[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24560-24567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

RIN 0578-AA36


Conservation Security Program

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Commodity Credit 
Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the process to be used in determining 
priority watershed and the details of the enrollment categories that 
will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up for the Conservation Security 
Program.

DATES: The administrative actions announced in the notice are effective 
on May 4, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Derickson, Conservation Security 
Program Manager, Conservation Operations Division, NRCS, P.O. Box 2890, 
Washington, DC 20013-2890, telephone: (202) 720-3524; fax: (202) 720-
4265. Submit e-mail to: [email protected], Attention: 
Conservation Security Program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 194), USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) proposed to establish the Conservation 
Security Program (CSP). The CSP is a voluntary program administered by 
NRCS using the authorities and funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation that provides financial and technical assistance to 
producers who advance the conservation and improvement of soil, water, 
air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on 
Tribal and private working lands. Such lands include cropland, 
grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and rangeland, as well as 
forested land and other non-cropped areas that are an incidental part 
of the agriculture operation.
    NRCS proposed to establish eligibility requirements that included 
determinations based, among other things, on priority watersheds and 
enrollment categories that will be used for identifying, classifying, 
and prioritizing contracts to be funded. While NRCS received and 
reviewed thousands of thoughtful comments no alternative to the 
watershed approach was found that was a fairer way to operate the 
program under the constraints in place, since no final rule has yet 
been adopted. This document announces the process to be used in 
determining priority watershed and the details of the enrollment 
categories that will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, (2004 Appropriations) 
amended section 1241(a)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3841(a)(3)) to remove the permanent program cap of $3.773 billion and 
set the funding level of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) for 
fiscal year 2004 at $41.4 million. As a result, the program will 
operate as a capped entitlement in FY 2004 and is currently authorized 
as an uncapped entitlement in future fiscal years. Further, by law, 
NRCS cannot incur technical assistance costs for NRCS employees or 
approved technical assistance providers in excess of 15 percent of the 
program funds expended in a fiscal year. Therefore, as noted in the 
proposed rule, ranking and prioritization must occur to insure that 
stewardship is rewarded and national natural resource issues are 
addressed.
    Given capped spending authority in FY 2004 and as proposed in the 
President's 2005 Budget, the Administration wants to focus CSP's 
activities and benefits in high-priority regions that meet the 
environmental and philosophical goals of the program. Using watersheds 
allows for improved watershed-scale planning, program execution, and 
monitoring and evaluation of results, creating a first-of-its-kind 
conservation program.
    Watersheds form discrete natural spatial units. Using watersheds to 
allocate funding and assistance will enhance the evaluation of 
producers' stewardship efforts. Watersheds will reflect the 
environmental progress we expect from CSP in ways we couldn't expect 
from working along county or State lines. NRCS expects that the 
selection of different watersheds for each sign-up will result in every 
farmer and rancher being potentially eligible for CSP over the next 8 
years. No qualifying producer will be left out. A watershed rotation 
reduces the administrative burden on applicants while it reduces the 
technical assistance (TA) costs associated with NRCS and its technical 
service providers processing a large number of applications that cannot 
be funded.
    Rotating the watersheds allows producers to plan and prepare for 
CSP participation in future sign-ups. Watersheds allow NRCS to focus 
finite resources on areas with both a documented need for resource 
enhancement and a strong stewardship tradition. For producers in a 
selected watershed, this approach means better service when applying, 
and a higher chance of getting selected. For producers not yet in a 
selected watershed it means time to improve conservation performance 
through access to other Farm Bill programs and access to technical 
service from agency personnel unencumbered by CSP responsibilities. The 
CSP self-assessment exercise will allow producers to assess their 
conservation performance for the CSP sign-up and allow for management 
concerns to be addressed.
    The staged implementation will allow agency personnel to refine, 
streamline, and perfect application procedures as well as self-
assessment and self-screening processes.
    While the selected process for determining the priority watersheds 
and the establishment of the enrollment categories will be set out in 
the CSP final rule, NRCS needs to immediately make those determinations 
for use in FY 2004, in order to have a sign-up and enrollment of 
participants in this fiscal year. NRCS will therefore begin using the 
watershed priority process and will establish enrollment categories 
immediately upon publication of this notice. This provides a practical 
means of implementing the program in FY 2004 and staying within the 
statutory funding and technical assistance constraints. Without moving 
expeditiously to establish the processes for utilizing priority 
watersheds and enrollment categories, the CSP will not be implemented 
in the current fiscal year. The final rule will provide notice

[[Page 24561]]

and opportunity for comment on the processes for establishment of 
priority watersheds and the enrollment categories for use in 
administering CSP for FY 2005.

Process for Selecting Watersheds

    The Department published a proposed rule and sought public comment 
on the preferred CSP alternative, which included a watershed approach 
(7 CFR 1469.5(e)). The watershed approach may be used with or without 
an expenditure cap. This would allow NRCS the flexibility to implement 
the program to reflect changing statutory language.
    Three key considerations provide the basis for identifying priority 
watersheds for the CSP program: (1) To ensure that CSP's limited 
resources are focused first on the most achievable environmental 
performance areas; and (2) to address management constraints based on 
the statutory limit on technical assistance (15 percent); and (3) to 
provide maximum flexibility for program implementation (i.e., if there 
are no funding restrictions all watersheds could be eligible). Based on 
the number of potential applicants, NRCS projects that the technical 
assistance necessary to operate a nationwide sign-up would exceed the 
15 percent statutory limit. While the agency is currently working on 
many options for streamlining the application process, such as self 
assessment tools and self screening processes, considerable time and 
assistance is still required to provide quality service to the 
applicant and assure quality products for the funds expended. The 
Agency must have the flexibility to adjust to future potential 
statutory funding changes within the program by increasing or 
decreasing the number of watersheds where CSP is offered for sign-up. 
NRCS will provide additional discussion on this issue in the final 
rule.
    Focusing participation on high-priority watersheds will reduce the 
administrative burden on applicants and the costs of processing a large 
number of applications that would not be funded. For example, the 
economic analysis conducted by NRCS as required for rule development 
estimates that as many as 500,000 producers might apply for enrollment 
in each CSP sign-up and that current funding would only support about 
3,000 contracts. Therefore, the majority of applicants would have 
completed an extensive application process only to be denied 
participation due to the limitation on funding. Additionally, NRCS 
would have incurred technical assistance costs in program eligibility 
determinations for up to 497,000 producers who would not be able to 
participate in CSP. NRCS believes that focusing the program's resources 
on applications that have a high probability of getting funded would 
maximize environmental benefits because a higher portion of the TA 
would be used to support actual conservation practices and activities.

Watershed Ranking

    Three broad options were considered for ranking watersheds. Each 
option contains certain common attributes: quantifiable, objective data 
that can be aggregated at the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) scale; 
support the philosophy and intent of CSP to support on-going 
conservation stewardship of working agricultural lands; and improve the 
Agency's ability to measure program performance (determining benefits 
and effects).
Option 1--Using National Resources Inventory (NRI) Data
    Option 1 was suggested in the proposed CSP rule as one method of 
ranking watersheds. The rule proposes that NRCS ``* * * identify 
watersheds (using eight-digit hydrologic unit codes developed by the 
U.S. Geological Survey) around the Nation based on objective 
information from natural resource, environmental quality, and 
agricultural activity data. The watershed prioritization process will 
consider several factors, including the vulnerability of surface and 
groundwater quality, the potential for excessive soil quality 
degradation, and the condition of grazing land in the watershed.'' (69 
FR 198, January 2, 2004)
    The NRCS's NRI data representing the factors cited in the rule were 
aggregated by 8-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) delineations to test this 
Option. Option 1 has the advantage of NRCS experience with this 
approach, since it was used as a basis for developing State level 
allocations for initial EQIP implementation. Additionally, NRCS 
collects and analyzes the NRI data and, therefore, the Agency has a 
high degree of understanding about how the data can be used. This 
familiarity also lends itself to quicker, more efficient problem 
solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the NRI was not 
designed for estimate reliability at the 8-digit HUC level, thus 
estimates may be inadequate in some watersheds.
Option 2--Using Stewardship Activities
    Option 2 is almost exclusively focused on identifying and rewarding 
those farmers and ranchers meeting the very highest standards of 
conservation and environmental management on their operations. At the 
first level, allowable land uses are analyzed (cropland, pasture, 
grazing lands, orchards/vineyards) for possible eligibility. In the 
next level each land use is defined by predominant management 
categories such as: managing fertilizers and nutrients; managing pests; 
managing crops and soil; and managing grazing land. Each category is 
further represented by a selection of conservation practices as 
surrogates to represent prevalence of practice adoption within 
watersheds.
    A map would be generated from the NRCS performance measurement 
system data showing areas of concentrated practice adoptions. This map 
would then be used alone or in combination with other surrogate factors 
to overlay 8-digit HUC maps. The resulting composite map would show 
which watersheds have some of the best conservation stewards working 
with NRCS. A similar process would be used for all management 
categories and, ultimately, a comprehensive watershed ranking map could 
be produced. Option 2 has the advantages of supporting the philosophy 
and intent of CSP to recognize ongoing conservation stewardship of 
working agricultural lands; the performance data is collected and 
analyzed by the Agency, which has a high degree of understanding about 
how the data can be used resulting in quicker, more efficient problem 
solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the option does not 
account for stewardship activities that occur without NRCS assistance, 
captures only recent conservation activities, and gives no recognition 
to stewards who have been practicing conservation over the long-term. 
Additionally, this option relies heavily on NRCS administrative data. 
Analysis is limited to recognition of stewardship, and little or no 
recognition is accorded natural resource vulnerability.
Option 3--Combination Approach
    Option 3 is a combination watershed approach that uses quantifiable 
datasets and a rigorous sorting procedure consisting of four phases: I. 
Land use eligibility, II. Input intensities, III. Stewardship, and IV. 
Development of a composite ranking.
    The first phase, land use representation, is defined by the four 
land uses eligible for CSP: cropland, rangeland, pastureland, and 
orchards/vineyards. The 1997 NASS National Agriculture Census (1997 
Census) data on land in farms were used to examine the spatial 
distribution of these eligible lands across the country. The 1997 
Census data also reflect incidental land

[[Page 24562]]

uses on farms, such as woodlots, that might not be represented by other 
data sources but are included for the CSP. The eligible acres were 
aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally based on the 
concentration of eligible lands within the watershed.
    Phase II of the approach was designed to represent input 
intensities, defined as additions to the land that have a potential to 
cause soil and water quality degradation. Input intensities data drawn 
from the 1997 Census included acreage where pesticides, fertilizers, 
and manure were applied. These data were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and 
ranked nationally. The input intensity maps identify watersheds with 
the greatest concentration of acreage receiving inputs, as a 
representation of potential soil and water quality deterioration.
    Phase III of the combination approach was stewardship activity, 
defined as prevalence of historic and recent application of 
conservation practices. NRI data were used to show the distribution of 
watersheds having the greatest extent of applied conservation practices 
for the period 1982 to 1997. The 2002 NRCS performance data were used 
to show the distribution of watersheds having the greatest acreages of 
more recently applied conservation practices selected to reflect an 
operator's stewardship. These data--historic and current conservation--
were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally to identify 
watersheds with the greatest ``presence'' of historic and on-going 
conservation practice adoption.
    In the final phase, the watershed rankings from phases I-III were 
combined to reflect a summation watershed rank reflecting all three 
criteria areas. Then the watersheds were re-ranked to reflect overall 
national status in regards to land use eligibility, input intensities, 
and stewardship. Watersheds were then ranked against each other within 
their respective Economic Research Service Farm Production Regions to 
allow more balanced comparisons among States, to produce a national 
perspective of potential priority watersheds, and to represent the 
broadest range of operation types and sizes.
    This regional context was selected to distribute limited funds and 
numbers of contracts as widely across the landscape as possible in the 
first sign-up. Although not used for the FY 2004 selection, the data 
can also be extracted at the State boundary level with a process which 
would take interstate watersheds into consideration. This process will 
be described in the final rule.
    Option 3 has the advantages of accounting for concentration of 
eligible land, input intensity, and stewardship information in 
combination; the Agency has experience with the components of this 
approach; and there is a high degree of understanding about how the 
data can be properly used on a national scale.

Watershed Prioritization

Introduction
    The ranking process outlined above would array watersheds based on 
an analysis of quantitative data relative to watershed condition and 
stewardship activities. A need remains however, to take into account 
economic, political, institutional, and public acceptance 
considerations.
    To account for these, watersheds may be prioritized and targeted 
for attention and action according to a number of criteria and 
weighting factors. Applying weighting factors to the ranked watersheds 
may be appropriate to achieve the intent of the program. There are 
several ways that weighting might occur.
Option 1--Selecting the ``Worst'' Watersheds
    Typically, public dollars and restoration efforts have been 
directed to those watersheds with the most severe conditions, the most 
sensitive to change, or those that are at risk of impairment. This is 
particularly true with water quality concerns. The approach tries to 
ensure that those landscapes that are the most damaged, sensitive, or 
at risk receive additional consideration in the prioritization process 
by assigning a higher weighting factor for degree of degradation or 
vulnerability (input intensities).
Option 2--Selecting the ``Best'' Watersheds
    The CSP is a voluntary program that provides financial and 
technical assistance to producers who advance conservation and 
improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and 
other conservation purposes on eligible Tribal and private working 
lands. The approach: (a) Identifies and rewards farmers and ranchers 
meeting the high standards of conservation and environmental management 
on their operations; (b) creates incentives for other producers to meet 
those same standards; and (c) provides public benefits for future 
generations. In short, the philosophy and intent of the CSP is to 
``reward the best and motivate the rest.'' This option could apply high 
weighting factors for stewardship activities in the prioritization 
process.
Option 3--Selecting ``Improving'' Watersheds--Recommended Approach
    Another way to prioritize watersheds for CSP implementation is to 
focus on those watersheds that have a balance of natural resource 
problems and on-going stewardship activities. This approach focuses on 
those watersheds where input intensity is not the highest and 
stewardship could be increased measurably--that is, watersheds where 
there is a good chance to improve baseline conditions. They have some 
resource vulnerabilities, but not the most severe. They also have some 
stewardship activities, but not necessarily the highest participation. 
This scenario might use higher yet equal weighting factors for input 
intensities and stewardship, so that it is their combination that is 
represented in the final analysis.
Management Options
    After watersheds have been ranked and prioritized, additional 
management overlays were considered to enhance the efficiency of 
program delivery and to align more closely with State priorities.
Option 1--Management Overlays
    This option focuses on administrative efficiencies primarily to 
reduce the costs of program administration, ensure the eligible 
contracts can be processed in a timely manner, reduce the participant's 
time in preparing application data, and, ultimately, to assist in 
performance appraisal of the program's effectiveness. It is intended 
that this option be used as one of several final checks in combination 
with the ranked/prioritized watersheds. Option 1 has the advantages of 
providing more predictable successes during the first year of a new and 
innovative conservation program, and further refines the pool of 
resource-priority watersheds to those that also had the capacity for 
effective implementation.
Option 2--Comparative Overlays for State Alignment
    States and Tribes may view the proposed watershed ranking and 
prioritization as redundant to their own efforts at prioritization, 
especially with efforts such as the Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) 
process instituted by the States during the mid-1990's. The UWAs 
continue to be widely used by some States as a basis for much of their 
water quality and watershed restoration work accomplished under Clean 
Water Act section 319 programs and other Federally-funded efforts.
    This option acknowledges the important contributions of existing 
State analyses, and provides a mechanism for

[[Page 24563]]

the inclusion of State data to address unique circumstances and 
conditions that might not be recognized in the watershed ranking and 
prioritization system. The State level data layers would be combined 
into a seamless national layer for use in a nationwide analysis. This 
could include, but not be limited to, spatial information on species of 
concern or of pollution control planning elements such as Total Maximum 
Daily Loads.
Summary
    There are a variety of options to consider when applying ranking 
and prioritization to 8-digit watersheds for purposes of program 
delivery. The proposed strategy centers on a combination of three 
distinct analysis levels.
    1. Rank watersheds using a composite approach that integrates 
distribution of eligible land uses, input intensities, and stewardship.
    2. Apply weighting factors to the ranking criteria to select 
watersheds that best represent the philosophical foundation of CSP--
treating resource issues and rewarding conservation stewards.
    3. Using the set of prioritized watersheds, apply considerations of 
administrative capacity and opportunity for State-based considerations, 
as well as testing the watershed concept.
Enrollment Categories
    In managing the CSP, the NRCS will establish and operate a system 
of enrollment categories whenever necessary to conduct the program in 
an orderly fashion and remain within any statutory budget and technical 
assistance caps as described in the proposed rule (7 CFR part 1469.6). 
In addition to the statutorily mandated contract requirements, the 
categories will consider the applicants' current stewardship (soil 
condition, tillage intensity, existing practices and activities) and 
will sort producers based on these factors. Categories will also 
examine producers' willingness to perform additional conservation 
activities during their CSP contract.
    All applications which meet the sign-up criteria will be placed in 
an enrollment category regardless of available funding. An application 
will be placed in the highest enrollment category level for which the 
application qualifies. For example, on cropland, a farmer must meet the 
minimum requirements for soil quality and water quality within a 
watershed designated for a particular sign-up to be eligible for CSP. 
Upon entry, the NRCS will determine the appropriate enrollment category 
placement for the application. Using the category descriptions below, 
if the cultivated cropland: (1) Meets a Soil Conditioning Index at 
least 0.1 and a Soil Tillage Intensity Rating less than 30; (2) has at 
least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; (3) has at least three 
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; and (4) the applicant agrees to: (a) Move to the 
next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or 
Activities from the list included in this document; and (b) conduct an 
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity, then the 
application will be placed in the highest category, Category A. 
Applications that meet minimum program eligibility requirements as 
defined in 7 CFR part 1469, but do not include additional conservation 
treatment, will be placed in the lowest category, Category H.
    Within all eligible watersheds, funding would be distributed to 
applications beginning with the highest enrollment category; Category 
A. Criteria are designed to assure that funding will be directed first 
to those producers with the highest commitment to conservation. Once 
the highest enrollment category applications are funded within eligible 
watersheds, the next category would be funded, etc. Funding would be 
distributed to each succeeding category nationally until funding is 
exhausted. Situations will arise where applications have multiple lands 
uses that fall into different enrollment categories. The final rule 
will describe how the agency will sort such applications.
    This notice will serve as the public notice of the construction of 
the enrollment categories. Tables illustrating the enrollment category 
described are available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/.
    Description of criteria for enrollment categories for cropland and 
orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent hayland. The 
first four criteria, Soil Conditioning Index (SCI), Soil Tillage 
Intensity Rating (STIR) and the number of stewardship practices and 
activities that are in place at sign-up, are intended to indicate 
historical conservation stewardship.
    The SCI is a numerical rating tool used to identify the trend of 
soil carbon for given conservation management systems, which are key 
indicators of the status of soil quality. A positive SCI indicates the 
trend is upward; a negative SCI indicates the trend is downward. The 
STIR model was selected in order to give a numerical rating to identify 
operations in which soil disturbance is kept to a minimum. The rating 
allows for flexibility in tillage methods and crop rotations as well as 
removes any confusion with regard to semantics or local terminology for 
tillage system descriptions. The category limits for the STIR ratings 
on cultivated cropland approximate the differentiations made in the 
Residue Management Standard 329. Tillage practices commonly referred to 
as no-till, direct seed, or zero tillage under practice 329A would be 
those with the lowest STIR. Mulch tillage (329B) and operations that 
rotate tillage between no-till and other more intense forms would be 
described in the next categories. Tillage systems with STIR ratings 
greater than 100 are typically considered conventionally tilled 
systems.
    STIR was selected as a criteria tool because it adds value to the 
SCI criteria and does not give bias toward any specific landscape, 
soil, or cropping region. The SCI provides trends in soil carbon which 
leads to a host of benefits, but positive SCIs associated with very 
low-erosive landscapes may still allow for significant tillage and 
favor operators with these conditions rather than their conservation 
stewardship. STIR limits disturbance and provides for increased 
improvement in soil physical properties. The limits on soil disturbance 
also provide an energy benefit from the reduction in field operations.
    Stewardship Practices and Stewardship Activities are intended to 
identify the long-term steward that has applied conservation over the 
years as the need or new technology has arisen. The more practices, the 
more likely it is that the operator has continually addressed 
conservation and resource needs. However, there may be instances where 
conservation measures may have been applied in order to bring or 
maintain marginally suitable lands into production or into compliance 
with the farm legislation. For this reason, Stewardship Activities 
address the actions taken to reduce or eliminate negative environmental 
impacts in and outside the boundaries of the field. Stewardship 
Practices and Activities must be in place two years prior to sign-up to 
qualify.
    Enhancement Activities are designed to identify those who are 
willing to increase their level of stewardship, since remaining static 
in one's conservation efforts is not a top priority of CSP. Efforts to 
increase environmental stewardship by moving to the next tier or 
intensifying current management take top priority in the

[[Page 24564]]

assignment of categories. In addition, willingness to add to the state 
of knowledge regarding conservation practices or educate others through 
assessment, evaluation, on-farm demonstrations, etc., is required of 
the top categories. Those not willing to increase their stewardship, 
but willing to contribute to the above activities, are identified as 
the next priority and those unwilling to do either fall to lower 
categories.
    Cropland (row crops, closely grown crops, hay or pasture in 
rotation with row or closely grown crops, orchards, vineyards, 
horticultural crops, and permanent hayland). Category A must: (1) Meet 
a SCI of at least 0.1 and STIR less than 30; (2) have at least three 
Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; (3) have at least three Stewardship Activities 
from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; 
and (4) agree to (a) move to the next CSP Tier or complete two 
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this 
document and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and 
evaluation activity.
    Category B must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 
30; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to (a) move to 
the next CSP Tier or complete two additional Stewardship Practices or 
Activities from the lists in this document and (b) conduct an on-farm 
project or assessment and evaluation activity.
    Category C must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least 0.1 and a STIR less 
than 60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete 
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in 
this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and 
evaluation activity.
    Category D must: (1) Meet a SCI at least zero and a STIR less than 
60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included 
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two 
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional 
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; 
and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation 
activity.
    Category E must: (1) Meet a SCI at least 0.1 and STIR less than 60; 
(2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in 
this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least one 
Stewardship Activity currently applied from the list included in this 
document; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship 
Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b) 
conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
    Category F must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 
100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included 
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two 
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional 
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; 
and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation 
activity.
    Category G must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 
100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included 
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have any number of 
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional 
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists included in this 
document.
    Category H must: meet the minimum program eligibility requirements 
as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
    Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have 
an NRCS practice standard in the Field Office Technical Guide. The 
stewardship practices eligible to determine enrollment categories above 
for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent 
hayland with their corresponding identification number include:
     Alley Cropping (311)
     Atmospheric Resources Quality Management (370)
     Conservation Crop Rotation (328)
     Constructed Wetland (656)
     Contour Buffer Strips (332)
     Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (331)
     Cover Crop (340)
     Cross Wind Ridges (589A)
     Cross Wind Trap Strips (589C)
     Drainage Water Management (554)
     Field Border (386), Filter Strip (393)
     Forage Harvest Management (511)
     Hedgerow Planting (422)
     Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603)
     Hillside Ditch (423)
     Irrigation System-Micro-irrigation (441)
     Irrigation Water Management (449)
     Lined Waterway or Outlet (468)
     Low Disturbance Cropping (No-till/Strip-till/
Direct Seed) (329d1)
     Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
     Residue Management--No Till (to reseed permanent 
hayland or No Till of 5 years or more in cultivated crop land) (329A)
     Riparian Forest Buffer (391)
     Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
     Sediment Basin (350)
     Soil Salinity Management-Nonirrigated (571)
     Stripcropping (585)
     Structure for Water Control (587)
     Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
     Well Decommissioning (351)
     Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380)
    Stewardship activities are those key conservation actions that do 
not have a specific practice standard in the FOTG but have defined 
local actions necessary that, when applied to a field, mitigate off-
site resource damage or improve soil and/or water quality.
    The stewardship activities eligible to determine enrollment 
categories above for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural 
crops, and permanent hayland:
     Addition of soil amendments such as 
polyacrylamide (PAM) and gypsum
     Collection of yield data
     Conduct spraying activities and other control of 
noxious/invasive weeds on a spot basis
     Harvest crops from center of field outward
     Increase amount of sod or perennial crops in 
rotation for a minimum of 2 years
     Irrigation system efficiency evaluations and 
adjustment
     Low energy precision application sprinklers
     Minimize the use of pesticides by using pest 
resistant plant varieties
     Precise application of nutrients, such as 
banding, side dressing, injection, fertigation
     Split nitrogen application to meet crop needs
     Surge irrigation
     Test soil and/or plant tissue on annual basis
     Use a risk assessment tool such as WINPST to 
select the least toxic product to minimize harmful effects on human 
health and environmental resources
     Use established local integrated pest management 
guidelines to set economic thresholds for pests to

[[Page 24565]]

minimize use of pesticides and herbicides
     Use of beneficial insects
     Use of on-farm weather station data
     Use of tensiometers or other techniques to 
assess and improve irrigation water management
     Use of yield monitoring data.
     Weather stations installation and/or data 
collection
    Description of criteria for enrollment categories for Pasture and 
Range. Pasture and range use the Pasture Condition Score and Rangeland 
Health Assessment, respectively, to identify the condition of the 
resource. The intent of pasture condition scoring is to provide pasture 
producers with a standard method to identify shortfalls in pasture care 
and pinpoint what can be done to improve pasture condition. Pasture 
condition scoring is done in the field using score sheet criteria and 
some basic data gathering. Ten easily observed indicators are used to 
assess pasture condition. Each indicator's condition is estimated and 
scored separately on a score sheet using a range of 1 (lowest) to 5 
(highest). These scores may be combined into an overall score for the 
pasture unit or left as an individual score and compared with the other 
nine indicators. Indicators receiving the lowest scores can be focused 
upon for corrective action as warranted. The ten indicators are percent 
desirable plants, plant cover, plant diversity, plant residue, plant 
vigor, percent legume, uniformity of use, livestock concentration 
areas, soil compaction, and erosion (sheet & rill, gully, streambank 
and shoreline, and wind). If scoring the pasture for the first time or 
when plant vigor is rated 3 or lower thereafter, six nationally 
important causative factors should also be rated. They are: Soil 
fertility, soil reaction (pH), severity of use, site adaptation of 
forage species, climatic stresses, and insect/disease pressure. Where 
soil levels of salt, sodium, and toxic elements, such as aluminum, 
commonly affect pasture condition regionally, regionally established 
rating criteria are used to measure and rate them. By using pasture 
condition scoring to rate pastures over a period of time, trends in 
decline or improvement can be detected and adjustments made as needed 
or desired.
    Pasture condition scoring was chosen for assessing CSP enrollment 
categories for the pasture lands use because the condition of the 
pasture plant community and soil surface directly impact and reflect 
upon soil and water quality. The highest pasture condition will yield 
the highest soil quality and the most sustained discharge of the 
highest quality water.
    The key publication assessing rangeland health ``Interpreting 
Indicators for Rangeland--Technical Reference 1734-6 and two 
publications about pasture condition scoring, ``Guide to Pasture 
Condition Scoring'' and ``Pasture Condition Score Sheet'' can found at 
the USDA-NRCS Web site: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/index.html. The range health booklet was developed through 
interagency coordination between the BLM, NRCS, ARS, and USGS. It 
provides land specialists with the tools to do a preliminary evaluation 
of soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the 
biotic community on rangelands. The Pasture Guide describes each of 
these indicators and its importance coupled to maintaining a well-
functioning pasture. The Score Sheet is used to record the current 
conditions and identify areas of pasture management that may need 
improvement.
    Rangeland health is the status of the soil, water, and biological 
resources in rangeland ecosystems. The Rangeland Health Assessment 
evaluates the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, 
water, and air, as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland 
ecosystem, is balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as 
maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic 
of a particular locale, including normal variability.
    The key publication assessing rangeland health, ``Guide to Pasture 
Condition Scoring'' and ``Pasture Condition Score Sheet'' can found at 
the USDA-NRCS Web site: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/index.html. The Guide describes each of these indicators 
and its importance coupled to maintaining a well-functioning pasture. 
The Score Sheet is used to record the current conditions and identify 
areas of pasture management that may need improvement.
Pasture
    Category A must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 45; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to 
the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or 
Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and 
evaluation activity.
    Category B must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 35; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to 
the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or 
Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and 
evaluation activity.
    Category C must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 45; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete 
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an 
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
    Category D must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete 
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an 
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
    Category E must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at 
least one activity from the list included in this document in place for 
two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional Stewardship 
Practices or Activities, or an on-farm project or assessment and 
evaluation activity.
    Category F must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) and 
at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this 
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two 
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities, or conduct an on-farm 
project or assessment and evaluation activity.
    Category G must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at 
least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list 
included in this

[[Page 24566]]

document in place for two or more years; (3) have any number of 
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place 
for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional 
Stewardship Practices or activities from the list included in this 
document.
    Category H must: Meet the minimum program eligibility requirements 
as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
    Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have 
an NRCS practice standard in the FOTG. The stewardship practices 
eligible to determine enrollment categories above for pasture with 
their corresponding identification number include:
     Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
     Brush Management (314)
     Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
     Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
     Grassed Waterway (412)
     Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (516)
     Irrigation Water Management (449)
     Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
     Pipeline (516), Pond (378)
     Prescribed Burning (338)
     Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
     Soil Salinity Management--Nonirrigated (571)
     Spring Development (574)
     Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
     Stream Crossing (578)
     Watering Facility (614)
     Waste Utilization (pathogen and organic runoff 
control) (633)
     Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
     Water Well (642)
    The stewardship activities on pasture include:
     Added functional group pastures
     Confinement animal wastes, if applied, are 
injected
     Grazing distribution facilitated by watering 
locations, based on locally identified distances between water 
locations and water available in each sub-divided pasture
     Improved laneways.
     Increased plant diversity--forbs and legumes 
greater than 40%
     Integrated pest management activities for weeds, 
brush, insects, or diseases
     Interseeding
     Livestock ponds and watering areas have 
controlled access point or outfitted with watering facility
     Pastured bottomland or riparian area treated as 
a separate grazing treatment unit and alternative watering facilities 
in place
     Rotate feeding and salting areas
     Rotational grazing
     Test soil and/or plant tissue test every 3 years 
on pastures not receiving confinement wastes
     Use of decision support tools in developing 
grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool 
(GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction 
Project (WEPP), etc.
     Where confinement wastes are applied, test soil 
and/or plant tissue on annual basis prior to next application
     Where fertilizer nitrogen is applied, split 
applications to meet current crop needs.
Rangeland
    Category A must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus 
have three or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years, including 
brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; 
and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two 
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list 
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
    Category B must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus 
have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years, including 
brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; 
and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two 
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list 
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
    Category C must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) 
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have three or more Stewardship 
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in 
place for two or more years, including brush management or range 
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) 
complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) 
conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from 
the list included in this document by the end of the third contract 
year.
    Category D must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) 
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship 
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in 
place for two or more years, including brush management or range 
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) 
complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) 
conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from 
the list included in this document by the end of the third contract 
year.
    Category E must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) 
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship 
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in 
place for two or more years, including brush management or range 
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to complete 
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list 
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
    Category F must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to 
slight for one attribute and slight to moderate for two attributes; (2) 
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship 
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in 
place for two or more years; and (3) agree to complete two additional 
Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-farm project or 
assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this 
document by the end of the third contract year.
    Category G must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of slight 
to moderate for two attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus 
have one or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list 
included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) agree 
to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the 
list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
    Category H must: Meet the minimum sign-up requirements.
    Stewardship Practices eligible to determine enrollment categories 
above for rangeland with their corresponding identification number 
include:
     Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
     Brush Management (314)
     Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
     Channel Stabilization (584)

[[Page 24567]]

     Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
     Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (548)
     Pipeline (516)
     Pond (378)
     Range Planting (550)
     Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
     Spring Development (574)
     Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
     Stream Crossing (578)
     Watering Facility (614)
     Water and Sediment Control Basin (638)
     Wetland Enhancement (659)
     Wetland Restoration (657)
    Stewardship Activities eligible to determine enrollment categories 
above for rangeland include:
     Application of monitoring protocols
     Brush and weed management utilizing integrated 
techniques that include follow-up treatment
     Management that provides for upland wildlife 
habitat improvement
     Management that provides for wetland wildlife 
habitat improvement
     Management that provides for wetland shallow 
water wildlife habitat improvement
     Managing vegetative fuels to reduce wildfire 
hazards
     Modify brush management design to create a 
mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
     Participating in grassbanking
     Prescribed burn prescriptions designed to create 
a mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
     Use of decision support tools in developing 
grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool 
(GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction 
Project (WEPP), etc.
     Vegetation manipulation to reduce sediment and 
other pollutants in surface runoff.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2004.
Bruce I. Knight,
Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, Chief, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 04-10031 Filed 5-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P