover. 
The potential for wind and water erosion on plowed fields would 
decrease. Managed haying, grazing, and harvesting will increase plant 
diversity and vigor. These practices should not produce any adverse 
impacts on soils because they must be included in the conservation plan 
or in the land management plan prior to contract approval. CREP 
Agreements would target areas within States to provide positive 
benefits to soil quality. Continued positive impacts on long-term soil 
quality would occur if States place CREP land under easement. 
Associated soil benefits of wetlands would increase as the FWP is 
opened to all States.
Water Quality
    Major positive impacts on surface water quality would continue as 
CRP is reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 more years 
with additional acreage allocated toward the program and additional 
acres being enrolled to replace expiring acres. A 40-million ton 
decrease in sediment would correlate to an increase in water quality 
and a decrease in nutrient and pesticide loads. Positive impacts in 
terms of reduced nonpoint source (NPS) pollutant loading to achieve 
TMDL's would occur when producers enroll land that has been cropped (4 
out of 6 years prior to 2002 Farm Bill enactment), but the impact would 
be important only if contract land is located within a watershed having 
NPS issues. Marginal pastureland being devoted to vegetative cover 
would allow these areas to implement practices to help improve water 
quality and reduce sediment runoff on these land types. Infeasible to 
farm areas smaller than 50 percent of the field size enrolled along 
with a buffer would contribute to the enhancement of water quality, but 
only if conservation practices targeted at improving water quality are 
adopted. The ability to continue with existing cover where practicable 
and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP would benefit water 
quality by not removing established vegetative cover and decreasing the 
potential for wind and water erosion on plowed fields. Managed haying, 
grazing, and harvesting practices should not produce adverse impacts on 
surface water based on the premise that the practices must be included 
in the conservation plan or in the land management plan prior to 
contract approval. Associated water quality benefits of wetlands would 
increase as FWP goes nationwide. CREP Agreements would target areas 
within States to provide positive benefits to water quality. CCRP would 
provide buffers along streams to reduce sediment runoff and subsequent 
water quality improvements would give direct positive benefits to 
aquatic species.
    There would be continued cumulative positive impacts on groundwater 
quality

[[Page 24853]]

as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are approved for 10 to 15 years 
with additional acreage allocated toward the program and additional 
acres being enrolled to replace expiring ones. Drinking water sources 
and groundwater in general would see a continued positive impact on 
both water quality and quantity, as cropland is taken out of production 
and enrolled in CRP. This would result in reduced levels of pesticides 
and fertilizers being used. Marginal pastureland being devoted to 
vegetative cover would allow these areas to implement practices to help 
improve groundwater quality and reduce chemical leaching on these land 
use types. An increase in the cropping history requirement has the 
potential to produce a positive impact on groundwater by targeting 
cropland that has been under more intensive production and thus 
possibly more vulnerable to leaching than currently required to enroll 
in CRP. Certain infeasible to farm areas less than 50 percent of the 
field size enrolled along with a buffer would contribute to some 
enhancement of groundwater quality, but only if conservation practices 
targeted at improving water quality are installed. The ability to 
continue with existing cover where practicable and consistent with 
wildlife benefits of CRP would benefit water quality by not removing 
established vegetative cover and decreasing the potential for wind and 
water erosion on plowed fields. Managed haying, grazing, and harvesting 
should not produce adverse impacts on surface water based on the 
premise that it must be included in the conservation plan or in the 
land management plan prior to contract approval. Associated groundwater 
quality benefits of wetlands would increase as FWP goes expands to all 
States. CREP Agreements would target areas within States to provide 
positive benefits to groundwater quality.
Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
    The expansion of FWP would allow for an increased distribution and 
acreage of wetland restoration and buffers nationwide, decreasing the 
rate of sediment transport to adjacent water bodies and increasing the 
associated aquatic species benefits described under the No Action 
Alternative. The size of eligible wetlands would be increased from 5 
acres to 10 acres, providing an increase in potential acreage that 
could benefit aquatic species by 2.8 million acres. Managed haying, 
grazing, and harvesting should not produce adverse impacts to aquatic 
species based on the premise that requirements for these practices must 
be included in the conservation plan or in the land management plan 
prior to contract approval, so aquatic species associated with the 
environmentally targeted enrolled land are not adversely affected. CREP 
Agreements would target areas within States to provide positive 
benefits to aquatic species. CCRP would provide buffers along streams 
to reduce sediment runoff, and subsequently improve water quality, 
which would have direct positive benefits on aquatic species.
    Beneficial impacts to floodplains, as described under the No Action 
Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are 
approved for 10 to 15 more years with additional acreage allocated 
toward the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace 
expiring acres. There would be an increase in potential acreage of 
beneficial impacts to floodplains by 2.8 million acres. There would be 
continued benefits from hardwood tree contracts associated with 
floodplains for an additional year. Beneficial impacts to floodplains 
in States with CREP Agreements in place would be the same as those 
described under the No Action Alternative. Also, permanent easements 
under CREP would provide continued maintenance of floodplains functions 
and values.
    Beneficial impacts to riparian areas, as described under the No 
Action Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts 
are approved for 10 to 15 years with additional acreage allocated 
toward the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace 
expiring ones. There would be an increase in potential acreage of 
beneficial impacts to riparian areas by 2.8 million acres and continued 
benefits from hardwood tree contracts associated with riparian areas 
for an additional year. There would also be benefits from devotion of 
marginal pastureland to vegetation, particularly trees in riparian 
areas. The use of CCRP would target riparian areas by protecting them 
as buffers with permanent vegetative cover, which would reduce runoff. 
The ability to continue with existing cover where practicable and 
consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP will benefit associated 
riparian areas. Beneficial impacts to riparian areas in States with 
CREP Agreements in place would be the same as those described under the 
No Action Alternative. Also, permanent easements under CREP would 
provide continued maintenance of these riparian areas functions and 
values. Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other 
emergencies should have minor impacts on riparian areas. Potential 
increase in eligible acreage for buffer establishment when more than 50 
percent of the field is eligible for enrollment and the other half is 
infeasible to farm. The increased distribution and acreage of wetland 
restoration and buffers nationwide through FWP expansion will benefit 
eligible associated riparian areas.
    Beneficial impacts to wetlands, as described under the No Action 
Alternative, would continue as CRP is reauthorized and contracts are 
approved for 10 to 15 years with additional acreage allocated toward 
the program and additional acres being enrolled to replace expiring 
ones. There would be an increase in potential acreage of beneficial 
impacts to wetlands by 2.8 million acres. Land eligibility for CRP re-
enrollment will extend associated beneficial impacts to wetlands for 
another 10 to 15 years. There would be continued benefits from hardwood 
tree contracts associated with wetlands for an additional year and an 
increase in potential wetland acres from conversion of marginal 
pastureland to wetlands. The ability to continue with existing cover 
where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP will 
benefit wetland water quality by not removing established vegetative 
cover and increasing the potential for wind and water erosion on 
plowed-up fields. There would be beneficial impacts to wetland water 
quality from increased conservation of surface and groundwater in 
agricultural operations. An increased distribution of wetland 
restoration and buffer acreage would potentially be seen nationwide 
through the expansion of FWP. Wetland functions would potentially 
increase through FWP expansion of allowable wetland restoration acreage 
from 5 to 10 acres. State CREP Agreements could target sensitive areas 
with large numbers of wetlands and permanent easements could provide 
protection of wetlands and associated buffers.
Natural Vegetation
    Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage is 
enrolled implementing the establishment of grass cover. However, new 
EBI scoring is currently being developed in connection with new 
regulations to implement CRP in accordance with the provisions of the 
2002 Farm Bill. Ecological benefits associated with tree planting 
conservation practices would continue for an additional 10 to 15 years. 
Additional croplands enrolled and planted with tree practices would 
continue to cleanse silt and pollutants from runoff water, especially 
if installed

[[Page 24854]]

in riparian areas, thereby protecting and improving streams while 
simultaneously providing food and shelter for wildlife for an 
additional 10 to 15 years of CRP contracts. Marginal pastureland in 
additional tree practice acreage would continue to be enrolled along 
with other continuous practices that involve tree plantings, such as: 
Shelter belts, field windbreaks, and living snow fences implemented on 
sensitive cropland enrolled. However, the new provision would allow 
grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be planted on marginal pastureland along 
with trees, resulting in a positive impact through the creation of 
habitat from which multiple species may benefit. State CREP Agreements 
would target areas where plantings of certain species, such as 
hardwoods, would improve local ecosystems and provide associated 
benefits to water quality and wildlife.
Wildlife
    Land with wildlife habitat benefits could be increased by almost 3 
million acres. However, the amount of quality habitat would be 
dependent on the types of vegetation planted. Managed haying, grazing 
and harvesting, along with wind turbine placement, if done correctly 
and in accordance with conservation plans, would have little or no 
impact on resident wildlife. Permitting existing cover to continue, 
where practicable and consistent with wildlife benefits of CRP, would 
continue to have lasting positive impacts on wildlife habitat already 
established with vegetative cover. This would be true as long as the 
maintenance schedule documented in the conservation plan is followed. 
An increase in acreage allocated to CRP could increase the amount of 
upland game habitat, habitat used by birds and neo-tropical migrants 
and the amount of protected wetlands, simultaneously and proportionally 
increasing the recreation chances for those people who like to bird 
watch, hunt, fish, and to enjoy nature. State CREP Agreements would 
target specific areas with needs associated with wildlife habitat 
protection and restoration and achieve additional benefits. Permanent 
protection of wildlife through the use of easements could also be 
achieved with the use of State CREP Agreements. CCRP could provide 
positive benefits to certain wildlife species by establishing grassed 
and forested buffers.
    Additional acreage allocated to CRP could potentially have a 
positive impact on almost 3 million additional acres of protected land 
that could be used, in part, as habitat by many T&E species. States 
with CREP Agreements would see additional T&E species and habitat 
benefits in areas targeted by the approved CREP agreement, if approved 
practices consist of conservation practices targeting the species or 
species habitat in question.
Socioeconomic
    There would be insignificant adverse impacts on agricultural 
employment in areas gaining in CRP enrollment and potential 
insignificant adverse impacts on agricultural employment in areas 
losing CRP enrollment. No impact would be predicted on agricultural 
land rents at the regional and national level. Reallocation of income 
within the local economy with possible increased agricultural output, 
income in non-agricultural sectors of the economy and additional 
spending on agricultural inputs. Reallocation could affect leakage of 
value added from the local economy. There would be potential 
beneficial, long-term and nominal to moderate increase in agricultural 
land values from a reduction in the cropland supply and the 
capitalization of CRP income into land value. A potential increase in 
recreational opportunities and shifts in recreational opportunities 
between regions would provide certainty to the participants of CRP-
related income over the long term.
    The impacts would be similar to those identified under No Action 
Alternative. The changes would improve program performance and increase 
flexibility but would not substantially alter program effects on social 
community.

V. Rationale for Decision

    The Proposed Action Alternative complies with the 2002 Farm Bill, 
provides FSA the most flexibility in terms of program implementation 
and environmental targeting, increases the significant positive 
benefits of CRP, and is the most balanced approach to achieving long-
term program goals. The No Program Alternative was used as an 
analytical baseline. The Current Program Alternative would continue to 
produce positive benefits but without the enhancements of the 2002 Farm 
Bill. The Environmental Targeting Alternative runs a risk of under-
enrollment and, therefore, lost environmental benefits. Many of the 
beneficial aspects of the environmental targeting alternative are 
already included in the proposed action through CREP and CCRP.

VI. Implementation and Monitoring

    FSA will implement CRP, CREP, CCRP and FWP in a manner that 
provides the greatest amount of benefits to the environment while 
causing the least amount of adverse impacts. FSA will ensure that 
impacts are minimized through a process of completing site specific 
environmental evaluations for each approved contract as well as 
programmatic environmental assessments for CREP agreements.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2003.
James R. Little,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency and Executive Vice President, 
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 03-11406 Filed 5-5-03; 3:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P