[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 43 (Thursday, March 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10308-10311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4862]



[[Page 10307]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 43 / Thursday, March 4, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 10308]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding 
the changes made by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to improve and expand 
the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) to make the program easier to 
administer, reduce the potential for abuse, and make the program's 
cost-share rates consistent with other USDA programs. FSA prepared a 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for ECP and 
published it in the Federal Register on March 7, 2003, along with a 
Notice of Availability (NOA). This notice summarizes the long-term 
environmental, social, and economic impacts of ECP identified in the 
PEIS that were considered in this decision, and why FSA selected the 
Proposed Action Alternative that it did in revising ECP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Steck, USDA/FSA/CEPD/Stop 0513, 
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0153, (202) 690-0224, 
or email at: [email protected]. The Final ECP PEIS including 
appendices and this ROD are available on the FSA Environmental 
Compliance Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/epb/impact.htm.
    More detailed information on this program may also be obtained from 
the FSA Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/ecp00.htm.
Record of Decision

I. The Decision

A. PEIS Proposed Action Alternative as the Basis for Implementing and 
Expanding ECP

    Based on a thorough evaluation of the resource areas affected by 
ECP, a detailed analysis of three program alternatives, and a review of 
public comments on the Draft PEIS, the Proposed Action Alternative was 
selected as a means to improve and expand ECP in accordance with the 
provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et 
seq.), with regulations set forth at 7 CFR part 701.

B. Overview

    ECP provides emergency cost-share assistance to farmers and 
ranchers to restore agricultural lands damaged by severe wind erosion, 
floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters and for carrying out 
emergency water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. 
It is administered by FSA state committees (STC) and FSA county 
committees (COC) and is currently authorized by the Agricultural Credit 
Act of 1978. This program does not require a major disaster 
determination by the President or Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
local assistance. Except for drought, the COC may implement the program 
with the concurrence of the STC. During periods of severe drought, the 
determination to implement the program is made by the FSA's Deputy 
Administrator for Farm Programs or his or her designee.
    Funding for ECP is appropriated by Congress, usually through 
supplemental appropriations in response to disasters, and is held in 
reserve at the national level. Funds are allocated after a 
determination has been made authorizing ECP designation. Funds are 
allocated to States based on the estimate of funds needed to begin 
implementing ECP.
    Participants are not allowed to receive funding under the ECP for 
land on which the landowner or producer has or will receive funding 
from: the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Emergency Wetland Reserve 
Program (EWRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Emergency 
Watershed Protection Program (EWP), or any other FSA, Commodity Credit 
Corporation, or other government program that covers similar expenses 
that duplicate ECP payments.

C. Programmatic Changes to ECP

    ECP is authorized by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
2201 et seq.), with regulations set forth at 7 CFR part 701. On August 
1, 2002, FSA published a proposed rule to amend part 701 (67 FR 49879). 
The proposed rule removed references to the Agricultural Conservation 
Program (ACP) and the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP). ACP was 
repealed by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
and FIP was reassigned from FSA to the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994 (Pub. L. 103-94). The rule proposed to clarify and expand 
provisions of the ECP to reflect current policy and to make the program 
more efficient and easier to administer. The proposed rule 60-day 
comment period ended on September 30, 2002.
    A final rule, with no substantive policy changes from the proposed 
rule, is published concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register. 
The changes to ECP regulations will result in no significant additional 
costs while making the ECP cost-share rates consistent with other USDA 
programs. The provisions added to reduce the potential for abuse and 
improve program delivery will ensure that ECP is carried out in an 
economically, environmentally, socially, and technically sound manner. 
FSA will also increase ECP funding for limited resource producers to 
deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed previously.
    The Proposed Action is comprised of four main elements:
     Eliminate tiered level cost sharing and allow 
for a more consistent cost-share rate;
     Tentatively provide measures dealing with 
confined livestock;
     Provide more cost-share assistance for limited 
resource producers; and
     Require completion of an environmental 
evaluation checklist prior to approving cost-share assistance.
    The final rule changes little with regard to land eligibility or 
existing ECP conservation practices in the current program. One change 
that is made is that, in certain instances, such as to supply water 
during a severe drought, measures dealing with confined livestock are 
eligible for ECP, although it may not be used to replace or repair 
buildings. Provisions were added to strengthen the fiscal integrity of 
the program, including the prohibition of schemes and devices, and debt 
avoidance. Further, the new ECP provides special consideration for 
limited resource producers so that ECP funds may be targeted to those 
with the most need.
    Also, the final rule changes how the maximum ECP cost-share level 
is computed. Under the current regulations, the maximum rate of cost-
share is calculated according to a sliding scale, with a higher cost-
share percentage being allowed for the first part of the costs of the 
practice up to a certain limit, and a lower percentage being allowed 
for additional costs. To eliminate confusion, the new rule provides, 
instead, for a standard maximum percentage to be used for all costs 
associated with the practice for which the cost-share is to be 
received. Program costs will not rise because payments will still be 
limited by other criteria and by limiting reimbursement to $200,000 per 
``person'' per disaster. The FSA county committee may permit 
reimbursements of up to 75 percent for all reimbursable costs, subject 
to current per ``person'' limitations, and a 90

[[Page 10309]]

percent rate for limited resource producers. The 75 percent rate, like 
the current sliding rate, is used to determine the maximum amount to be 
paid to all participants involved with all practices applied for the 
applicable disaster. However, the $200,000 limit per ``person'' will 
remain.
    In addition, an environmental evaluation checklist will be 
completed by appropriately trained FSA personnel prior to approval of 
any ECP cost share assistance. The completion of this checklist will 
provide a mechanism for reviewing each action's impacts, documenting a 
finding of no significant impact, and compliance with applicable 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This checklist will 
discuss the need for any environmental assessment and provide a format 
for assessing potential impacts and reviewing alternatives and 
mitigation measures when potential impacts to any of the protected 
resources listed on the checklist are identified. These protected 
resources include: wetlands, floodplains, sole source aquifer recharge 
areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, 
wilderness, coastal barrier in coastal barrier resources system or 
approved coastal zone management areas, natural landmarks, and 
historical and archaeological sites.

II. Description of the Current Emergency Conservation Program

    To be eligible for ECP assistance, the applicant must be an 
agricultural producer and the land receiving the assistance must be 
physically located in the county in which the ECP has been implemented.
    Immediately following a natural disaster event, the county 
committee will make an overall assessment of the damage to ensure that 
the damage meets the minimum ECP requirements. The county committee 
then consults with the state committee to obtain concurrence for all 
ECP disasters, except drought, before approving the disaster damage for 
cost-share assistance. The state committee administers ECP within the 
state according to national policy. Additional eligibility for the 
program is established after the county committee determines whether:
     The natural disaster has created new 
conservation problems which, if not treated, would impair or endanger 
the land;
     Materially affect the productivity of the land;
     The damage represents unusual damage in that it 
does not occur frequently; or
     The damage would be so costly to repair that 
Federal assistance is required to return the land to productive 
agricultural use.
    The County committee establishes cost-share levels up to 64 
percent, according to a sliding scale: 64 percent for the first $62,500 
in reimbursable costs, 40 percent for the next $62,500 in reimbursable 
costs, and 20 percent for the remaining eligible costs. Cost-sharing 
involves payments made to producers to cover a specified portion of the 
cost of installing, implementing, or maintaining conservation 
practices. Individual or cumulative requests for cost sharing of 
$20,000 or less per person per disaster may be approved by the county 
committee, and requests of $20,001 to $62,500 by the state committees. 
The Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs must approve requests for 
over $62,500. The payment limit for the program is $200,000 per person 
per disaster. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) may 
provide technical assistance to resource managers and landowners 
participating in the ECP.
    Before requesting ECP funds, the county committee shall, to the 
extent possible, use other available program funds instead of ECP. 
Except in the case of severe drought, the county committee may 
implement ECP after receiving the state committee's concurrence. County 
offices maintain a permanent file on natural disasters that have 
severely damaged agricultural lands in the county, regardless of 
whether disasters were approved for ECP. This information is used as a 
basis for future program requests and designations.
    Pre-existing conservation problems are not eligible for cost-
sharing assistance through ECP. Other lands considered ineligible for 
cost-share assistance include those lands:
     Owned or controlled by the United States.
     Owned or controlled by a State or State agency.
     Protected by a levee or dike that was not 
effectively and properly functioning prior to the disaster or is 
protected or is intended to be protected by a levee or dike not built 
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, or comparable standards.
     Located in areas frequently inundated by floods, 
or having significant possibility of being flooded.
     Damaged as a result of continuous use of poor 
farming practices.
     Utilized as greenhouses or other confined 
structures, such as land in corrals, milking parlors, barn lots, or 
feeding areas; and
     Devoted to trees for timber production and 
Christmas tree farms.

III. Alternatives Considered

    FSA developed the ECP Proposed Action through internal scoping. FSA 
then conducted formal scoping for the ECP PEIS, meeting with and 
soliciting input from representatives of other Federal, State, and 
local agencies, and the general public. Public scoping meetings were 
held in six cities located around the country. The Federal Register and 
national newspapers published notices stating that FSA was preparing a 
PEIS and input was being sought through public scoping meetings, a 
toll-free phone line, regular mail, and email. The Proposed Action 
Alternative best reflects the ideas voiced and recommendations made 
during that scoping process. The following alternatives are presented 
in detail in the Final PEIS.

A. Alternative 1--No Program (Baseline)

    The No Program alternative is used as an analytical device to 
establish a baseline upon which to evaluate the other alternatives. 
This alternative represents a true baseline rather than a ``permanent 
legislation'' alternative, since not enough information exists to 
define the latter. The analysis will establish a baseline by describing 
what would happen if ECP had never existed.

B. Alternative 2--No Action (Current Program)

    Under the No-Action Alternative, FSA state and county committees 
would continue to administer the ECP under its current regulations. FSA 
would not make substantive changes in its administration, the 
mechanisms for review of projects before funding, or follow-up on the 
program's procedures after completion. FSA would continue to set cost-
share levels up to 64 percent based on a sliding rate. FSA would not 
have a special cost-share level for limited-resource producers. This 
alternative simply continues the current program.

C. Alternative 3--Proposed Action (FSA's Preferred Alternative)

    Under the Proposed Action, FSA would institute changes to 
facilitate the administration of the program without incurring 
significant additional costs while making the ECP cost-share rates 
consistent with other USDA programs. Also, it is meant to prevent 
abuse, such as when a large practice is subdivided into several smaller 
practices to avoid lower reimbursement rates applicable at the higher 
loss levels. It is also meant to improve program delivery and ensure 
the economic, environmental, and social defensibility and technical 
soundness of its decisions and practices. FSA would

[[Page 10310]]

also expand the ECP to provide funding to limited resource producers to 
deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed previously.

IV. Impacts Under the Alternatives

    This following section summarizes some of the effects that would be 
expected to occur to such resource areas as water resources, wetlands, 
soil and air quality, vegetation, wildlife and their habitat, and 
socio/economic resources under each of the three alternatives.

A. No Program Alternative

    Disaster recovery efforts would likely be reduced or not undertaken 
in some floodplain locations with damaged marginal agricultural 
production areas being abandoned and could potentially revert to 
natural vegetative cover in the long term. This might reduce some of 
the impacts of farming on affected watersheds and wetlands. In areas 
where wildfires or drought have eliminated protective cover over upland 
areas the lack of restoration measures would leave these sites 
vulnerable to water and wind erosion that could adversely impact water 
resources, wetlands, air quality, and damage valuable topsoil.
    Plant associations such as bottomland hardwood forests might expand 
in the long term under this alternative with rare plant species 
potentially benefiting from these changes. However, when a natural 
disaster destroys the protective cover over upland areas including 
hillsides, lack of restoration measures would leave these sites 
vulnerable to wind and water erosion that could adversely affect any 
natural re-vegetation that might occur in the short term. This would 
also adversely affect any wildlife cover or food provided by the 
vegetation in the long term for those wildlife species dependent in 
part on farming to maintain earlier successional and transitional 
habitats. Wildlife requiring later successional and relatively 
undisturbed habitats may benefit where farming is reduced.
    Farm owners and operators would experience a greater exposure to 
the risk and uncertainty associated with a natural disaster.

B. No Action Alternative

    Minor short-term effects on water resources such as sedimentation 
from restoration practices would temporarily add to any adverse impacts 
that may be resulting from farming activities such as soil erosion or 
pesticide or fertilizer use. These effects may be important in 
watersheds already stressed by farming and other factors such as 
development pressure or areas that are already sensitive to natural 
disasters.
    Wetlands on agricultural lands would not be affected by continuing 
the current ECP program. FSA would ensure that any disaster recovery 
measures to be taken would not adversely affect wetlands although some 
minor impacts to wetlands downstream in the watershed may continue to 
occur to the extent that any deleterious farming practices resume after 
disaster recovery.
    Short-term minor effects from restoration practices would continue 
to occur, and could add to any erosion and soil quality impacts that 
are currently a part of general agricultural production. FSA would 
ensure that highly erodible land soils are protected from wind or water 
erosion by making certain the producer is in compliance with highly 
erodible land requirements. The restoration of crop production, 
pasture, and shelterbelt sites would also maintain sites currently in 
managed use that would likely otherwise revert to natural vegetation.
    Some wildlife species dependent in part on farming to maintain 
earlier successional and transitional habitats and to provide a portion 
of their food may benefit from restoration measures. Wildlife requiring 
later successional and relatively undisturbed habitats would not 
benefit where farming is restored.
    The primary beneficial impact of the program is to provide repair 
funds and inject necessary capital into the local economy at a time 
when individual producers/operators and their surrounding communities 
are under stress as the result of the natural disaster event.

C. Proposed Action Alternative

    The same short-term effects on water quality as under the No Action 
Alternative would occur and temporarily add to any agricultural 
degradation of water quality. Until specific practices are determined 
for confined livestock operations, no additional impacts are expected 
from any programmatic changes. Completion of the environmental 
evaluation checklist will ensure that any of these temporary adverse 
effects are considered and mitigated if necessary.
    Wetlands would not be affected by instituting the proposed ECP 
program. FSA would not allow any disaster recovery measures to be taken 
that would adversely affect wetlands although some impacts to 
downstream wetlands may continue to occur to the extent that any 
deleterious farming practices resume after disaster recovery.
    Short-term minor effects from restoration practices would continue 
to occur, and could add to any erosion and soil quality impacts that 
are currently a part of general agricultural production. FSA would 
ensure that highly erodible land soils are protected from wind or water 
erosion by making certain the producer is in compliance with highly 
erodible land requirements. The restoration of crop production, 
pasture, and shelterbelt sites would also maintain sites currently in 
managed use that would likely otherwise revert to natural vegetation.
    Some wildlife species dependent in part on farming to maintain 
earlier successional and transitional habitats and to provide a portion 
of their food may benefit from restoration measures. Wildlife requiring 
later successional and relatively undisturbed habitats would not 
benefit where farming is restored.
    The primary effect of ECP under this alternative would be similar 
to those outlined for the no action alternative with the beneficial 
aspect of repairing and restoring the affected area to its pre-disaster 
condition and use.

V. Rationale for Decision

    The Proposed Action Alternative clarifies, expands, and changes 
provisions of the ECP to reflect current policy and to make the program 
more efficient and easier to administer. ECP would be administered 
without incurring significant additional costs while making the ECP 
cost-share rates consistent with other USDA programs. The prevention of 
potential programmatic abuse and improved program delivery would ensure 
the economic, environmental, and social defensibility and technical 
soundness of FSA decisions and practices with regard to ECP. FSA would 
also expand the ECP to provide extra funding to limited resource 
producers to deal with disaster recovery work it has not addressed 
previously.

VI. Implementation and Monitoring

    FSA will implement ECP in a manner that provides the greatest 
amount of benefits to the environment while causing the least amount of 
adverse impacts. FSA will ensure that impacts are minimized through a 
process of completing site-specific environmental evaluations for each 
approved cost-share assistance to ensure compliance with all applicable 
Federal, State, and local laws.


[[Page 10311]]


    Signed in Washington, DC on February 11, 2004.
James R. Little,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 04-4862 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P