Conservation Stewardship Program, 31610-31661 [2010-12699]
Download as PDF
31610
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Room
5237 South Building, Washington, DC
20250 or electronically at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
under the CSP Rules and Notices with
Supporting Documents title.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1470
RIN 0578–AA43
Conservation Stewardship Program
Commodity Credit Corporation,
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of
Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Section 2301 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 Act) amended the Food Security
Act of 1985 to establish the
Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP). On July 29, 2009, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
published an interim final rule for CSP
with a 60-day public comment period.
On September 21, 2009, the public
comment period was extended 30 days.
NRCS is publishing a final rule that
addresses the comments received on the
interim final rule and makes other
minor adjustments to improve clarity of
the rule.
DATES: Effective Date: The rule is
effective June 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief,
Financial Assistance Programs Division,
Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5237
South Building, Washington, DC 20250;
Telephone: (202) 720–1845; Fax: (202)
720–4265; or e-mail
CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
(FR Doc. 93–24523, September 30,
1993), this final rule is an economically
significant regulatory action since it
results in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. The
administrative record is available for
public inspection at the Department of
Agriculture, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 5242 South
Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866,
NRCS conducted an economic analysis
of the potential impacts associated with
this program. A summary of the
economic analysis can be found at the
end of the Regulatory Certifications
section of this preamble and a copy of
the analysis is available upon request
from Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief,
Financial Assistance Programs Division,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NRCS has determined that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this final rule because
NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553,
or any other provision of law, to publish
a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Environmental Analysis
Availability of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). A
programmatic environmental
assessment was prepared in association
with the CSP interim final rule. The
analysis determined that there was not
a significant impact to the human
environment and as a result an
Environmental Impact Statement was
not required to be prepared (40 CFR part
1508.13). The EA and FONSI were
available for review and comment for 30
days from the date the interim final rule
was published in the Federal Register.
For this final rulemaking, the agency
has determined that there are no new
circumstances or significant new
information that has a bearing on
environmental effects which warrant
supplementing the previous EA and
FONSI. The proposed changes
identified in this final rule are
considered minor changes that should
be implemented for the program. The
majority of these changes are
administrative or technical or
corrections to the regulation.
Copies of the EA and FONSI may be
obtained from Matt Harrington, National
Environmental Coordinator, Ecological
Sciences Division, Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6151
South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
The CSP EA and FONSI are also
available at the following Internet
address: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/Env_Assess.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
NRCS has determined through a Civil
Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) that the
interim final rule discloses no
disproportionately adverse impacts for
minorities, women, or persons with
disabilities. The final CRIA provides
responses to the interim final rule’s
CRIA comments. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Office of Assistant
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR),
Office of Compliance, Policy, and
Training (formally the Office of
Adjudication and Compliance) worked
with NRCS in the initial preparation of
the proposed interim final rule and
CRIA. Based on these preliminary
meetings and their review, it was
determined there was no adverse
impact. The OASCR concurred with the
CRIA for the proposed final rule.
The data presented indicates
producers who are members of the
protected groups have participated in
NRCS conservation programs at parity
with other producers. Extrapolating
from historical participation data, it is
reasonable to conclude that NRCS
programs, including CSP, will continue
to be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. Outreach and
communication strategies are in place to
ensure all producers will be provided
the same information to allow them to
make informed compliance decisions
regarding the use of their lands that will
affect their participation in USDA
programs. CSP applies to all persons
equally regardless of their race, color,
national origin, gender, sex, or disability
status. Therefore, the CSP rule portends
no adverse civil rights implications for
women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 2904 of the 2008 Act provides
that the promulgation of regulations and
the administration of Title II of the 2008
Act, which contain the amendments
that authorize CSP, will be made
without regard to chapter 35 of Title 44
of the U.S.C. also known as the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore,
NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or
estimated paperwork burden associated
with this interim final rule.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act
NRCS is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, which requires
government agencies, in general, to
provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible. To better accommodate
public access, NRCS has developed an
online application and information
system for public use.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of
this final rule are not retroactive. The
provisions of this final rule preempt
State and local laws to the extent that
such laws are inconsistent with this
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
final rule. Before an action may be
brought in a Federal court of competent
jurisdiction, the administrative appeal
rights afforded persons at 7 CFR parts
614, 780, and 11 must be exhausted.
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994
Section 304 of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994,
Public Law 103–354, requires that a risk
assessment be prepared in conjunction
with any notice of proposed rulemaking
for a major regulation. Pursuant to
section 2904 of the 2008 Act, NRCS is
promulgating this final rule, and
therefore, a risk assessment is not
required. However, risks associated with
the final rule have been assessed
pursuant to the analysis prepared in
compliance with Executive Order
12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
NRCS assessed the effects of this
rulemaking action on State, local, and
tribal governments, and the public. This
action does not compel the expenditure
of $100 million or more by any State,
local, or tribal governments, or anyone
in the private sector; therefore, a
statement under section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
is not required.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Executive Order 13132
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
USDA has determined that this final
rule conforms with the Federalism
principles set forth in the Executive
Order, would not impose any
compliance costs on the States, and
would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities on the
various levels of government. Therefore,
USDA concludes that this final rule
does not have Federalism implications.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. NRCS has assessed the
impact of this final rule on Indian tribal
governments and concluded that this
final rule will not negatively affect
Indian tribal governments or their
communities. The rule neither imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments nor preempts tribal
law. However, NRCS plans to undertake
a series of at least six regional tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
consultation sessions before December
30, 2010, on the impact of NRCS
conservation programs and services on
tribal governments and their members to
establish a baseline of consultation for
future actions. Reports from these
sessions will be made part of the USDA
annual reporting on Tribal Consultation
and Collaboration. NRCS will respond
in a timely and meaningful manner to
all tribal governments’ requests for
consultation.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
Section 2904(c) of the 2008 Act
requires that the Secretary use the
authority in section 808(2) of title 5
U.S.C., which allows an agency to forgo
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 usual
congressional review delay of the
effective date of a regulation if the
agency finds that there is a good cause
to do so. NRCS hereby determines that
it has good cause to do so in order to
meet the congressional intent to have
the conservation programs authorized or
amended by Title II in effect as soon as
possible. Accordingly, this rule is
effective upon filing for public
inspection by the Office of the Federal
Register.
Section 2708 of the 2008 Act
Section 2708, ‘‘Compliance and
Performance,’’ of the 2008 Act added a
paragraph to section 1244(g) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 Act entitled,
‘‘Administrative Requirements for
Conservation Programs,’’ which states
the following:
‘‘(g) Compliance and performance.—
For each conservation program under
Subtitle D, the Secretary will develop
procedures—
(1) To monitor compliance with
program requirements;
(2) To measure program performance;
(3) To demonstrate whether long-term
conservation benefits of the program are
being achieved;
(4) To track participation by crop and
livestock type; and
(5) To coordinate activities described
in this subsection with the national
conservation program authorized under
section 5 of the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16
U.S.C. 2004).’’
This new provision presents in one
place the accountability requirements
placed on the agency as it implements
conservation programs and reports on
program results. The requirements
apply to all programs under Subtitle D,
including the Wetlands Reserve
Program, Conservation Security
Program, Conservation Stewardship
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31611
Program, Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program, Grassland Reserve
Program (GRP), Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) (including
the Agricultural Water Enhancement
Program), Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP), and Chesapeake Bay
Watershed initiative. These
requirements are not directly
incorporated into these regulations
which set out requirements for program
participants. However, certain
provisions within these regulations
relate to elements of section 1244(g) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 Act and
the agency’s accountability
responsibilities regarding program
performance. NRCS is taking this
opportunity to describe existing
procedures that relate to meeting the
requirements of section 1244(g) of the
Food Security Act of 1985, and agency
expectations for improving its ability to
report on each program’s performance
and achievement of long-term
conservation benefits. Also included is
reference to the sections of these
regulations that apply to program
participants and that relate to the
agency accountability requirements as
outlined in section 1244(g) of the Food
Security Act of 1985.
Monitor compliance with program
requirements. NRCS has established
application procedures to ensure that
participants meet eligibility
requirements and follow-up procedures
to ensure that participants are
complying with the terms and
conditions of their contractual
arrangement with the government and
that the installed conservation measures
are operating as intended. These and
related program compliance evaluation
policies are set forth in agency guidance
(Conservation Programs
Manual_440_Part 512 and Conservation
Programs Manual _440_Part 508)
(https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
The program requirements applicable to
participants that relate to compliance
are set forth in these regulations in
§ 1470.6 ‘‘Eligibility requirements,’’
§ 1470.21 ‘‘Contract requirements,’’
§ 1470.22 ‘‘Conservation stewardship
plan,’’ and § 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation
activity operation and maintenance.’’
These sections make clear the general
program eligibility requirements,
participant obligations for implementing
a conservation stewardship plan,
contract obligations, and requirements
for operating and maintaining CSPfunded conservation activities.
Measure program performance.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–62, Sec. 1116)
and guidance provided by Office of
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31612
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Management and Budget Circular A–11,
NRCS has established performance
measures for its conservation programs.
Program-funded conservation activity is
captured through automated field-level
business tools, and the information is
available to the public at
https://ias.sc.egov.usda.gov/PRSHOME/.
Program performance is also reported
annually to Congress and the public
through the annual performance budget,
annual accomplishments report, and the
USDA Performance Accountability
Report. Related performance
measurement and reporting policies are
set forth in agency guidance
(GM_340_401 and GM_340_403) (https://
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
The conservation actions undertaken
by participants are the basis for
measuring program performance;
specific actions are tracked and reported
annually, while the effects of those
actions relate to whether the long-term
benefits of the program are being
achieved. The program requirements
applicable to participants that relate to
undertaking conservation actions are set
forth in these regulations in § 1470.21
‘‘Contract requirements,’’ § 1470.22
‘‘Conservation stewardship plan,’’ and
§ 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation activity
operation and maintenance.’’ These
sections make clear participant
obligations for installing, adopting,
improving, maintaining, and managing
conservation stewardship activities
which in aggregate result in the program
performance that is reflected in agency
performance reports.
Demonstrating the long-term natural
resource benefits achieved through
conservation programs is subject to the
availability of needed data, the capacity
and capability of modeling approaches,
and the external influences that affect
actual natural resource condition. While
NRCS captures many measures of
‘‘output’’ data, such as acres of
conservation practices, it is still in the
process of developing methods to
quantify the contribution of those
outputs to environmental outcomes.
NRCS currently uses a mix of
approaches to evaluate whether longterm conservation benefits are being
achieved through its programs. Since
1982, NRCS has reported on certain
natural resource status and trends
through the National Resources
Inventory (NRI), which provides
statistically reliable, nationally
consistent land cover/use and related
natural resource data. However, lacking
has been a connection between these
data and specific conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
programs.1 In the future, the interagency
Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP), which has been underway since
2003, will provide nationally consistent
estimates of environmental effects
resulting from conservation practices
and systems applied. CEAP results will
be used in conjunction with
performance data gathered through
agency field-level business tools to help
produce estimates of environmental
effects accomplished through agency
programs, such as CSP. In 2006 a Blue
Ribbon panel evaluation of CEAP 2
strongly endorsed the project’s purpose
but concluded ‘‘CEAP must change
direction’’ to achieve its purposes. In
response, CEAP has focused on
priorities identified by the panel and
clarified that its purpose is to quantify
the effects of conservation practices
applied on the landscape. Information
regarding CEAP, including reviews and
current status, is available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/
NRI/ceap/. Since 2004 and the initial
establishment of long-term performance
measures by program, NRCS has been
estimating and reporting progress
toward long-term program goals. The
NRI and assessment and the
performance measurement and
reporting policies are set forth in agency
guidance (GM_290_400, GM_340_401,
and GM_340_403) (https://
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
Demonstrating the long-term
conservation benefits of conservation
programs is an agency responsibility.
Through CEAP, NRCS is in the process
of evaluating how these long-term
benefits can be achieved through the
conservation practices and systems
applied by participants under each of its
programs. The CSP program
requirements applicable to participants
that relate to producing long-term
conservation benefits are located in
§ 1470.21 ‘‘Contract requirements,’’
§ 1470.22 ‘‘Conservation stewardship
plan,’’ and § 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation
activity operation and maintenance.’’
These requirements and related program
management procedures supporting
program implementation are set forth in
agency guidance (Conservation
Programs Manual 440_Part 512 and
Conservation Programs Manual
_440_Part 508).
1 The exception to this is the CRP; since 1987 the
NRI has reported acreage enrolled in CRP.
2 Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2006.
Final Report from the Blue Ribbon Panel
Conducting an External Review of the US
Department of Agriculture Conservation Effects
Assessment Project. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water
Conservation Society. This review is available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Coordinate these actions with the
national conservation program
authorized under the Soil and Water
Resources Conservation Act (RCA). The
2008 Act reauthorized and expanded on
a number of elements of the RCA related
to evaluating program performance and
conservation benefits. Specifically, the
2008 Act added a provision stating:
‘‘Appraisal and inventory of resources,
assessment and inventory of conservation
needs, evaluation of the effects of
conservation practices, and analyses of
alternative approaches to existing
conservation programs are basic to effective
soil, water, and related natural resources
conservation.’’
The program, performance, and
natural resource and effects data
described previously will serve as a
foundation for the next RCA, which will
also identify and fill, to the extent
possible, data and information gaps.
Policy and procedures related to the
RCA are set forth in agency guidance
(GM_290_400 and GM_130_402)
(https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
The coordination of the previously
described components with the RCA is
an agency responsibility and is not
reflected in these regulations. However,
it is likely that results from the RCA
process will result in modifications to
the program and performance data
collected, to the systems used to acquire
data and information, and potentially to
the program itself. Thus, as the
Secretary proceeds to implement the
RCA in accordance with the statute, the
approaches and processes developed
will improve existing program
performance measurement and outcome
reporting capability and provide the
foundation for improved
implementation of the program
performance requirements of section
1244(g) of the Food Security Act of
1985.
Economic Analysis—Executive
Summary
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, NRCS
conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis
(CEA) of the CSP as formulated for the
interim final rule.
This CEA describes how CSP
financial assistance and technical
assistance are made available to farmers
and ranchers who agree to install and
adopt additional conservation activities;
and improve, maintain, and manage
conservation activities in place in
accordance with CSP’s objectives. The
CEA compares the impact of these
activities in generating environmental
benefits with program costs. Many of
these improvements can produce
beneficial impacts concerning onsite
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
resource conditions (such as conserving
soil) and significant offsite
environmental benefits (such as cleaner
water, improved air quality, and
enhanced wildlife habitat).
The environmental outcomes
expected to be generated by
enhancement activities are based on
extrapolations of the environmental
outcomes that have been studied and
associated with many traditional NRCS
conservation practices. While the
outcomes from many traditional
conservation practices have been
assessed, the impacts generated from
these enhancements are not as well
studied. In conducting economic
analyses where benefits are not well
understood or difficult to measure, but
activity costs are available, the
traditional benefit-cost analysis is
generally replaced with a CEA, the
approach used for both this assessment
and the interim final rule.
In considering alternatives for
implementing CSP, NRCS followed the
legislative intent to establish a clear and
transparent method to determine in an
open and participatory process,
potential participants’ current and
future levels of conservation
stewardship in order to gauge their
environmental impacts and compare
them. Because CSP is voluntary, the
program is not expected to impose any
obligation or burden upon agricultural
producers and nonindustrial private
forestland (NIPF) owners who choose
not to participate.3
Congress authorized the enrollment of
12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year
(FY) for the period beginning October 1,
2008, through September 30, 2017. For
FY 2009 through FY 2012, CSP has been
authorized 51,076,000 acres (4 years
multiplied by a 12,769,000 acre program
cap per year).
Total program costs for CSP are
shown in Table 1. Full participation is
31613
assumed for each of the 4 years CSP is
offered, and the duration of each
contract is 5 years. Total costs include
only costs to the government.4
Cumulative program costs for four
program ranking periods are estimated
to be $2.990 billion in constant 2005
dollars, discounted at 7 percent. At a 3
percent discount rate, program costs
increase to $3.520 billion in constant
2005 dollars.
The information in Table 1 highlights
the cumulative impacts of four ranking
periods and 5-year contracts. Each signup creates a commitment of $229.842
million for 5 years. Participants in the
initial ranking period receive payments
through FY 2014; participants in the last
ranking period receive payments
through FY 2017. The largest outlays of
program funds occur in FY 2013 and FY
2014 and then begin to taper off as
contracts from the first and later ranking
periods end.
TABLE 1—TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS OF CSP, FY 2010 TO FY 2017
GDP price
deflator 2
(chained,
2005=100)
Yearly cost 1
(million $)
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
Yearly cost in
constant
dollars 1
(million $)
Discount
factors
for 3%
Present value
of costs¥3%
(million $)
Discount
factors
for 7%
Present value
of costs¥7%
(million $)
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
229.842
459.684
689.526
919.368
919.368
689.526
459.684
229.842
108.5
110.1
111.3
113.1
115.6
118.1
120.7
123.4
211.836
417.515
619.520
812.881
795.301
583.849
380.848
186.258
0.9709
0.9426
0.9151
0.8885
0.8626
0.8375
0.8131
0.7894
205.666
393.548
566.949
722.234
686.034
488.965
309.665
147.034
0.9346
0.8734
0.8163
0.7629
0.7130
0.6663
0.6227
0.5820
197.978
364.674
505.713
620.143
567.039
389.043
237.173
108.404
Total ......................
4596.840
........................
4008.008
........................
3520.093
........................
2990.166
1 Congress
set a maximum acreage limit of 12,769,000 acres and a national average payment rate of $18 per acre.
Agricultural Projections to 2019. Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared by the Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee. Long-term Projections Report OCE–2010–1, page 15.
2 USDA
Many conservation practices have
been extensively studied, but similar
studies pertaining to enhancement
activities have not been conducted. We
do not have sufficiently detailed, sitespecific information on existing
conservation practices and
environmental outcomes. As a result,
estimation of a true baseline of
environmental conditions before and
after CSP implementation is not
possible.
The methodology employed in this
final assessment is the same
methodology applied in the interim
final rule except that data from the
initial CSP ranking period are
substituted for the representative farm
and environmental data. Although
instructive in identifying possible
outcomes of different formulations of
CSP, actual enrollment and contract
data are necessary to provide a fuller
assessment of CSP outcomes. A relative
comparison of results from the interim
final rule and the final rule was also
conducted to identify differences
between predicted and actual outcomes,
determine why differences were
observed, and make recommendations,
when necessary, to improve CSP’s cost
effectiveness. This comparison should
not be used beyond its stated purpose
because of different data sets in the two
analyses.
CSP and the Conservation
Measurement Tool
3 An impact could be expected in cases where
CSP funds activities that lead to large increases of
certain environmental services and goods where
those markets are beginning to get started.
4 Given the wide set of possible initial resource
conditions and conservation activities likely to be
adopted, it is not possible to ascertain whether (or
to what extent) CSP payments offset expected costs
to producers in adopting new activities or past
activities.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Methodology Employed in This Study
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CSP is a challenging program given its
purpose, statutory mandates,
assessments of existing and future
conservation activities and their
associated conservation indices,
allocation of program funds and acres
across States, and price setting. The
following are key elements about CSP
and the conservation measurement tool
(CMT).
(a) NRCS allocated acreage for
enrollment across States according to
each State’s proportion of the Nation’s
agricultural land base.
(b) NRCS State offices created ranking
pools, selected three to five priority
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31614
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
resource concerns for every pool, and
allocated acres and program dollars
from the national office across the pools.
(c) A national team of NRCS cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and forest land
specialists developed sets of questions
by land use category to identify
conservation activities already applied
to the land and the associated level of
stewardship by assigning conservation
performance points. The team also
identified additional enhancements for
increasing stewardship and assigned
conservation performance points to the
additional enhancements. NRCS’
Conservation Practice Physical Effects
methodology was used in both of these
instances to assign performance points.
Conservation performance points earned
by land use should be viewed as
‘‘environmental indices.’’
(d) NRCS developed a CMT to
determine eligibility by verifying that
minimum stewardship thresholds were
met, estimating conservation
performance from existing and
additional activities, and ranking
applications.
(e) NRCS field staff tested the
questions and the CMT and made
suggestions that improved CMT’s use.
(f) During the initial ranking period,
NRCS assisted producers in completing
their resource inventories in the CMT
and determining program eligibility.
Eligible applicants identified additional
activities—enhancements and
traditional conservation practices—they
were willing to adopt. Each applicant’s
resource inventory and additional
activities recorded in the CMT earned
conservation performance points per
acre by land use.
(g) Every application was ranked
within a pool according to the sum of
four equally weighted ranking factors.
The maximum ranking score is 1,000;
the minimum zero. NRCS selected
applications for enrollment beginning
with the highest ranked one and worked
down the ranked list until a pool’s
funding limit or acreage limit was
reached. A fifth ranking factor came into
play as a ‘‘tie breaker’’ when two or more
applications were ranked equally. When
this situation occurred, the application
that minimized the cost to government
was selected.5 The four equally
weighted ranking factors are below:
(1) Ranking factor one measures the
existing level of conservation
stewardship for priority resource
concerns at the time of enrollment.
5 ‘‘* * * the Secretary shall rank applications
based on * * * (E) the extent to which the actual
and anticipated environmental benefits from the
contract are provided at the least cost relative to
other similarly beneficial contract offers.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Ranking factor two measures the
degree that new conservation activities
improve priority resource concern
conditions.
(3) Ranking factor three measures the
number of priority resource concerns
the applicant agrees to meet during the
contract period.
(4) Ranking factor four measures the
degree that new conservation activities
improve other resource concern
conditions.
(h) CSP payment per land use equals
conservation performance points per
acre multiplied by acres multiplied by
the land use payment rate. Total
payment per contract equals the sum of
the individual land use payments.6
(i) The four policy options used in the
interim final rule are also used in the
final rule to identify tradeoffs among the
policy options, especially changes in
program acres, conservation
performance points, program costs, and
implications with respect to CSP’s
acreage and funding constraints.
Detailed descriptions of CSP, CMT,
ranking period results, and CEA
analysis can be found in the main body
of the report and the appendices.
Analysis
Results of this analysis show that CSP
participation was high across the nation.
As of December 1, 2009, NRCS had
classified 15,015 applications as
eligible. These applications involved
slightly more than 20.8 million acres,
close to double CSP’s maximum
allowable of 12.179 million acres.7
Some concerns were raised regarding
participation in ranking pools. No
applications were received in 250 of the
693 pools created for CSP. NRCS found
that the majority of these pools were
established specifically for conservation
access by beginning farmers or ranchers
and socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers. All eligible applications were
preapproved in 303 ranking pools
because allotted acreage and funding
allocations were not fully committed.
The remaining 140 pools accounted for
slightly more than 86 percent of eligible
acres, making them highly competitive.
More than 80 percent of the eligible
applicants across all land uses were
already meeting and frequently
exceeding minimum stewardship levels
on five of the eight resource concerns.
6 For CSP ranking period one, payment rates are
$0.0605 for every cropland conservation
performance point, $0.0329 for pasture, $0.0120 for
rangeland, and $0.0164 for NIPF.
7 To avoid enrolling too many acres or spending
more than the $230 million available for this first
ranking period, NRCS initially allocated 95 percent
of the 12.769 million acres. As enrollment
progressed, NRCS allocated the remaining acres.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Applicants in the initial CSP ranking
period appear to be practicing
stewardship at a fairly high level. As a
result, one would expect to see
conservation performance points earned
for existing activities to be higher than
performance points earned for
additional activities. Summary data
from pre-approved applications in the
initial ranking period confirm this
expectation. Existing conservation
performance points amounted to 61
percent of total points awarded
nationally. This 61–39 percent split
between existing and additional
conservation performance points carried
directly over into payments, with 63
percent of projected $142.6 million in
financial assistance tied to existing
activities.
The policy options described and
analyzed using representative farm and
environmental data in the interim final
rule indicated that CSP outcomes could
be fine-tuned at the national level by
changing the relative importance of the
ranking factors. Based on that analysis,
policy option 1 (four ranking factors
were weighted equally) was selected
and used for the initial CSP ranking
period. Because three of the four
ranking factors are linked directly to
additional activities, an equal weighting
scenario places considerable importance
on additional activities—enhancements
and traditional conservation practices—
proposed to be applied over a 5-year
period. The expectation was that the
highest ranked applications would
include substantially more additional
conservation activities than lower
ranked applications. One of the other
policy options might be used to
influence the mix between existing and
additional activities after reviewing
actual CSP enrollment.
The five policy options and their
reported acreage and program costs by
land use are summarized in Table 2.
Policy option 1 represents the actual
CSP ranking period where the ranking
factors are equally weighted. Analyses
conducted for policy option 2 (ranking
factor 1 receives 5 times the weight—
62.5 percent—of the other ranking
factors), policy option 3 (ranking factor
2 receives 5 times the weight—62.5
percent—of the other ranking factors),
policy option 4 (ranking factor 3
receives 5 times the weight—62.5
percent—of the other ranking factors),
and policy option 5 (ranking factor 4
receives 5 times the weight—62.5
percent—of the other ranking factors)
did not appreciably change the
percentage splits between existing and
additional performance points and
funding. Though acres and costs shifted
among the different land uses, the
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31615
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
impact on total program costs and costs
per acre suggests that policy options 2
through 5 did not substantially change
the current distributions of funds and
acres under policy option 1, which was
used for the initial CSP ranking period.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACREAGE AND COSTS BY LAND USE AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR CSP SIGN-UP ONE
Cost
per
acre
Policy Option
Acres funded in program a
Crop
land
Range
land
Pasture
Total program cost b
Total2
NIPF
Crop
land
Range
land
Pasture
(millions of acres)
No CSP ...................................
..................................................
PO–1 .......................................
..................................................
PO–2 .......................................
..................................................
PO–3 .......................................
..................................................
PO–4 .......................................
..................................................
PO–5 .......................................
N/A
..............
$14.82
..............
14.79
..............
14.66
..............
14.88
..............
15.27
0
................
4.833
................
4.570
................
4.752
................
4.726
................
4.949
0
................
0.797
................
0.792
................
0.786
................
0.773
................
0.757
0
................
5.529
................
5.568
................
5.204
................
5.452
................
5.097
NIPF
Total
($ millions)
0
................
1.019
................
0.985
................
0.951
................
1.004
................
0.950
0
................
12.179
................
11.914
................
11.694
................
11.955
................
11.753
0
................
117.308
................
112.988
................
110.659
................
115.581
................
120.171
0
14.30
6
14.33
2
14.36
4
14.36
8
13.83
6
0
38.90
9
39.16
2
37.08
3
38.41
5
36.13
7
0
9.96
3
9.68
7
9.36
7
9.86
6
9.32
1
0
180.48
6
176.16
9
171.47
2
177.85
0
179.46
5
a For this analysis, the CSP acreage cap is 12.179 million acres including the 10 percent allocated to NIPF. This was the initial allocation distributed to States shortly after closure of the initial CSP ranking period.
b Includes financial and technical assistance.
NRCS noticed some large operations
fell just below the cutoff line in many
of the pools for policy option 1, the
actual ranking period. These operations
moved up the ranked list and effectively
prevented the distribution of the full
amount of acres under the other policy
options. Their impact can be seen by
examining the total acres in Table 2.
In examining the summaries of
conservation performance points and
costs per point, the agency reached a
similar conclusion regarding the
effectiveness of policy options 2 through
5 in changing the emphasis of CSP
between existing and additional
activities (see Table 3). The relatively
insignificant changes in total
conservation performance points and
dollars per point suggest that significant
changes in the ranking process yield few
tangible results in practice. A closer
examination of the applications show
considerable shifting of the applications
in terms of rankings, but few of the
applications that were ranked low
during the actual ranking period moved
up the list to the level of approval.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE POINTS AND COST PER POINT FOR CSP POLICY OPTIONS
Dollars per point
Existing
activities
Additional
activities
Total points
Additional
activities
(millions of conservation performance points)
CSP a
No
PO–1
PO–2
PO–3
PO–4
PO–5
..........................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
a Assumes
Indeterminate
3,960
3,964
3,779
3,920
3,790
N/A
2,488
2,368
2,502
2,398
2,481
All
activities
($)
N/A
6,448
6,332
6,281
6,319
6,271
N/A
0.0573
0.0590
0.0564
0.0587
0.0576
N/A
0.0221
0.0220
0.0225
0.0223
0.0228
CSP is not available to landowners. Data are not available to assess this situation.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
b Indeterminate.
Other possible reasons were identified
to explain why the ranking process
produced such minor shifts in
conservation performance points and
funding between existing and additional
activities. Applicants, for example, who
were addressing a State’s priority
resource concerns received more
ranking points than applicants who
chose to address fewer priority resource
concerns. As part of the policy analysis,
it became apparent that ranking factor 3
moved closely with ranking factor 1. A
recommendation in the conclusions and
recommendations section breaks this
relationship with ranking factor 1,
making it strictly a factor that awards
ranking points based on proposed new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
activities that assist producers in
meeting minimum stewardship levels of
priority resource concerns.
Another possible reason is the CMT
and how activities and conservation
performance points are assigned. An
additional reason is the ranking process
itself. Modifications to account for these
two reasons are detailed in the
recommendations.
The results reported above and other
secondary results from the analysis of
eligible applications and preapproved
contracts in CSP’s initial ranking period
substantiate many of the initial CEA
findings reported in the interim final
rule. One primary finding was that the
policy constraints on the program posed
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
serious challenges for the model
developers. It is obvious that these
constraints will pose similar challenges
in implementing this program. In
particular, achieving the national
annual acreage enrollment goal at the
designated average costs per acre
mandated in legislation will be a
challenge given the heterogeneity of
producers’ initial resource conditions
and demand for enhancements. This
cautionary observation held true in the
initial ranking period and appears to be
a major concern in subsequent ranking
periods.
Second, the annual contract limit of
$40,000 per contract imposed by the
interim final rule influences program
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31616
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
outcomes. CSP gains program acreage
when large operations, 13.8 percent of
the preapproved contracts in the first
ranking period, hit the maximum
annual payment limit and remain
enrolled. Costs per acre for the program
decrease because program funding is
spread over more acres. As predicted
though, CSP’s acre constraint of 12.769
million acres becomes the controlling
factor because of the acres linked to the
large operations. Though NRCS received
an apportionment of $229,842,000, the
financial assistance portion cannot be
fully spent because the acreage
constraint was met for the initial CSP
ranking period. Furthermore, NRCS
offices incur technical assistance costs
associated with these additional acres,
regardless if the acres are capped for
payment.
Third, the policy options that were
part of the CEA in the interim final rule
proved useful in the final assessment.
The different policy scenarios
reinforced the fact that CSP outcomes
depend to a large extent on the
applications submitted for enrollment.
The policy scenarios also contributed to
a better understanding of how the
ranking factors were defined and
implemented.
Finally, program design and adaptive
program management are critical in
satisfying the mandated constraints of
this program. The model results of the
CEA used in the interim final rule
showed that caution must be used in
setting land use payment rates. This is
due to the changing land use
compositions and conservation
performance outcomes that resulted
under each alternative policy option.
Such changes could be expected in
subsequent ranking periods and alter
the acreage and conservation
performance points produced. Such
changes would need to be included in
the calculation of appropriate land use
payment rates that conform to the CSP
statute, particularly the $18 per acre
national program cost constraint.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As part of the 2008 Act, Congress
created the CSP and instructed the
Secretary of Agriculture to develop a
program that compensates a producer
for ‘‘* * * installing and adopting
additional conservation activities; and
improving, maintaining, and managing
conservation activities in place at the
operation of the producer at the time the
contract offer is accepted by the
Secretary.’’ Producers must also meet
minimum stewardship levels before
they become eligible for CSP. Acreage,
budget, a national average price of $18
per acre, and a maximum annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
payment of $40,000 per contract
established in the interim final rule also
complicate program implementation.
The CSP as currently implemented
received more than enough applications
to make it a competitive program. Of the
15,015 eligible applications, 10,743
were preapproved for enrollment, and
those selected were the highest ranked
eligible applications. The preapproved
applications resulted in 61–39 percent
split in conservation performance points
and 63–37 percent split in program
payments between existing and
additional activities, respectively. The
acreage constraint limited the ability of
NRCS to distribute all the funds
provided by Congress.
Though little guidance is given on a
suitable split of financial assistance
funds between existing and additional
conservation activities, preliminary
analysis indicates that the initial CSP
ranking period attracted practicing
conservationists. Almost every
applicant met the stewardship threshold
requirement at the time of application.
More than 80 percent of the applicants
were meeting five resource concerns at
time of application. The $40 thousand
cap per contract and the requirement
that all acres of an operation must be
enrolled impacted CSP. The acreage
constraint became the limiting factor
because 1,487 (13.8 percent)
preapproved applications exceeded the
cap, but their acres were counted,
making it impossible for NRCS to
distribute all the funds.
A total of five policy options were
developed as candidates for improving
CSP’s overall cost effectiveness at the
national level. These policy options are
directly tied to CSP’s ranking process.
Under policy option 1, the four ranking
factors are equally weighted. In the
remaining options, each ranking factor
is separately weighted five times more
important than the other factors. Based
on the interim analysis, the ranking
process recommended and implemented
for the first CSP sign-up was policy
option 1. This translated into an
effective weighting scheme of 25
percent for existing activities and 75
percent for additional activities.
For the most part, these policy
options exhibited their intended
impacts. With each change in the
weights assigned to the ranking factors,
ranking scores changed, and
applications moved up and down in
ranking based on their mix of existing
and additional conservation activities
and whether priority resource concerns
were being targeted. With five times the
weight assigned to ranking factor 1
(policy option 2), for example, NRCS
observed applications with many
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
existing practices earning more ranking
points than applications with fewer
existing practices and applications with
similar additional activities. When
weights were assigned to ranking factors
that captured additional activities,
NRCS observed the opposite.
Applications with many additional
activities ranked higher than
applications with a similar complement
of existing activities and applications
with fewer additional activities. Overall,
policy options 2 through 5 did not yield
substantially different changes in
conservation performance points and
financial assistance between existing
and additional activities. Analysis of the
data suggests that this initial CSP
ranking period attracted practicing
conservationists. NRCS expects future
ranking periods to be more
representative of the larger agricultural
sector as others learn about CSP and the
remaining population of practicing
conservationists yet to enroll declines
with each ranking period.
There is insufficient evidence of
improved cost effectiveness to replace
policy option 1 with any of the other
options. Prior to CSP ranking period
two, NRCS will review key program
components—eligibility requirements,
minimum stewardship levels,
conservation activities and conservation
performance points, CMT, and ranking
factor specifications—and make any
necessary modifications. In addition,
NRCS will investigate other ranking
factor processes, additional ranking
criteria, and separate prices for existing
and additional conservation
performance points. As data becomes
available and is analyzed from each new
ranking period, NRCS will make
necessary changes to improve CSP’s cost
effectiveness.
Discussion of Program
The 2008 Act amended the Food
Security Act of 1985 to establish the
CSP and authorize the program in fiscal
years 2009 through 2012. The CSP
statute provides that the Secretary will
carry out a stewardship program to
encourage producers to address resource
concerns in a comprehensive manner by
(1) undertaking additional conservation
activities, and (2) by improving,
maintaining, and managing existing
conservation activities. On July 29,
2009, NRCS published an interim final
rule for CSP with a 60-day public
comment period. On September 21,
2009, the public comment period was
extended 30 days.
NRCS explained in the preamble of
the interim final rule, that it will
provide financial and technical
assistance to eligible producers to
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
conserve and enhance soil, water, air,
and related natural resources on their
land. Eligible lands include cropland,
grassland, prairie land, improved
pastureland, rangeland, NIPF,
agricultural land under the jurisdiction
of an Indian tribe, and other private
agricultural land (including cropped
woodland, marshes, and agricultural
land used for the production of
livestock) on which resource concerns
related to agricultural production could
be addressed.
The NRCS State Conservationist, in
consultation with the State Technical
Committee and local working groups,
will focus program impacts on natural
resources that are of specific concern for
a State, or the specific geographic areas
within a State. Applications will be
evaluated relative to other applications
addressing similar priority resource
concerns to facilitate a competitive
ranking process among applicants who
face similar resource challenges. The
program is national in scope, and
participation is voluntary.
CSP provides participants with two
possible types of payments: (1) Annual
payments will be offered through splitrate payments; one payment for
installing and adopting additional
activities, and one for improving,
maintaining, and managing existing
activities. This payment structure is
different from the annual payments
offered for contracts selected in the 2009
enrollment period. Contracts selected in
the 2009 enrollment period will receive
an annual payment that combines the
conservation performance from
additional and existing conservation
activities. Annual payments may also
include compensation for on-farm
research and demonstration activities or
pilot testing, and (2) Supplemental
payment for the adoption of resourceconserving crop rotations on cropland.
The 2008 Act directed the
development of the CMT to estimate the
level of environmental benefit to be
achieved by a producer in implementing
conservation activities. NRCS
successfully implemented the CMT
during its first sign-up. The CMT
effectively evaluated the stewardship
threshold requirements, estimated
conservation performance, generated a
ranking score, and calculated
conservation performance payment
points. Preliminary data analysis
showed the CMT fairly evaluated
conservation performance on different
sizes and types of operations, across
different land uses, for all regions of the
country. Although the tool performed
well, NRCS recognized that
improvements were necessary to
improve clarity of the questions being
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
asked of clients. Therefore, NRCS
assembled a team of technical experts to
analyze the questions in the CMT that
could be misunderstood, identify those
needing adjustment, and provide
recommendations to the Chief.
NRCS designed the program to
recognize excellent stewards and deliver
valuable new conservation on every CSP
contract. The agency developed
multiple program features to enable it to
realize this objective, including:
(1) Bundling enhancements to
encourage participants to address
additional resource concerns in a more
comprehensive manner. NRCS updated
its enhancement list and adopted the
concept of bundling for the second
ranking period. Certain enhancements
will be offered as ‘‘bundles.’’ The
bundling concept enables participants
and the nation to realize conservation
benefits from the synergy that results
when activities are implemented as a
system. Participants who elect to bundle
enhancements receive a positive
adjustment in their ranking score and
payments.
(2) Calculating payments based on a
process that considers conservation
performance points rather than just
acres. Each conservation activity has a
performance value. Basing payments on
conservation performance points rather
than a rate per acre enables participants
to influence their payment rates
according to the type and number of
conservation activities they are willing
to adopt.
(3) Placing a higher value on
payments for additional activities versus
existing activities through split-rate
payments. For contracts selected for
enrollment during the first ranking
period, NRCS provided participants
with an annual payment. Although the
single annual payment was calculated
giving consideration to both new and
existing activities, participants could
not readily distinguish the value of each
since the participant received one
payment. For the second and future
application ranking periods, NRCS
intends to calculate payments for
additional conservation activities at a
higher payment rate than existing
activities with the goal of providing a
majority of payments to compensate
producers for implementing additional
conservation. In the initial ranking
period, 63 percent of the payments were
attributed to existing conservation
activities. NRCS believes this higher
payment for additional conservation
performance will encourage producers
to apply additional activities and serve
to maximize net additional
environmental benefits as much as
possible beyond the current 63:37 ratio.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31617
(4) Requiring the adoption of
additional conservation activities to
earn annual payments. To earn annual
payments for an eligible land use, a
participant must schedule, install, and
adopt at least one additional
conservation activity on that land-use
type. Eligible land-use types that fail to
have at least one additional
conservation activity scheduled,
installed, and adopted will not receive
annual payments.
(5) Implementing a State allocation
process that considers the extent and
magnitude of conservation needs
associated with agriculture production.
The State allocation process will
consider natural resource data from
sources like the NRI related to the
nation’s major resources concerns,
including water quality and quantity,
soil quality, air quality, and wildlife
habitat.
(6) Developing contract renewal
criteria that require new conservation
activities. In order to renew a contract
after the initial contract period,
participants will need to expand the
degree, scope, and comprehensiveness
of conservation activities by meeting an
expanded stewardship threshold
requirement and agreeing to adopt
additional activities during the renewal
period.
In establishing the measures and
methodologies NRCS will use to
monitor program performance, the
agency believes the CMT will assist in
measuring outcomes. The conservation
performance the CMT estimates is
measured in terms of relative physical
effects; they are not true environmental
benefits. However, the CMT
performance estimates are a step
forward from output measures, like
acres of conservation practices, used by
former programs. NRCS acknowledges
challenges, but intends to pursue the
use of CEAP results with CMT
performance data to help produce
meaningful estimates of environmental
effects accomplished through CSP.
NRCS received numerous comments
on CSP as it relates to organic farming,
including that the regulations and
overall design of the program should
include specifically organic
conservation activities, as well as
ensuring that all conservation activities
rewarded under the program include
appropriate variations relevant to
organic farms where the standard
conservation practice may be
inappropriate for organic systems;
organic crop and livestock systems
should be recognized for their
environmental benefits.
Since organic producers have adopted
a number of conservation measures that
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31618
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
have significant environmental benefits,
CSP provides opportunities for their
participation. The NRCS document
entitled ‘‘The Conservation Stewardship
Program’s Contribution to Organic
Transitioning’’ highlights how CSP can
be used by organic producers. The
questions in the CMT are designed to
assess conservation outcomes on the
land. As such, the questions do not
specifically distinguish between organic
and non-organic producers. However, in
most instances organic producers
should score very well in the CMT by
the use of cover crops, perennials,
diverse rotations, and limited use of
pesticides. In addition, CSP offers a
number of enhancements targeted
specifically at organic producers.
NRCS takes seriously its
responsibilities related to providing
conservation opportunities to organic
producers. The agency is working to
ensure its field office staffs have
adequate training to work with organic
farmers. Individual States conducted
numerous training sessions on
conservation planning with organic
producers. A national teleconference on
organic certification has been
conducted, and plans are in place to
work with several private organic
groups to provide training to NRCS
State specialists on organic farming
systems.
Summary of Initial Ranking Period
NRCS began accepting program
applications for the initial ranking
period on August 10, 2009. The cut-off
for the initial ranking period was
September 30, 2009.
Each application was evaluated for
basic eligibility criteria: applicant
eligibility, land eligibility, and the
stewardship threshold requirement. To
meet the stewardship threshold
requirement, an applicant must meet or
exceed the threshold level for at least
one resource concern at the time of the
application, and at least one priority
resource concern by the end of the
contract period.
NRCS assisted applicants with
completing a resource inventory of their
operation using the CMT. The CMT
estimates conservation performance to
determine if the application meets the
minimum stewardship threshold
requirement. Conservation performance
points estimated by the CMT are also
used to determine application ranking
scores and contract payment levels.
The conservation performance
ranking score is used to determine the
priority of funding for an applicant.
Applicants will be funded starting with
the highest score and working down the
list until acres are exhausted. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
conservation performance ranking score
is based on five factors:
(1) The level of conservation
treatment on priority resource concerns
at the time of application.
(2) The degree to which treatment on
priority resource concerns increases
conservation performance.
(3) The number of priority resource
concerns to be treated to meet or exceed
thresholds by the end of the contract.
(4) The extent to which other resource
concerns will be addressed to meet or
exceed stewardship thresholds by the
end of the contract.
(5) A tie-breaker factor is used in the
event that application ranking scores are
similar. The application that represents
the least cost to the program will be
given higher priority.
To reach CSP’s authorized annual
acreage enrollment limit of 12,769,000
acres, NRCS allocated acreage to States
based primarily on each State’s
proportion of eligible land. Within
States, NRCS pre-approved applications
for funding based on ranking scores and
funding pool acreage allocations. As of
December 1, 2010, over 10,700
applications were pre-approved for
program participation.
Preliminary analysis of the initial
ranking period provided NRCS with
some key findings.
(a) Producer interest in CSP was high.
During the initial ranking period, NRCS
received over 21,000 applications on an
estimated 33 million acres from across
the Nation including the Caribbean and
Pacific Island areas. In general,
applicants were diverse in terms of size
of operation, land use type, and
geographical location. Rangeland was
the land use most offered for program
consideration (51 percent of acres),
followed by cropland (37 percent), NIPF
(7 percent), and pastureland (5 percent).
(b) Water quality (89 percent of
pools), plants (85 percent pools),
wildlife (77 percent pools), soil quality
(nearly 70 percent of pools) were the top
priority resource concerns identified in
the funding pools by the States.
(c) Eligible applicants share a
common characteristic—they are
excellent stewards of the land. In fact,
80 percent of applicants met five
resource concerns at the time of
application. Conservation performance
payment points from existing activities
equaled 63 percent of the total points
generated. This dominance of practicing
land stewards in the initial ranking
period limited the agency’s ability to
change the relative weights on the
factors in the ranking process and
substantially alter the distribution of
conservation performance payment
points between existing and additional
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
activities. Future sign-ups will likely
draw applicants from the larger
agricultural community where the level
of stewardship may be lower, thus
giving additional activities a larger role
in the ranking of applications.
Discussion of Comments and
Regulatory Changes
NRCS solicited comments on the CSP
interim final rule from July 29, 2009,
through October 28, 2009. The original
comment period ended on September
28, 2009, but was extended through
October 28, 2009, to enable the public
to submit comments throughout the
program’s first enrollment period. NRCS
received 208 letters representing 208
individual signatures. The total number
of letters received includes five
identical duplicate letters and eight
letters from eight individuals submitting
more than one unique letter. A total of
1,534 comments were assessed during
the content analysis process.
In addition to requesting public
comment in general on the rule and the
environmental analysis, NRCS sought
comment on the following specific
issues:
Ranking Factors—NRCS requested
input on the appropriate weighting of
the five ranking factors that are intended
to maximize environmental benefits
while maintaining consistency with the
statutory purposes of the program.
Payments—Setting the annual
payment rates represented a significant
challenge for NRCS. In addition to
managing the program within the
national average rate of $18 per acre, the
2008 Act also provides an acreage
enrollment limit of 12,769,000 acres for
each fiscal year. To address these
constraints, NRCS used the first ranking
period as a payment discovery period to
arrive at a uniform payment rate per
conservation performance point by
eligible land use type. NRCS requested
public comment on ways to address
program acreage and payment
constraints, refine the payment
approach, and make annual payments
more consistent and predictable.
Additionally NRCS sought public
comment on the proper distribution of
CSP annual payments between payment
for additional activities and payment for
existing activities.
Contract Renewal Criteria—Section
1470.26 in the interim final rule
provided that NRCS will permit contract
renewals to foster participant
commitment to increased conservation
performance. NRCS sought public
comment on the contract renewal
criteria.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
State Allocations—NRCS requested
comments on the factors used to allocate
acres to States.
Stewardship Threshold—NRCS
requested input on whether meeting the
stewardship threshold on one resource
concern and one priority resource
concern is adequate, or if that number
should be greater.
Wildlife as Priority Resource
Concerns—NRCS requested comments
on whether or not at least one of the
priority resource concerns should
specifically be identified to address
wildlife habitat issues.
The topics that generated the greatest
response include 1470.7 Enhancements
and Conservation Practices, 1470.20
Application and Ranking, and 1470.24
Payments.
The public comments are addressed
by section number. The CSP regulation
is organized into three subparts: Subpart
A—General Provisions; Subpart B—
Contracts; and Subpart C—General
Administration. Below is a summary of
the comments received for each section
and the agency response.
Subpart A—General Provisions
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Section 1470.1
Applicability
A total of 16 comments were received.
This section sets forth the purpose,
procedures, and requirements of CSP.
The subject of the comments varied
considerably. Commenters offered
thoughts and ideas regarding the intent
of the program, program goals, and
whether CSP appeals to new farmers or
small farmers using CSP in coordination
with other Farm Bill programs, organic
production, local food sources, and
education and training.
NRCS received four comments in
support of the program intent.
Commenters expressed that this
program is an improvement over the
Conservation Security Program from the
perspective of fairness in measuring
sustainability and as a tool that has the
possibility of being an agent of change,
making agriculture more sustainable
and coexisting, or as a part of essential
ecosystems; the new CSP holds
tremendous potential to make a
significant contribution to assisting
farmers, ranchers, and private forest
landowners in solving some of the
nation’s most pressing environmental
problems. A third identified that
implementation in all States is critical
to maximizing the program’s potential;
the fourth commented that the program
is long overdue—both farms and the
environment will benefit from the
program. Some commenters expressed
that CSP should be available for small
farmers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments. NRCS
agrees that CSP can make a significant
contribution in assisting farmers,
ranchers, and private forest landowners
with their conservation efforts
regardless of the size of the operation,
production type, or land use.
Comments
Three commenters expressed thoughts
related to program goals. One
commenter expressed that sustainability
is related to not only soil conservation
and crop yields but also an ecological
responsibility. CSP goals should include
helping farmers in similar farming
systems become more sustainable. One
commenter supported the organic
production assistance as long as the
conservation priorities and
requirements for air, water, soil, and
wildlife are being met. The third
commenter advised that NRCS should
follow the intent of the law. The
statutory purpose of CSP is
comprehensive resource management
with emphasis on producers improving
or adding additional conservation
activities to their operation.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments. NRCS
determined the regulation aligns with
the commenters recommendations.
Section 1470.1, paragraph (d) identifies
that NRCS will provide program
participants financial and technical
assistance for the conservation,
protection, and improvement of soil,
water, and other related natural
resources. By addressing resource
concerns in a comprehensive manner,
farming systems will become more
sustainable.
NRCS is following the program’s
intent provided for in statute. The
statute directs the Secretary to carry out
a CSP to encourage producers to address
resource concerns in a comprehensive
manner by:
(a) Undertaking additional
conservation activities; and
(b) Improving, maintaining, and
managing existing conservation
activities.
Comments
NRCS received concerns about CSP
only reaching those who already
participate in conservation programs, as
well as a recommendation for more
levels of conservation in the categories
in both the CMT and enhancement list.
While the overall score may not allow
a lower conservation threshold to enter
a contract under current acreage
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31619
limitations, demand for the program and
ecological benefits to the public could
drive an increase in legislative acreage
and funding levels.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments. NRCS
disagrees that the CSP only reaches
farmers who currently use conservation
programs. NRCS conducts outreach to
all producers without limiting
participation because of size or type of
operation or previous participation in
conservation programs. The level of
producer interest for the initial ranking
period demonstrates that the program is
attractive to all producers who are
willing to install new or improve,
maintain, or manage existing
conservation systems.
It is clear by the establishment of the
stewardship thresholds in the CSP
statute that CSP is to be delivered to
lands that have existing conservation
measures addressing at least one
resource concern and must meet one
priority resource concern by the end of
the contract period. NRCS places no
priority on existing conservation
measures having been previously
installed under USDA or other
conservation programs. NRCS will
continue to provide planning assistance
to other cost-share programs for
beginning resource stewards and those
not approved for CSP. As producers
improve their environmental
performance they may have their
application re-evaluated in subsequent
ranking periods.
NRCS agrees that demands for the
program and ecological benefits may
influence the authorized acreage and
funding levels.
Comments
Four commenters expressed
recommendations related to CSP being a
working lands program. The
commenters largely want the program to
be targeted to the needs of working
agriculture lands and their operators
and improving the land for the next
generation.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments. The
program rules and ranking process focus
on conservation activities on working
lands. In addition, the majority of the
conservation activities available through
the program are specifically targeted to
working lands.
Comments
NRCS received comments related to
placing particular focus, attention,
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31620
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
weight, and publicity on programs that
increase local food that is grown using
local resources.
NRCS Response
Although NRCS welcomes new ideas
related to working with small farms,
local food production, and improving
the resource conditions on these farms,
no change is made to the rule in
response to these comments. In
recognition of the importance of the
locally grown movement to the nation’s
food producers, the program offers an
enhancement specifically for locally
grown and marketed farm products for
those interested in improving their
resource stewardship and selling
produce through local markets.
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
clarify that CSP can be used in a
coordinated manner with all other Farm
Bill conservation programs to address
resource concerns in a comprehensive
manner. This approach is consistent
with the Managers’ Report that
encourages NRCS to use other
conservation programs to assist
landowners in achieving conservation
objectives. The rule should clarify that
enrollment in other conservation
programs, such as EQIP and WHIP, does
not exclude producers from CSP, and
these programs can be used in
conjunction with CSP to address
resource concerns provided that
producers do not receive duplicate
payments on the same acres.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS promotes the use of other
programs to address resource concerns
in a comprehensive manner. The agency
allows applicants to identify other
practices they are willing to implement
to meet resource concerns that they are
not currently meeting. These additional
practices could be cost-shared through
other NRCS programs if the practices are
not being compensated through CSP. In
addition, NRCS encourages producers
that are not currently eligible for CSP to
contact their NRCS office or visit the
Web site at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/ to find out about other
conservation programs that can assist
them on meeting their conservation
needs. To address the concerns by the
public, NRCS amends the rule in
paragraph 1470.7 by adding paragraph
(c) to read, ‘‘CSP encourages the use of
other NRCS programs to install
conservation practices that are required
to meet the agreed-upon stewardship
thresholds, but the practices may not be
compensated through CSP.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Comments
One commenter offered that there is a
need for expert education and training
and close CSP implementation scrutiny.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to this comment. NRCS agrees
that its employees and clients need to be
well informed about this program and
that it needs to monitor operations to
ensure the program is being applied
consistently across the country. To
address the educational component of
the comment, NRCS made available to
the public detailed documentation
explaining program processes, payment
rate establishment, CMT matrixes,
questions, and scoring calculations.
Documentation can be found at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/
csp.html. In addition, NRCS conducted
a series of demonstrations and
informational meetings for internal and
external customers.
Section 1470.2
Administration
Comments
A total of 35 comments were received
on section 1470.2, ‘‘Administration.’’
This section describes the roles of NRCS
at the national and State levels. Most of
the comments related to acreage
enrollment levels and historically
underserved producers. However, a few
comments were received related to signup administration, and one comment
related to pollinators.
One commenter expressed the need
for NRCS to ensure policies are being
implemented consistently across field
offices. The commenter identified that
the farmers they work with noted clear
variability between county offices in the
interpretations of various aspects of
CSP, both in answering CMT questions
and the application of conservation
practices and enhancement activities.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes the need for
consistency in implementing this
program. NRCS will ensure training of
field office staff on a continuous basis
to ensure quality program delivery.
Sign-Up Periods
Comments
Four comments were received related
to sign-up periods; the commenters are
concerned about the timing of the signup, urging NRCS to choose sign-up
periods carefully and avoid closing
ranking periods and farm evaluations
during busy times of the year for
farmers, such as spring planting and fall
harvest. NRCS received inquiries
regarding whether allocated acres will
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be transferred to other States if they are
not used, and how the rankings are
created other than the electronic tool
available only to NRCS personnel; and
one commenter expressed that
agriculture funds are not intended just
for an ever shrinking group who are
growing certain commodities.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes that having a signup at a time that is suitable to its clients
is critical for the success of the program.
Therefore, NRCS offers a continuous
sign-up which allows producers to
submit their application at any time.
NRCS is fine-tuning the CMT design so
it can be used to evaluate applications
accepted throughout the continuous
sign-up period, allowing for
applications to be ready for evaluation
in advance of an announced sign-up and
funding cycle. NRCS will make every
effort to enable those interested in
applying for the program to have ample
time to do so.
Regarding the need for information
about ranking, ranking pools within
States were established based on
geographic area boundaries. Each State
identified, with review and input from
the State Technical Committee, a
minimum of three and a maximum of
five priority resource concerns for each
geographic area. The priority resource
concerns selected for each ranking pool
are used on three out of the four ranking
factors, thereby ensuring that program
dollars are addressing the critical
resource concerns for each State ranking
pool area. Priority resource concerns
rank higher than non-priority resource
concerns.
In any fiscal year, acres allocated to a
State that are not enrolled by a date
determined by the Chief, may be
reallocated with associated financial
and technical assistance funds to
another State for use in that fiscal year.
The CMT is the only approved tool to
determine the relative conservation
physical effects of conservation
activities on natural resource concerns
and energy to estimate the existing
conservation performance levels and the
additional conservation performance
improvement to be achieved by an
applicant. The tool is currently Web
based and linked to the NRCS Programs
Contracting Software. There is no way
to make the tool available to the public
at this time. However, it is NRCS’
intention to move the tool to a Web
environment where it can be accessible
by the public. Until these adjustments
are complete, NRCS will provide
producers with a hard copy of the
questions that may be used to evaluate
their applications if requested.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS disagrees that program funds
are targeted to a small select group. The
CSP is a nationwide program open to all
eligible producers regardless of the type
of crops that are grown. Payments
through CSP are not subsidies, but
rather a contract payment for providing
environmental benefits from
maintaining existing conservation
activities and adopting new
conservation activities. CSP is not
limited to commodity producers and is
‘‘operation size’’ neutral in its
application ranking.
Comments
One commenter requested
clarification on how NRCS arrived at its
policy option findings by evaluating in
its decisionmaking matrix both the
computerized-modeling formula and the
key statutory-policy phrase ‘‘to the
maximum extent practicable.’’
NRCS Response
The policy option findings that were
reported in the benefit-cost analysis
were generated using a model that
incorporated most of the CSP’s program
constraints, as well as using secondary
data on the characteristics of potential
participants and a prototype of the
CMT. The CMT was not complete when
the analysis was done. The objective of
the analysis was to estimate the
direction of change in program
outcomes given certain policy options—
not to predict with certainty what future
program enrollment and outcomes
would be. In that analysis, any
outcomes that involved violations in the
program constraints were reported, even
though care was taken so as to meet
them ‘‘to the maximum extent
practicable.’’
Acreage Enrollment Levels
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
Twenty-two comments were received
relaying the same message; the entire
acreage designated by Congress should
be available over the life of the Farm
Bill. NRCS also received comments that
it should decrease its administrative
costs. The conservation stewardship
plan will clearly be an important
integral part of any contract, but the
plan development and oversight costs
must be balanced with the
implementation costs borne by the
participating farm operator. One
commenter recommended a new
paragraph (4) be added to 1470.2(c) to
stipulate that NRCS will develop and
make available the organic crosswalk;
one commenter recommended NRCS
change paragraph 1470.2(c)(1) by
inserting ‘‘each year’’ immediately prior
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
to ‘‘to determine enrollments.’’ In
paragraph (d) insert after ‘‘$18 per acre’’
the following words directly from the
statute: ‘‘During the period beginning on
October 1, 2008, and ending on
September 30, 2017.’’
NRCS Response
NRCS conducted an analysis using
the Cost of Programs Model to
determine the funds needed to promote
and deliver the CSP. In addition, real
time application data was used to
establish the national payment rates to
determine the distribution of financial
assistance to meet program constraints.
The CSP presents a significant shift in
how NRCS delivers and provides
conservation program payments. Under
CSP, participants are paid for
conservation performance. Therefore, it
is inappropriate to compare a traditional
program like EQIP with CSP.
NRCS does not agree that additional
direction related to providing assistance
for organic production is necessary. The
statute provides that outreach and
technical assistance are available to
specialty crop and organic producers
and their ability to participate in the
program. Additionally, the program
offers activities for the transition to
organic cropping and organic grazing
systems.
To achieve the conservation goals of
CSP, NRCS will:
(1) Make the program available
nationwide to eligible applicants on a
continuous application basis with one
or more ranking periods to determine
enrollments. One of the ranking periods
will occur in the first quarter of each
fiscal year, to the extent practicable; and
(2) To add clarity to the regulation,
NRCS will amend paragraph 1470.2(d)
to read as follows: During the period
beginning on October 1, 2008, and
ending on September 30, 2017, NRCS
will, to the maximum extent practical:
(1) Enroll in CSP an additional
12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year,
and (2) Manage CSP to achieve a
national average rate of $18 per acre,
which includes the costs of all financial
and technical assistance, and any other
expenses associated with program
enrollment and participation.
Historically Underserved Populations
Comments
Several comments were received
related to historically underserved
producers with the majority of the
concerns directed to socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and
beginning farmers or ranchers. One
commenter expressed that the CRIA is
incomplete and appeared to overstate
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31621
conclusions. Additional analysis is
necessary, as is implementation of
transparency and accountability
provisions in section 14006 of the Farm
Bill. Another commenter recommended
NRCS require and conduct reviews in
each State to address anticipated needs
as well as gaps in participation in
specific programs by federally
recognized Indian tribes and by socially
disadvantaged and other historically
underserved producer groups by race,
gender, and ethnicity. A third
commenter expressed that NRCS must
have a methodology for informing
socially disadvantaged producers of the
reasons for the refusal of a CSP contract.
Another requested that NRCS ensure the
set-asides for socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers and beginning
farmers or ranchers are swiftly and
thoroughly implemented. One
commenter requested sections 1470.2(e)
and 1470.20(1)(3) be revised to establish
that the 5 percent set-aside for
beginning farmers or ranchers and for
socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers be target floors, not ceilings.
NRCS Response
NRCS has standard procedures to
formally inform all applicants of the
reasons they were not awarded a CSP
contract. Along with the determination,
applicants are offered appeal rights.
This agency policy can be found in the
Conservation Program Contracting
Manual, Part 512 located at https://
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/
RollupViewer.aspx?hid=25932.
CSP policy provides that each State
set aside a minimum of 5 percent of
their State acre allocation for these
ranking pools. To add clarity and
provide flexibility to set aside more than
5 percent, NRCS moved the language
related to ranking pools for these groups
by deleting the text in 1470.2(e) and
adding text in 1470.4(b) to read as
follows: Of the acres made available for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012
to carry out CSP, NRCS will use, as a
minimum: (1) 5 percent to assist
beginning farmers or ranchers, and (2) 5
percent to assist socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers. Paragraph (b) has
been redesignated as paragraph (c) and
amended for clarity to read ‘‘In any
fiscal year, allocated acres that are not
enrolled by a date determined by NRCS,
may be reallocated with associated
funds for use in that fiscal year under
CSP.’’
Section 1470.3
Definitions
Comments
Thirty-eight comments were received
on section 1470.3, ‘‘Definitions.’’ This
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31622
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
section sets forth definitions for terms
used throughout this regulation.
Agriculture Land
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
insert ‘‘including energy’’ after
‘‘agricultural products.’’
NRCS Response
NRCS is retaining the definition in the
interim final rule to be consistent with
other NRCS programs. Crops for
producing energy are included in the
term agricultural products. Although
NRCS is retaining the definition for
consistency and clarification purposes,
NRCS adds the following text to the end
of the definition: ‘‘Agriculture lands may
also include other land and incidental
areas included in the agricultural
operation as determined by NRCS.
Other agricultural lands include
cropped woodland, marshes, incidental
areas included in the agriculture
operation, and other types of
agricultural land used for production of
livestock.’’
Agriculture Operation
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One commenter responded that the
definition is inconsistent with the
statute, which reads ‘‘eligible land shall
include all acres of an agricultural
operation of the producer, whether or
not contiguous, that is under the
effective control of the producer at the
time the producer enters into a
stewardship contract.’’ There is a
conflict between the words ‘‘under
effective control * * * for the term of
the proposed contract’’ vs. ‘‘under
effective control * * * at the time the
producer enters into a stewardship
contract.’’
One commenter expressed support for
the definition in the interim final rule
because it allows landowners to
participate.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees that the definition of
agriculture operation needs to be
consistent with the intent of the statute.
Therefore, NRCS amends the definition
of agricultural operation and adds a
definition for effective control to clarify
that control of the land is needed from
the time the producer enters the
stewardship contract and for the
required period of the contract.
Agricultural operation means all
agricultural land and other land, as
determined by NRCS, whether
contiguous or noncontiguous:
(1) Which is under the effective
control of the applicant, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Which is operated by the applicant
with equipment, labor, management,
and production or cultivation practices
that are substantially separate from
other operations.
Effective control is defined to mean
the possession of the land by
ownership, written lease, or other legal
agreement and authority to act as
decisionmaker for the day-to-day
management of the operation both at the
time the applicant enters into a
stewardship contract and for the
required period of the contract.
Beginning Farmer or Rancher
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
change the definition of beginning
farmer or rancher to make it conform to
the definition of socially disadvantaged
farmer or rancher with respect to
entities. In both cases, entities in which
at least 50 percent ownership in the
farm business is held by the target
population should qualify.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to this comment. NRCS retains
the agency’s official definition that was
published in the interim final rule to be
consistent with other USDA and NRCS
programs.
Conservation Planning
Comments
One commenter requested the
definition be revised to bring it into
accord with statute concerning
conservation planning, including the
addition of conservation planning in the
conservation activities definition, the
contract definition, and the payments
section.
NRCS Response
NRCS did not include conservation
planning as part of the conservation
activities to be compensated because the
producer will not incur any cost for
planning. The CSP delivery model
necessitates a conservation stewardship
plan prior to contract obligation.
Therefore, the plan must precede the
contract for which payment is granted.
The authorizing language provides that
payments will not be provided for
conservation activities for which there
is no cost incurred or income forgone.
No changes are made to the rule in
response to this comment.
Conservation Activities
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
change the definition to include
enhancements and a change to the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
enhancement definition to incorporate
environmental quality and to explicitly
include the management and
maintenance of existing enhancements
and the adoption of new enhancements.
One commenter expressed concern
that the definition in the statute
includes agricultural drainage systems
and that the wording may promote
wetland drainage. The commenter
encouraged NRCS to utilize other
conservation programs such as those
available through the continuous
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
(buffers, filter strips, etc.) to achieve
priority resource concerns such as water
quality.
NRCS Response
NRCS retains the current definition to
be consistent with the language in the
legislation. NRCS does not feel it is
appropriate to add the program purpose
to the definition of conservation
activities.
NRCS acknowledges the concern
related to the language in the statute
that may promote wetland drainage.
NRCS addressed this concern by
offering two agricultural drainage water
management enhancements with
specific criteria to manage existing
drainage system to reduce the potential
for water quality problems from
drainage water and to manipulate
systems for wildlife habitat benefits.
The program promotes buffers, filter
strips, and other vegetative practices to
address water quality concerns as well
as other natural resources.
Conservation Practice
Comments
NRCS received a recommendation
that it amend the definition to include
‘‘commonly used to meet a specific need
in planning and carrying out soil and
water conservation programs, including
wildlife management and forest health
for which standards and specifications
* * *’’ The NRCS conservation practice
standards not only address soil and
water conservation but also wildlife
habitat management and forest health.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the comment and
amends the definition to read as
follows: Conservation practice means a
specified treatment, such as a structural
or vegetative practice or management
technique, commonly used to meet a
specific need in planning and carrying
out conservation programs for which
standards and specifications have been
developed. Conservation practices are in
the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide
(FOTG), Section IV, which is based on
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the National Handbook of Conservation
Practices.
Enhancements
Comments
One commenter recommended NRCS
change the definition for
‘‘enhancements’’ to read ‘‘a type of
activity and the associated
infrastructure and equipment installed
and adopted to treat natural resources
and improve conservation
performance.’’
NRCS Response
No change is made to the rule in
response to this comment. NRCS is
retaining the current definition of
enhancements. The definition provides
that enhancements are a type of
conservation activity used to treat
natural resources and improve
conservation performance. This
includes, by implication, the
‘‘infrastructure and equipment’’
necessary for an enhancement. In many
cases enhancements are management
actions that do not require equipment or
infrastructure.
Management Measure
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
insert ‘‘or conservation system’’ after
‘‘conservation practice.’’
NRCS Response
No change has been made to the rule
in response to this comment. NRCS
retains the current definition of
management measure. A conservation
system could be considered a
management measure.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Nonindustrial Private Forest Land
Comments
NRCS received four comments on the
definition of NIPF. One commenter
supports the definition as written in the
interim final rule. Another commenter
requested NRCS remove or qualify the
phrase ‘‘or is suitable for growing trees’’
to preclude the planting of trees in
places that will further diminish habitat
for at-risk species. A third commenter
requested clarification on the overlap
that exists between forest land and
incidental forest lands on agricultural
operations by defining incidental forest
lands under the agricultural land
definition. A fourth commenter
requested the ‘‘agriculture land’’ and
‘‘agricultural operation’’ definitions be
updated to include NIPF.
NRCS Response
The 2008 Act provides the definition
of NIPF which is applicable to all Title
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
2 conservation programs, including
CSP; therefore, NRCS keeps the current
definition as provided in the interim
final rule.
NRCS is preventing an overlap
between NIPF and incidental forest land
by not allowing incidental forest land to
be included in an agricultural operation
contract for program payments.
However, if an applicant designates the
forest land for funding consideration,
then it will be considered as a
component of the operation and will be
offered as separate application.
Resource-Conserving Crops
Comments
NRCS received a significant number
of comments on the definition of
resource-conserving crops. Seventeen
commenters requested that the
definition specifically require a
perennial grass, legume, or legume-grass
mixture for use as a forage, seed for
planting, or green manure to be part of
the rotation. A number of these
commenters also expressed that
rotations that include only crops eligible
for Farm Bill commodity subsidies
should not qualify as resourceconserving.
Although one commenter supported
the definition of resource-conserving
crop and the use of supplemental
payments for implementing resourceconserving crop rotations, many more
were critical. Critical comments
included the concern that a commodity
crop rotation with ‘‘high’’ residue is not
a sufficiently effective practice; NRCS
should return to the strong definition
used for the 2005 CSP interim final rule
to ensure that farmers are being paid for
significant environmental benefits;
NRCS has chosen to allow the simplest
of rotations, some of which result in no
or close to no conservation benefits and
are simply standard, production-related
rotations; definition fails to meet the
intent of the Farm Bill managers who
‘‘do not intend for the Secretary to pay
for no-till or other common practices
that have no cost to the producers; and
fix the definition so that it clearly
rewards complex rotations that deliver
significant environmental benefits and
so that farmers implementing rotations
rightly merit the supplemental
payments.
NRCS Response
NRCS has evaluated all comments
received on the definition of ‘‘resourceconserving crop’’ and revises the
definition to read as follows: resourceconserving crop means a crop that is
one of the following: (1) A perennial
grass, (2) a legume grown for use as
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31623
forage, seed for planting, or green
manure, (3) a legume-grass mixture, and
(4) a small grain grown in combination
with a grass or legume, whether interseeded or planted in rotation.
Section 1470.4 Allocation and
Management.
Section 1470.4, ‘‘Allocation and
management,’’ addresses national
allocations and how the proportion of
eligible land will be used as the primary
means to distribute CSP acres and
associated funds among States. NRCS
received three comments on allocations
in general and seven comments on State
allocations.
General Comments
One commenter requested allocations
be conducted fairly by not being skewed
towards large farms or established
players. The commenter also requested
a landscape management perspective be
employed to maximize public benefit at
the lowest cost per watershed.
Another commenter requested that
NRCS work with other Federal agencies,
including the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
State natural resource agencies to
identify the relative extent and
magnitude of particular conservation
needs associated with agricultural
production in each State. The States
with the greatest conservation needs
should be prioritized, but their ranking
should still be contingent on factor (ii),
the degree to which implementation of
CSP will impact the natural resource
needs.
A third commenter questioned why,
on page 37503 (table 1), the NIPF
component (approximately 1.269
million acres) was not included in the
analysis and whether or not the absence
of that information would influence the
choice of policy options.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The
regulatory text and the process for
determining State allocations is not
skewed toward large farms. The State
acre allocations are based on each
State’s proportion of eligible acres to the
number of eligible acres in all States and
other consideration of funds, as
determined by the Chief. NRCS used the
2003 NRI and 2007 Agricultural Census
(AK, HI, Guam, and PR) data to
determine the percent of agricultural
lands (cropland, pastureland, and
rangeland) per State. The National
Woodland Owner Survey, 2006, from
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Forest
Inventory Analysis data was utilized to
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31624
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
determine the percent of NIPF per State.
Once those values were established, the
percentages were applied against the
available agricultural lands (cropland,
pastureland, and rangeland) for CSP
which is 11,492,100 and against the
1,276,900 for NIPF, providing an
equitable acreage allocation based on
the national values. NRCS will also give
consideration to conservation needs and
the degree to which CSP
implementation impacts those needs in
future year’s allocations.
NRCS is incorporating the actual data
for all applicants from the initial
ranking period in the final CEA.
Although the initial CEA tried to control
for the absence of NIPF, this final
analysis will explicitly account for the
exact acreage and budget outlays
associated with NIPF. It is expected that
the final CEA will be greatly improved
with this additional information.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
State Allocations—Comments
Supporting the State Allocation Process
Two commenters expressed support
for the acreage allocation system used to
determine the acres available for each
State in the first sign-up period and in
the regulation. The one commenter
opined that the acreage allocation
process worked very well and requested
the process be continued for the life of
the program. The other commenter
expressed that the allocation factors
established by section 1238(b)(2)(A) and
(B) of the Farm Bill and section
1470A(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of the rule are
important for ensuring CSP does the
most it can to drive environmental
improvement. These factors can and
should be emphasized by NRCS in
making acreage allocations to States.
Another commenter expressed basic
agreement with the interim final rule on
allocations but urged sparing use of the
additional considerations beyond the
States’ proportion of eligible land. The
commenter urged NRCS to make only
modest adjustments, if any, in the
allocations to take into account the
discretionary additional considerations.
In the near term, any such modest
adjustments should be based on both a
clear and convincing need and on the
proven effectiveness of the State in
delivering the program.
NRCS Response
NRCS will explore other
considerations for future sign-up
periods.
Other Comments
NRCS received a comment that CSP is
a premier working-lands platform for
rice producers with the many attendant
waterfowl and other wildlife benefits
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
they provide to fulfill the CSP enhance
and conserve requirements. For this
reason, it is essential that rice producing
States be allocated sufficient CSP acres
that recognize their rice-related
conservation benefits and provide an
opportunity for rice producers’
meaningful participation. In addition to
the Farm Bill mandating a primary
State-acreage allocation method, it also
calls for consideration of other factors,
which should be evaluated when CSP
rice-producing State allocations are
determined.
One commenter urged NRCS to
emphasize factors (2)(i) and (2)(ii) from
section 1470.4 of the rule (‘‘the extent
and magnitude of the conservation
needs associated with agricultural
production in each State,’’ and ‘‘the
degree to which implementation of the
program in the State is, or will be,
effective in helping producers address
those needs’’).
One commenter recommended, in
1470.4(b), when a State does not use
acres reserved for socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers those
acres be reallocated to other States with
higher demand for the program.
NRCS Response
The State acre allocations are based
on a formula that evaluates each State’s
proportion of eligible acres to the
number of eligible acres in all States
along with consideration of the extent
and magnitude of the conservation
needs associated with agriculture
production in each State. NRCS amends
paragraph (a)(2)(i) to clarify that this
determination will use science-based
resource factors that consider regional
and State-level priority ecosystem areas.
This ensures equitable acreage
allocation. Additionally, NRCS amends
1470.4(b) to provide that State
Conservationists allocate acres to
ranking pools, to the extent practicable,
based on the same factors the Chief uses
in making State allocations.
Additionally, allocated acres that are
not enrolled in any fiscal year by a date
set by the Chief, may be reallocated with
associated funds for use in that fiscal
year.
The text related to reserving acres for
beginning farmers or ranchers, and
socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers is located in paragraph (c) and
reallocating unused acres are found in
paragraph (d). NRCS amends the new
paragraph (d) to read, ‘‘In any fiscal year,
allocated acres that are not enrolled by
a date determined by NRCS may be
reallocated with associated funds for
use in that fiscal year under CSP. As
part of the reallocation process, NRCS
will consider several factors, including
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
demand from applicants, national and
regional conservation priorities, and
prior-year CSP performance in States.
Section 1470.5 Outreach Activities.
This section describes how NRCS will
establish special program outreach
activities at the national, State, and local
levels. Nine comments were received
related to outreach activities for CRP
lands, organic producers, and NIPF
landowners. The comments are
categorized in alphabetical order based
on topic.
Conservation Reserve Program Lands
Comments
Several comments were received
related to the eligibility provision for
the CRP land. Six commenters
recommended NRCS allow CRP
participants to apply for CSP in the last
year of the CRP contract. Additionally,
the requirement that any farmable acres
must have been farmed in 4 of the last
6 years is troubling. This provision
leaves any land previously enrolled in
CRP, but recently expired from the
contract, completely ineligible for the
program. One commenter suggests at the
very least allow any acres classified as
highly erodible to be eligible for CSP.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The
program’s authorizing language states
that land enrolled in CRP is not eligible
for enrollment in the program. There is
an exception for land that has not been
farmed 4 of the last 6 years. The statute
provides that the requirement will not
apply if the land has previously been
enrolled in CRP.
Comments
One commenter encouraged NRCS to
include language in section 1470.5
clarifying that expiring CRP lands
should be targeted by NRCS. The
commenter recommends that NRCS
provide guidance on how producers
will be encouraged to protect
conservation values on expiring CRP by
enrolling in CSP.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes the natural resource
benefits the nation has realized on CRP
lands and is considering options for
those producers with expiring CRP
lands. However, NRCS is addressing
this issue in policy rather than in the
rule. Rather than targeting CRP lands
specifically, NRCS considers the
importance of maintaining land in
conserving uses such as grassland and
plans to spread this message through
outreach and public announcements.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Nonindustrial Private Forest Land
Comments
NRCS received comment that it
should work with other Federal and
State agencies and non-governmental
organizations that can assist them with
outreach to forest landowners.
Additionally, NRCS should conduct
expanded outreach to this group of
landowners since many NIPF
landowners have not traditionally
participated in USDA cost-share
programs and are unfamiliar with the
application process.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees that many NIPF
landowners have not traditionally
participated in USDA conservation
programs. NRCS encouraged State
Conservationists to partner with other
agencies and non-governmental
organizations to ensure NIPF
landowners were aware of the program.
Some examples of efforts that States
made to reach out to NIPF landowners
were partnering with Small Woodland
Owners Association, USFS, State
Department of Forestry, and
representatives from other local
organizations. Some States provided
training and promotional materials to
each organization so they could provide
accurate CSP information to their
respective clients. Eight percent of the
acres enrolled during the initial sign-up
were NIPF.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Organic and Transitioning Farmers
Comments
NRCS received a few comments
related to organic production.
Comments included encouraging
participation by organic and
transitioning farmers; fully develop and
implement, in close coordination with
the National Organic Program, the CSP
‘‘organic crosswalk;’’ ensure outreach to
organic and transitioning farmers by
providing materials that are farmerfriendly and that account for the
specific requirements of organic systems
under the National Organic Program
rule and how those requirements
overlap with CSP; and seek to conduct
outreach through avenues that organic
and transitioning farmers use and
access, which often are different from
the information avenues that most
conventional farmers use.
NRCS Response
No changes are made in the rule in
response to the comments. NRCS is
encouraging participation of organic
producers by conducting special
outreach efforts to this group. During
the initial CSP sign-up period, outreach
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
efforts were conducted in 17 States
targeting organic farming organizations,
groups, and individuals. Many States
have representation on the State
Technical Committee from organic
organizations offering their views on
how conservation programs are
implemented within a State. State
Conservationists have been encouraged
to outreach to organic farmers, and
NRCS will continue these efforts as we
move forward with the program into the
future.
Other
Comments
One commenter recommended NRCS
conduct outreach programs to help
make farmers and ranchers aware of the
importance of providing habitat for
managed and native bees and technical
resources and available assistance.
NRCS Response
NRCS conducts outreach activities to
a wide audience to promote the program
and the benefits of addressing resource
concerns in a comprehensive manner.
CSP offers several opportunities to
address pollinator habitat through
questions in the CMT and
enhancements. NRCS will consider
additional outreach and publicity efforts
to make producers aware of the
opportunities to address pollinator
habitat through CSP. No changes are
made to the rule in response to this
comment.
Section 1470.6
Requirements
31625
applicants may not be released: Names,
Addresses, Telephone Numbers, Social
Security or tax identification numbers,
and amount of Federal funds requested.
The 2008 Act does not impede the
sharing of information between and
among USDA agencies. However,
information may only be shared with
Federal agencies outside of USDA for
specific purposes under a cooperative
program, but not for general regulatory
or enforcement purposes. Aggregate or
statistical information about
applications may be described in news
releases, Web sites, and other tools used
to inform the public.
When an applicant becomes a
participant, additional information is
available for release. The following
information about participants may be
released through a FOIA request:
Names, limited address (State, city, or
county), and conservation program
contact obligation amount. Additional
restrictions about the release of address
information apply to some corporate
and nonprofit business types. For more
information, consult the NRCS General
Manual GM–120, Part 408.
Comments
The other comments are discussed by
the following categories: Applicant
eligibility, operator of record
requirements, control of land, land
eligibility—general, land eligibility—
agricultural operation, land eligibility—
NIPF, and ineligible land.
Applicant Eligibility
Eligibility
Comments
Comments
Section 1470.6, ‘‘Eligibility
requirements,’’ sets forth the criteria for
determining applicant and land
eligibility. NRCS received numerous
comments on this section. One
commenter expressed that a
participant’s personal details and
proprietary operational information
must be protected at all times by the
Department.
A number of respondents expressed
concerns about overarching Farm Bill
eligibility requirements such as the
treatment of landlords and tenants,
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
provisions, and actively engaged in
farming determinations handled
through the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
One commenter requested NRCS
coordinate closely with FSA.
NRCS Response
Information about applicants is
generally not released to the public
because individual privacy rights must
be protected. The Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy
Act, section 2004 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and
section 1619 of the 2008 Act permit the
government to withhold certain
information. Refer to GM–120, Part 408,
Subpart C, FOIA and Privacy Act, for
NRCS policy regarding FOIA and the
Privacy Act. The following information
about conservation program contract
NRCS is coordinating closely with
FSA regarding FSA’s rules for legal
farming arrangements. NRCS recognizes
FSA responsibility in maintaining farm
records and intends on utilizing these
records, to the extent practicable, as a
basis for program participation.
However, NRCS will ensure that
producers who would have an interest
in acreage being offered receive fair
treatment which NRCS deems to be
equitable. NRCS may refuse to enter into
a contract when there is a disagreement
among joint applicants seeking
enrollment as to an applicant’s
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NRCS Response
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31626
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
eligibility to participate in the contract
as a tenant.
Comments
NRCS received a comment that it is
important when making AGI
determinations that the current Internal
Revenue Service rules governing income
allocation apply. Accountants and other
tax professionals are aware of these
rules and knowledgeable when using
them to make the necessary allocation
amounts to spouses and other members
of an entity. The Farm Bill provides an
extensive list of income sources
considered to be farm income for
purposes of the farm AGI calculation.
One area that is not specifically
addressed is the categorization of wages
earned from a farming corporation or
other entity. Many times, partners or
members of an entity receive a salary
from the operation rather than or in
addition to a distribution. NRCS should
state clearly that this income is
considered farm income for AGI
purposes.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments. NRCS is
legally obligated to offer the program to
everyone meeting eligibility. To apply
for the program, the applicant must be
the operator of the land in the FSA
record system. An operator who is
accepted and subsequently enrolled in a
contract may include additional
participants on their contract who may
be landowners or others having control
of the land enrolled in the contract and
are included in the FSA record system.
Such participants need to meet AGI
requirements as well as Highly Erodible
Land provisions and Swampbuster
provisions. All participants included in
a contract that receive funding will by
law, be limited to the payment
limitations set forth in the statute and
the rule.
Comments
Two commenters requested NRCS
establish reasonable procedures for
reporting all members of a legal entity.
NRCS Response
NRCS Response
The 2008 Act provides very specific
AGI information applicable to all
current Farm Bill programs. AGI
clarification applicable to all Farm Bill
programs is found in 7 CFR 1400.500.
It is FSA’s responsibility to maintain
customer records, including member
information. FSA has forms available for
entities to use to provide their member
information; therefore, it is not
necessary for NRCS to establish
additional procedures. NRCS may
obtain a copy of this information if
needed. No changes are made to the rule
in response to this comment.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
NRCS received a comment urging the
agency to factor into AGI determinations
the fact that the Internal Revenue
Service arbitrarily limits annual losses a
producer can claim to $300,000 if the
producer receives Farm Bill benefits,
which if left unaddressed, could
underestimate the extent of a producer’s
losses while exaggerating AGI, unfairly
resulting in program ineligibility.
One commenter expressed that FSA
‘‘actively engaged in farming’’ rules
should apply. These rules include crop
share landlords and tenants as actively
engaged, but reduce the ability of
absentee investors to benefit and reduce
the opportunity to create ‘‘paper’’ farms
whose only purpose is to enable the
beneficiary to collect payments in
excess of the payment limit through
well established payment limit
avoidance devices that will not be
captured by direct attribution. A
reference to the actively engaged in
farming rules applying to CSP should be
added between paragraphs (g) and (h) in
1470.24. In addition, the definition of
‘‘producer’’ in 1470.2 should be
modified to say ‘‘actively engaged in
agricultural production or forest
management’’ instead of just ‘‘engaged.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Operator of Record in FSA Records
Comments
Nine comments were received on this
topic. The commenters generally
expressed dissatisfaction with the
requirement that the applicant must be
the operator of record in the FSA
system. In their view, the requirement
unfairly precludes certain legitimate
producers or landowners from
participating.
NRCS Response
The policy related to operators’
results from a finding from the 2006
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
CSP audit that identified NRCS failed to
detect improper identification of
producers’ agricultural operations. OIG
recommended that NRCS complete
ongoing coordination with FSA to
utilize their existing data to
independently verify applicant
information for similar programs
implemented in the future. However,
NRCS recognizes this is a significant
concern and amends paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1470.6(a), Eligible applicant, to read as
follows.
‘‘To be an eligible applicant for CSP,
a producer must be the operator in the
FSA farm records management system.
Potential applicants that are not in the
FSA farm records management system
must establish records with FSA.
Potential applicants whose records are
not current in the FSA farm records
management system must update those
records with FSA prior to the close of
the ranking period to be considered
eligible. NRCS may grant exceptions to
the ‘‘operator of record’’ requirement for
producers, tenants, and owners in the
FSA farm records management system
that can demonstrate to the satisfaction
of NRCS they will operate and have
effective control of the land for the term
of the proposed contract.’’ This change
is not retroactive, and therefore, will not
apply to the 2009 applications or
participants. Paragraph 1470.6(a)(1) is
deleted and subsequent paragraphs are
redesignated accordingly. The new
paragraph (a)(1) is revised to remove the
requirement that the producers have
‘‘documented control’’ and to add a
requirement that they have ‘‘effective
control.’’
Control of Land
Comments
NRCS received multiple comments on
this requirement. Commenters
expressed dissatisfaction with the
requirements that a producer must show
control of the land for 5 years. NRCS
received a comment recommending it
work to the fullest extent allowed under
the CSP statute to include rental acres
in the program. Not doing so would
mean that most modern commercial
operations would be effectively
excluded from CSP and the
conservation incentives the program
provides. It could be a significant
administrative burden for both
producers and NRCS personnel to
modify the CSP contracts annually to
accommodate changes in leased
landowners. One commenter
recommends that it be optional for a
producer to enter leased land into the
CSP.
NRCS Response
NRCS considers it a sound business
practice to enter into contracts where
the land will remain under contract for
the full contract period. However, NRCS
does recognize the need for flexibility to
address those situations where operators
have oral leases or other similar
arrangements. Therefore, NRCS will
modify its policy to remove the
requirement for documented assurance
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
from the owner that the tenant will have
control and will accept operator selfcertification of control of the land for
the contract period. Applicants who
utilize the self-certification process will
be subject to an annual review and
verification process to confirm they
maintain control throughout the
contract period. In situations where
operators do not anticipate having
control of the land for the required
period, such operators would not have
effective control of that land and such
land would not be considered part of
their agriculture operation. NRCS does
not expect applicants to project the
unknown (e.g., health, death, business
failures, etc.); as long as applicants
believe they will have the necessary
control at the time of enrollment and for
the required period of the contract, they
are eligible.
farm through the CMT and
enhancements offered by the program.
However, land that is used solely for
wind production does not meet the CSP
definition of agricultural land as no
‘‘agricultural products or livestock’’
would be produced on the land.
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments.
Land Eligibility
Comments
One commenter requested
clarification of the term ‘‘other lands.’’
The commenter requested NRCS
identify what this term entails and what
are the standards for demonstrating
appropriate level of conservation on
these lands that will determine
eligibility and compliance. The rule
itself is somewhat concerning in that it
specifies that these areas must not have
readily observable erosion or point
sources of contamination such as
gullies, manure runoff, or pesticide
runoff. It is important to note that
‘‘agriculture storm water runoff’’ is not a
point source and is allowed by Federal
law under the Clean Water Act. The
commenter encourages NRCS to revisit
this element to make sure the standard
of conservation sought on these lands is
not a hindrance to farmer participation
or conflicts with Federal law,
particularly since payments will not be
administered for practices on these
lands.
Comments
Five respondents recommended that
NRCS accept managed grazing land as
cropland so it qualifies for a higher
payment, ranks higher, and can support
some enhancements not available in the
pasture category. Operators who use
cropland as pasture should be rewarded,
not penalized by a lower CSP payment;
one commenter felt the program should
enable those who harvest wind to
participate by expressing if the
respondent grew crops to make biofuels
they could participate; if they harvest
wind they cannot; and one commenter
requested NRCS implement the program
in a size neutral manner. Producers of
all sizes and descriptions are involved
in cotton production and should have
equal opportunities to access
conservation programs.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS does not want to establish
policy that may have an unintended
consequence of encouraging producers
to convert pastureland to cropland.
Therefore, NRCS is establishing a
‘‘pastured cropland’’ program
designation to provide a more accurate
payment rate due to higher forgone
income costs associated with
maintaining a grass-based livestock
production system on land suitable for
cropland. The existing activity payment
rate for pastured cropland will be higher
than the pastureland rate. All technical
assessments and determinations are
completed as pastureland. Since the
details regarding payment rates are not
included in the regulation, no changes
are made to the rule.
CSP does recognize wind power used
to power agricultural operations on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Comments
Two commenters requested NRCS
clarify that the Conservation Security
Program contracts may be eligible for
CSP.
31627
applicants to determine if they would be
able to participate on the business
model their operation uses.
NRCS Response
The regulation identifies factors that
will be used by applicants to determine
whether operations are ‘‘substantially
separate.’’ Factors include equipment,
labor, management, and cultivation or
production practices. NRCS intends to
clarify how these factors are used in
procedures and guidance for producers.
Agricultural Operations
Comments
One commenter expressed that the
goal in the final rule is to make CSP
simple and easy for CSP to be of real,
concrete, and practical assistance to
farmers struggling to deal with their real
and immediate conservation and
environment (needs); another expressed
concern about treatment of eligible acres
‘‘agricultural operations’’ and rented
land in the context of CSP contract
requirements that are viewed to be
unnecessarily restrictive and limiting;
NRCS also was questioned about
whether there is a statutory requirement
that requires all of an applicant’s
operation to be covered by a contract.
Section 1238E of the Food Security Act,
as amended by the 2008 Act, says only
that eligible land ‘‘shall include all acres
of an agricultural operation of a
producer, whether or not contiguous,
that are under the effective control of
the producer at the time the producer
enters into a stewardship contract’’
(§ (b)(3)). While all such acres may be
‘‘eligible,’’ there is no requirement that
the applicant enroll all these eligible
acres as the rule requires. If this
language does not require the entire
operation to be enrolled, we encourage
NRCS to strike this requirement from
the rule and instead adopt a more
flexible approach that is fully reflective
of the program’s objective to provide
comprehensive solutions working from
a conservation systems’ approach.
Another commenter recommends that
NRCS require an operator to enroll a
sufficient quantity and type of acres
from the producer’s operation to ensure
that their operation’s potential
contribution to the area’s resource and
priority resource concerns can be
properly addressed. This is not a fixed
percentage of an operation, and it
cannot be established in a one-size-fitsall approach.
Comments
NRCS received a comment urging
USDA to provide clear, detailed
guidance about how it would
implement ‘‘substantially separate’’
provisions to enable prospective
NRCS Response
NRCS retains the requirement for the
agricultural operation from section
1238E, i.e., eligible land will include all
acres of an agricultural operation
whether or not contiguous, that are
NRCS Response
NRCS retains the requirement that
land enrolled in the Conservation
Security Program is not eligible. After
the Conservation Security Program
contract expires, the land becomes
eligible.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes the concerns with
using the words ‘‘point source’’ and will
strike that language from procedures for
assessing ‘‘Other lands.’’ ‘‘Other lands’’
must be free from readily observable
erosion, gullies, manure runoff,
pesticide runoff, or other similar
environmental concerns for the
applicant to be eligible for the program.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31628
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
under the effective control of the
producer at the time they enter a
stewardship contract, and operated by
the producer with equipment, labor,
management, and production or
cultivation practices that are
substantially separate from other
agricultural operations, as determined
by the Secretary. NRCS gives producers
the opportunity to enroll owned land
and rented ground for which they have
effective control. NRCS amended
paragraph 1470.6(b) to provide
clarification that a participant may
submit an application(s) to enter into
additional contract(s) for newly
acquired eligible land, which would
than compete with other applications in
a subsequent ranking period.
Nonindustrial Private Forest Land
Comments
NRCS received comments both in
favor of and opposed to the agency
policy of separating out NIPF in the
enrollment process, so that forest land
will be ranked and enrolled separately.
One commenter encourages NRCS to
develop a way to track NIPF within
their ProTracts system so that producers
with both NIPF and agricultural lands
are not required to file two applications.
By special rule no more than 10
percent of acres enrolled nationally in
any fiscal year may be NIPF ownerships.
This model potentially provides a larger
contract payment to the landowner, but
by the total enrollment calculation may
overstate the benefits.
NRCS Response
NRCS determined it is necessary to
maintain forest land applications
separate to be able to meet the
legislative requirement of enrolling no
more than 10 percent of the annual
acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal
year in NIPF. NRCS chooses to retain
the process established.
Section 1470.7 Enhancements and
Conservation Practices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
Forty-six comments were received on
section 1470.7, ‘‘Enhancements and
conservation practices.’’ This section
identifies that a participant’s decisions
describing the additional enhancements
and conservation practices to be
implemented under the CSP contract.
The list of comments reflects the large
selection of potential enhancements.
The public provided input on managed
grazing, pesticide management, energy,
innovative practices, wildlife, forest
management, and organic production.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRCS Response
NRCS received numerous
recommendations on innovative
enhancements. NRCS is open to
suggestions for additional
enhancements on all land uses and
welcomes innovative ideas for
consideration. However, the program
constraints limited how the financial
assistance funds could be used. In order
to achieve a national average rate of $18
per acre, enhancement activities
emphasize management-based actions
rather than structural practices. It is
NRCS’ intention that recommended
changes and improvements will be
incorporated in future ranking periods.
New enchancement ideas will be
evaluated and incorporated as time
permits for future ranking periods. No
changes are made to the rule in response
to the comment.
Comments
One commenter recommends NRCS
require cover crops and rotational
grazing, rather than rewarding
uninterrupted commodity crops that rob
the soil.
NRCS Response
Program requirements to implement
specific conservation activities would
eliminate some farmers from eligibility
for CSP. Instead, CSP recognizes there
are many paths to conservation
stewardship and asks questions in the
CMT and offers enhancements that
cover this spectrum. In addition, there
are five enhancements available to
producers that encourage the use of
cover crops to manage nitrogen, breakup soil compaction, and improve biodiversity. The resource-conserving crop
rotation is another way CSP promotes
crop diversity that includes grass and
legume.
Comments
NRCS received criticism that the list
of potential enhancements is long and
exhaustive, and it will benefit potential
program participants to know the
ranking of each enhancement for both
conservation performance effectiveness
and relative cost. The commenter
assumes that these rankings are, in turn,
used in the CMT, and as such, the
rankings reflected in this document
should be subject to review and
modification by the State Technical
Committee to fully reflect that State’s
needs and priorities.
NRCS Response
The conservation values for each
enhancement are posted on the NRCS
Web site. NRCS welcomes input and
thoughts on the relative value of each
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
enhancement, but NRCS retains the
right to make final decisions on the
technical and resulting environmental
impact of each enhancement. NRCS will
continue to improve the development of
information related to the CMT. NRCS
recognizes the success of the program is
dependent on a thorough understanding
of resource needs and producer
commitments, prior to entering a
contract. Further, NRCS is looking at
options to adjust the choices available
by ranking pool, State, or region.
Comments
One commenter urged NRCS to
consider offering enhancement practices
for forest land that are innovative or not
offered by other USDA programs, and to
strongly consider potential
environmental benefit when offering
practices and ranking applications. The
commenter recommended specific
enhancements, some of which are
already on the CSP enhancement list.
NRCS Response
The NIPF land enhancements are
currently under review with changes in
number of enhancements and scope to
be completed before the next ranking
period. NRCS will evaluate the
enhancements recommended and will
make its determinations public when
changes, if applicable, are complete.
The recommendations do not require a
change to the rule.
Comments
NRCS received a recommendation
that section 1470.7 be rewritten and retitled to include both new
enhancements and conservation
practices to be implemented under a
contract, as well as existing
enhancements and conservation
practices to be actively managed and
maintained under a contract.
NRCS Response
NRCS chooses to retain the current
information in section 1470.7 as this
section is intended to address additional
conservation activities to be adopted
through CSP. Section 1470.23 deals
with maintenance and management of
existing activities.
Comments
Two commenters expressed that
enhancements should reflect that
commitment to flexibility and
continuous improvement should allow
for reasonable adaptation and
modification during the life of the
contract. Two commenters requested
new enhancements be added to the
toolbox of offerings as new conservation
technologies are developed.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS Response
One commenter recommended
allowing landowners 3 years to adopt
forest enhancements, including forest
stewardship plans which should be
encouraged.
NRCS recognizes the merit of these
conservation measures, and they are
currently reflected in the CMT questions
and enhancements offered through the
program.
NRCS Response
The program has mechanisms in place
to accommodate changes in operations
during the life of the contract. The
program allows change to the schedule
or installed enhancements by allowing
enhancements to be substituted as long
as the conservation performance
determined by NRCS is equal or better
than the conservation performance
offered at enrollment. In addition, a
participant will not be considered in
violation of the contract for failure to
comply with the contract due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
participant.
CSP rules require that all
enhancements be adopted by the third
year of the contract. No changes are
made to the rule in response to this
comment.
Comments
One commenter recommended a
thorough review of all CSP
enhancements before the next ranking
period and appropriate steps taken to
improve benefits to fish, wildlife, and
their habitats.
One commenter was opposed to
implementing new practices through
CSP. The commenter expressed that if
farmers are interested in adopting new
practices, they should be encouraged to
apply for funding for the new adoption
under EQIP instead.
NRCS Response
The program’s statutory language
provides that the term conservation
activities mean conservation system,
practices, or management measures that
are designed to address a resource
concern.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One commenter identified an interest
in farmers that transition to a lower
carbon footprint of production,
including increasing soil carbon using
managed intensive grazing systems,
reduced tillage, and reduced pesticide
use while another proposed a new
category encompassing many of the CSP
enhancements to help some of the
endangered species, pollinators, and
wildlife that are being pushed out by
increasing housing developments. This
should include inclusion and priority of
biodiversity enhancing and organic
farming practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Innovative Enhancements
Comments
NRCS received multiple suggestions
of practices and activities to add to the
list of enhancements.
NRCS Response
NRCS conducted a thorough review of
all CSP enhancements for all land uses,
as well as evaluated the
recommendations from the public. As a
result, NRCS updated its enhancement
list and adopted a new concept for the
second ranking period related to the
selection and implementation of
enhancements. Certain enhancements
will be offered as ‘‘bundles’’ while others
will be offered individually. The
bundling concept enables participants
and the nation to realize conservation
benefits from the synergy that results
when activities are implemented as a
system. For example, NRCS established
a Sustainable Ag Bundle that includes
enhancements for locally grown and
marketed farm products, water quality,
soil quality and plants, and beneficial
insects.
The environmental benefits of each
bundle will be reflected in the score and
the resulting payment level. NRCS
amended the rule in 1470.7(c) to make
known the ability to incorporate
bundled enhancements in the
stewardship plan.
Comments
Another commenter requested NRCS
provide clarity on the development and
regular review of incentives for Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers,
Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, and
Limited Resource Farmers or Ranchers,
and Indian Tribes.
NRCS Response
The CSP does not provide incentive
payments for historically underserved
individuals. However, NRCS policy
requires State Conservationists to
address access to program enrollment
for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers or
Ranchers and Beginning Farmers or
Ranchers through the establishment of
special ranking pools. In addition,
Indian tribes are exempt to payment
limitation per legislation as stated in
section 1238G(g) of the Statute.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31629
Comments
NRCS should view the development
of new technologies and management
strategies in an entrepreneurial manner
that fosters the addition of beneficial
new activities as they are developed.
New enhancements should be added to
CSP’s toolbox of offerings as new
conservation technologies are developed
in order to accelerate the adoption of
conservation technologies with positive
environmental benefits that will address
societal needs.
One commenter noted that continued
funding of large scale farms and
conventional practices seems like others
are continuing to get resources while
innovators get nothing. Small scale
farms are increasing across the country
and at the same time, more CSA
orientated marketing continues to spiral
upwards as well.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes the value of small
scale farms as well as large farms. As a
result, the scoring and ranking system
used for CSP is size neutral. No change
is made to the rule in response to this
comment.
Conservation Practices and ResourceConserving Crop Rotation
Comments
Two commenters recommended that
cover crops that best hold the soil in
place whether legumes or perennial
grasses with the least disruption causing
erosion must be rewarded.
NRCS Response
Cover crops are given performance
points in the CMT. There are also five
CSP enhancements available that
promote the adoption of cover crops in
various ways. No changes are made to
the rule in response to this comment.
Comments
Commenters supported the concept
that resource-conserving crop rotations
and managed rotational grazing should
be rewarded through CSP.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees and these activities are
recognized in scoring and
enhancements through CSP.
Comments
One commenter expressed that CSP is
essential to the development of a better,
more sustainable agricultural sector in
this country, and therefore, it is
necessary that the program provide
support on a wide range of important
practices like crop rotation.
Forty-nine commenters recommended
that resource-conserving crop rotations
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31630
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and management-intensive rotational
grazing should receive strong support or
high ranking and payment points.
Cropping systems built around resourceconserving cropping and livestock
systems based on rotational grazing are
superior conservation approaches with
multiple environmental benefits. They
should be fully rewarded whether they
are an ongoing conservation system or a
newly adopted one.
NRCS Response
Applicants who choose to implement
a resource-conserving crop rotation are
recognized because they receive a
separate payment for this activity above
and beyond other payments they may
qualify for under the program. NRCS
recognizes the conservation value of
crop rotations and rotational grazing.
Both are scored highly in the CMT, and
enhancements are offered for both of
these activities. No changes are made to
the regulation in response to these
comments.
Comments
Another commenter expressed that it
is also important that the funding
amounts recognize the critical role that
organic crop and livestock systems,
resource-conserving crop rotations, and
management-intensive rotational
grazing play in strong and productive
stewardship.
NRCS Response
CSP uses the CMT in evaluating the
environmental impact that a
management system provides. Those
systems that provide the highest
benefits receive the most conservation
performance points resulting in higher
ranking and increase payments. No
changes are made to the rule in response
to the comment.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
A number of comments show support
for small farmers like the one that
expressed the concern that small family
farmers raising a diversity of crops and
animals, should receive high ranking
and payment points based on resourceconserving crop rotations and
management-intensive rotational
grazing.
NRCS Response
Applicants in this category that are
addressing natural resource concerns
will score very well in the CMT and will
have the potential for high stewardship
levels. Recognizing that CSP may not
offer financial resources to smaller
operators that would encourage
participation, NRCS amended the
regulation in paragraph 1470.24 to add
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
authority for the Chief to offer a
minimum contract payment amount.
Comments
Farmers coming into newly adopted
resource-conserving crop rotations and
management-intensive rotational
grazing (in addition to those who
presently implement those practices)
need to be able to sign-up for CSP.
NRCS Response
CSP scoring, ranking, and payments
are based on both existing conservation
activities and additional conservation
activities that the applicant chooses to
implement. This process allows for
farmers who are at different levels of
conservation to participate. NRCS uses
an environmental focus and not a
commodity-based focus when
implementing CSP. No changes are
made to the rule in response to the
comment.
Comments
One commenter expressed that in
reviewing the interim final rule and the
materials posted on the NRCS Web site
in reference to the rule, the resourceconserving crop rotation and its specific
special payment is clearly a priority for
NRCS. However, exact implementation
of this provision still appears uncertain.
As NRCS moves forward with this
provision, the agency should strive to
attain the objective of greater soil
conservation and the building of carbon
in the soil rather than a prescription that
can only be met with the addition of a
perennial crop or forage crop to the
rotation.
NRCS Response
The resource-conserving crop rotation
job sheet, describes the benefits of a
resource-conserving crop rotation that
includes reduced wind and water
erosion, increased soil organic matter,
improved soil fertility and tilth,
interrupted pest cycles, reduced
depletion of soil moisture or reduced
need for irrigation in applicable areas,
and provided protection and habitat for
pollinators. Each State developed a list
of plants and crops that met the criteria
of a resource-conserving crop. No
changes are made to the rule in response
to the comment.
Comments
One commenter expressed that
conservation methods in crop rotations
are vital for a sound, conservation-based
farm. Adequate rewards for resourceconserving methods such as green
manure plantings and forage, is
important to ensure such practices are
implemented and maintained. Well
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
managed rotational grazing systems for
livestock are another superior
conservation method with value-added
gain to the environment.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with these comments as
reflected in the questions in the CMT
and the CSP enhancements. No changes
are made to the rule.
Comments
One commenter expected real change
with the implementation of the CSP.
The commenter expressed that the new
CSP actually rewards farmers who are
early adopters and using long-term
rotations or grass-based livestock
systems.
NRCS Response
Questions in the CMT are designed to
analyze an existing crop production
system and award conservation
performance points for those systems
that provide the greatest environmental
benefit. Systems that include greater
crop diversity reduce tillage and high
levels of nutrient and pest management
receive more conservation performance
points, increasing chances to be selected
for funding. No changes are made to the
rule in response to the comment.
Comments
One commenter was critical of the
ranking process in situations where a
producer has to change a rotation that
is not on the list, and then the producer
would have to go through some ranking
changes each time.
NRCS Response
Participants can modify stewardship
plans to address unforeseen
contingencies, as long as they select
enhancement activities with the same or
greater environmental benefits. Further,
NRCS does not consider a participant in
violation of the contract for failure to
comply with the contract due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
participant, including disaster or related
conditions, as determined by the State
Conservationist.
Comments
One commenter recommended that
NRCS seek opportunities to increase bee
forage when implementing other
conservation practices, such as cover
crops and resource-conserving crop
rotations.
NRCS Response
NRCS feels that it has adequately
addressed the concerns in the CMT and
with the activities offered through the
program. NRCS will conduct continuous
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reviews to incorporate innovative ideas
for future ranking periods. No changes
are made to the rule in response to the
comment.
Comments
One commenter requested
clarification on whether or not orchard
and vineyard crops are eligible for the
resource-conserving crop rotation. Wine
grape growers typically use a resourceconserving crop in their vineyards
which meets the first definition, a
perennial crop for soil fertility. Will
vineyards be eligible for the
supplemental payment?
NRCS Response
Resource-conserving crop rotations
are not applicable for orchards or
vineyards. A resource-conserving crop
rotation is only applicable where there
is an annually planted crop in the
rotation.
On-Farm Research and Demonstration
Comments
NRCS received one comment on this
provision. The commenter
recommended the addition of a new
paragraph (3) in 1470.2 to stipulate that
NRCS will make available to eligible
applicants design protocols and
participation procedures for
participation in CSP on-farm research
and demonstration projects. In addition,
the commenter recommended that
either (a) current point values for onfarm research and demonstration be
enhanced, or (b) that on-farm research
and demonstration be taken out of the
point system for payment purposes and
compensated in a more traditional
manner.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS amends section 1470.2(f)(1) to
read as follows:
(f) The State Conservationist will:
(1) Obtain advice from the State
Technical Committee and local working
groups on the development of Statelevel technical, outreach, and program
issues, including the identification of
priority resource concerns for a State, or
the specific geographic areas within a
State, and design protocols and
participation procedures for
participation in on-farm research and
demonstration and pilot projects.
States are working with their
respective research institution in
educating them on the use of on-farm
research and demonstration projects to
increase the list of available projects for
the next ranking period.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 1470.8
Technical Assistance
31631
Pollinators
Comments
Comments
Section 1470.8, Technical assistance,
explains that NRCS or other technical
service providers (TSP) could provide
the technical consultation for installing
conservation activities under CSP.
Two commenters recommended that
more CSP money to be available for
technical assistance through TSPs or
cooperative agreements with entities
such as State wildlife agencies in order
to meet the anticipated program
demand.
One commenter recommended that
NRCS further this objective by (1)
designating a liaison at NRCS charged
with working with beekeeping industry
interests, and (2) establishing and
convening a working group of
beekeepers, qualified research and
extension specialists, and interested
agricultural producers to help conduct
the necessary review and revisions.
Another commenter expressed that
USDA should realize the full potential
conservation assistance and incentive
programs to help farmers and ranchers
establish and maintain habitat for
managed and native bees, and provide
training to NRCS and other technical
assistance providers to make them
aware of the new Farm Bill authorities
and the importance of habitat for
managed and native bees and how
programs can be used to assist farmers
and ranchers.
NRCS Response
States have an option to enter into
cooperative agreements with TSPs or
other agencies to assist in delivering the
program. However, it is important to
mention that the program constraints of
managing the program to achieve a
national average of $18 per acre for
financial assistance and technical
assistance will limit program servicing
options.
Technical Assistance on Forest Land
Comments
A number of comments were received
regarding technical assistance on forest
land. Commenters expressed support for
CSP with concerns on how the expertise
and technical assistance will be
delivered at the field level to NIPF;
technical assistance for many NRCS
forest projects is provided by agreement
with the State Forestry Department, and
in some cases, technical expertise is
very limited; and respondents
recommended that NRCS utilize the
extensive network of forestry expertise
through the Forest Stewardship
Program, which includes State forestry
agencies, consulting foresters, and other
partners working to deliver technical
assistance to NIPF landowners.
NRCS Response
NRCS field office staffs have diverse
technical backgrounds and in some
cases have forestry and agroforestry
expertise, but in those situations where
they do not, they will seek professional
forestry assistance. NRCS has staff
foresters in many States that provide
technical guidance and training to field
offices and can assist field offices with
planning and application questions. In
States without staff foresters, the field
offices will assist the forest owner in
seeking assistance from either State
agency foresters, forestry TSPs, or other
private consulting foresters in the local
area who are providing forestry
planning and application assistance
such as forest stewardship planning.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NRCS Response
NRCS has a Pollinator Initiative
through which it is pursuing increased
attention to pollinators from a variety of
approaches. A few of these approaches
include the following: Establishment of
an NRCS Liaison with beekeepers and
with the United States beekeeping
industry to ensure that the needs of
beekeepers and honey bees are
appropriately addressed in NRCS
pursuits; revision of NRCS Conservation
Practice Standards to encourage
establishment of pollinator habitat and
discourage management practices
harmful to pollinators; implementation
of the recently-developed NRCS Plant
Materials Centers pollinator action plan
which includes the field-testing of seed
mixes for pollinators from an ecoregion-specific perspective and cropspecific recommendations of plant
materials that will provide preferred
and extended pollinator forage and
refugia for beneficial insects helpful in
pest management; inclusion of a large
number of opportunities for matching
funds to create and enhance pollinator
habitat through a variety of financial
assistance and easement conservation
programs; development of Web based
training for NRCS staffs and for our
partners and customers focused upon
pollinators and their habitat
requirements; and implementation of
the NRCS pollinator communications
plan for awareness-building concerning
the critical roles of pollinators and what
individuals can do to help us sustain
pollinator habitat and the
environmental services they provide.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31632
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS takes seriously its
responsibilities to ensure its field office
staffs have adequate training to work
with organic farmers. Individual States
have conducted numerous training
sessions on conservation planning with
organic producers. A national
teleconference on organic certification
has been conducted, and plans are in
place to work with several private
organic groups to provide training to
NRCS State specialists on organic
farming systems. No changes are made
to the rule in response to this comment.
Comments
One commenter questioned why
NRCS included a definition of TSP. The
commenter did not see where the term
is used or referenced in the rule. The
commenter expressed that the rule leads
one to conclude that NRCS must
provide all technical assistance relative
to the CSP.
NRCS Response
Section 1470.8 states that NRCS may
provide technical assistance to an
eligible applicant or participant either
directly or through a TSP as set forth in
7 CFR part 652.
Subpart B—Contracts and Payments
Section 1470.20 Application for
Contracts and Selecting Offers From
Applicants
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
Section 1470.20, ‘‘Application for
contracts and selecting offers from
applicants,’’ identifies procedures
associated with application acceptance,
contract application requirements, and
the application evaluation process.
NRCS received 20 comments on the
application process. Many of the
commenters expressed frustration
related to the amount of paperwork
necessary to participate in CSP.
Application Process
Seven commenters expressed that
there is too much paperwork or the
program is too complex; other
comments included that NRCS needs to
control costs and if an applicant is
rejected from program enrollment, the
basis for the rejection needs to be
explained to the applicant. NRCS
received comments that information
requirements should be fair, reasonable,
and limited to data that is necessary,
relevant, and related directly to
determining an applicant’s potential
CSP participation. An applicant’s
personal details and proprietary
operational information must be
protected at all times by the
Department; respondents urged NRCS to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
avoid onerous and invasive CSP
documentation requirements and to be
fair and reasonable. One commenter
acknowledged that good
recordingkeeping is integral to
managing a successful farming
operation; however, due to the newness
of this program, some producers may
not have records for all of the activities
conducted that would aid them in their
application for CSP. The commenter has
concerns about how farmers will be
treated in situations where they have
recently acquired farm ground where
previous records would not be available
to the new operator, which could limit
their eligible acres.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments.
All applicants are provided written
notification of all determinations related
to their application.
NRCS designed the CSP to collect as
little information from the applicants as
feasible. It is always difficult to balance
the information necessary for quality
assurance and minimize burden on
customers. NRCS feels strongly that
proper documentation is required to
avoid improper use of program funds.
NRCS does not collect records to be kept
in NRCS field offices. Records are used
to verify that the information provided
by the applicant is accurate when
conducting the onsite field verification
and State quality assurance process.
Acreage eligibility is not determined
by the presence or absence of records;
however, it may impact the applicant’s
ranking score. The applicants are
required to offer all acres on their
operation that are under effective
control at the time of entry into a
conservation stewardship contract. To
participate in CSP, applicants need to be
able to provide some form of
verification for those activities that they
are credited in the CMT. There are many
ways that information can be verified
during the onsite field verification such
as equipment, crop residues, visible
signs of erosions, existing practices on
the ground, photos, receipts, existing
conservation plans, aerial photos, etc. It
is the applicant’s responsibility to
provide accurate information of the
existing system that they will be
compensated through program
payments.
NRCS will evaluate ways to minimize
burdens on producers while following
policies and procedures to ensure that
NRCS is accountable for the use of
program funds. It is critical that
participants maintain and supply
information to verify eligibility. NRCS
has the proper supporting contract
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
documentation to ensure fair and
consistent determinations are made.
Comments
Another area of interest related to the
availability of information. Four
commenters expressed that applicants
should have access to enhancement
points during the application process.
For farmers to make good decisions,
farmers should have access to the
number of points each enhancement is
assigned to make the best decision for
their operation and for the overall
environmental benefit of their contract.
Three commenters expressed that the
list of potential enhancements is long
and exhaustive, and it will benefit
potential program participants to know
the ranking of each enhancement for
both conservation performance
effectiveness and relative cost. We
assume that these rankings are in turn
used in the CMT and, as such, the
rankings reflected in this document
should be subject to review and
modification by the State Technical
Committee to fully reflect that State’s
needs and priorities.
NRCS Response
NRCS has made available to the
public the conservation performance
effectiveness values for all activities
offered through the program as well as
for all the inventory questions. In
addition, NRCS developed two detailed
documents explaining how the points
are used in the tool. This information is
located at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/new_csp/csp.html.
No changes are made to the rule in
response to these comments.
Conservation Performance Ranking
Score
Comments
One commenter indicated that what is
unclear is how the activity list relates
specifically to the ranking process used
in CSP contract approvals, if at all, and
how this list relates to the CMT. NRCS
should clarify how this list relates in
this regard.
NRCS Response
The CMT is utilized to evaluate CSP
applications using a point based system
for environmental benefits. The CMT
evaluates existing and proposed new
activities to calculate conservation
performance points that will be used for
ranking and payment purposes. No
changes are made to the rule in response
to the comment.
Comments
One commenter encouraged NRCS to
allow one application for producers
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with agricultural lands that also contain
NIPF. Another commented that the
contract application requirements and
ranking pool protocols for NIPF are not
specified.
NRCS Response
NRCS deemed necessary the
separation between NIPF from
agricultural land applications to be able
to meet the legislative requirement of
not more than 10 percent of the annual
acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal
year may be NIP. However, NIPF
applicants follow the same application
requirements and ranking protocols that
agricultural land applications follow.
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comment.
Ranking Process
Comments
NRCS received nine comments related
to the ranking process. The majority of
the comments pertained to
implementing CSP in a size neutral
manner. The commenters encouraged
NRCS to resist efforts that would place
unnecessary size and income
restrictions on CSP participation,
especially if those restrictions go
beyond the provisions Congress
specifically included in the CSP
authorization. CSP is a program that
must be designed in a way that allows
participants to be ranked and evaluated
on the environmental merit of their onfarm activities, regardless of the overall
size of their operation. One commenter
expressed that CSP puts more emphasis
on change. NRCS needs to be careful
about what kind of change is being
directly or indirectly promoted with taxpayer money. In the two sign-ups for the
old CSP, the highest ranking
applications were often continuous notill row crop producers. With the
emphasis on change, those applicants
who are changing to no-till will rank
high.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
The CSP is designed to allow
participants to be ranked and evaluated
on the environmental merit of their onfarm activities regardless of the overall
size of their operation. The CMT
evaluates existing and proposed new
activities to calculate conservation
performance points that will be used for
ranking and payment purposes. The
CMT is size neutral ensuring that all
operations, despite the size of each
operation, have the same potential to
accrue a similar number of points.
NRCS is following the program’s
statute by crediting producers for the
conservation performance from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
existing and proposed system. In
addition, NRCS is following the ranking
factors stated in the statute. Three out of
the four ranking criteria are related to
new conservation activities. However, a
review of the first sign-up data is being
conducted, and any needed adjustments
will be made before the next ranking
period.
Comments
Two commenters responded with
concerns related to wildlife issues; one
commenter expressed concern if cost is
figured into the ranking criteria, that
wildlife and forest health enhancements
will be negatively weighted because of
the installation cost, low CSP payment,
and no cost-share opportunities
available for the producer.
NRCS Response
Cost is not a ranking factor unless
there is a tie in ranking scores between
two or more applications. When there is
a tie, the application that represents the
least cost to the program will be given
priority. The CSP does not provide costshare payments but rather compensates
producers for the conservation
performance.
Comments
One commenter supports a ranking
scheme with no weighting for the
adoption of new enhancements by the
producer.
NRCS Response
NRCS is currently implementing the
ranking factors without preferential
treatment to any one factor. No changes
are made to the regulation in response
to this comment.
Comments
One commenter recommended NRCS
award points for selecting conservation
practices that address State, regional, or
national resource concerns such as Gulf
of Mexico hypoxia, Northern Bobwhite
Conservation, and grassland bird
initiatives.
NRCS Response
Conservation practices are used in
CSP for the purpose of encouraging
producers to meet additional
stewardship thresholds. NRCS is
evaluating options and methodologies to
allow for State and regional adaptation
of the CMT at some future point.
Conservation Measurement Tool
Comments
NRCS received 19 comments on the
CMT. Most of the comments requested
additional conservation considerations
in the CMT. NRCS received both
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31633
positive and negative comments related
to CMT and agency implementation. For
example, one commenter expressed the
CMT is an attempt to provide a
nationwide ‘‘level playing field’’ in
ranking applicants and determining
funding status across a large number of
resource conservation areas. For this,
the NRCS deserves some
commendation. Unfortunately, the draft
tools available for review thus far do not
give clear indications of how some of
the ranking decisions were made, nor
how points are applied to producers’
activities. Another commented that
estimation of a true baseline of
environmental conditions before and
after CSP implementation is not
possible.
NRCS Response
NRCS appreciates and understands
the positive and negative comments on
CMT. The first implementation of CMT
was a learning process. Changes are
already planned for CMT based on
experiences at the field level. As field
personnel become more familiar with
the use of CMT, inconsistencies in its
implementation will be minimized. In
addition, NRCS will conduct additional
training for field personnel on CMT to
ensure consistent application and
interpretation across the country.
NRCS entered into an agreement with
the University of Illinois to conduct a
scientific validation to assess its
performance in evaluating
environmental benefits.
Comments
One commenter expressed that the
CMT considers the relative physical
effects of existing and proposed
conservation activities to estimate
improvements in conservation
performance. It does not measure true
environmental benefits, e.g., tons of
carbon sequestered or tons of soil saved.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with this commenter.
The CMT was developed for the CSP as
a means of providing an ordinal ranking
of applicants based upon the level of
conservation stewardship on the
applicant’s operation. The CMT does
this by asking a series of questions about
the outcomes of agricultural and
ranching practices in terms that a
typical landowner should be able to
answer. In other words, it provides a
means of saying that the environmental
outcome on applicant A’s farm as a
result of the implementation of farming
and conservation activities is better than
applicant B’s. However, NRCS will
explore potential future additions for
quantitative capability to the tool. For
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31634
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the CMT to measure benefits will
require incorporating other modules
that can measure change such as
Agricultural Policy Environmental
Extender, Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases-Carbon Management
Evaluation Tool, Nitrogen Loss and
Environmental Assessment Package, etc.
Comments
Another commenter expressed that
the CMT does not adequately encourage
intensive tillage management for residue
management or soil tilth.
NRCS Response
CMT seeks only to judge the results of
conservation actions (or lack thereof).
The encouragement comes as applicants
see what actions they need to take in
order to rank highly or increase their
level of payment. CMT does in fact
reward applicants through increased
score that practice tillage techniques
that maintain high residue levels and
limit soil disturbance. In addition, by
choosing enhancements that increase
residue and otherwise improve soil
quality, applicants can further increase
ranking and payment levels.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One commenter expressed
understanding that the CMT has been
developed to determine if an applicant
meets the basic stewardship threshold
for entry into the program. The CMT
should also be capable of assisting
further in the ranking process by
calculating and accounting for the
practices of those farmers that have
achieved a much higher level of
conservation, above and beyond the
entry level threshold. It must be
remembered that many of the nation’s
best land stewards adopted and
implemented these conservation
practices with their own money because
it was the ‘‘right’’ thing to do. In time,
CSP will have the majority of the farms
enrolled, but the poor land stewards
must be aware of the successes of the
best land stewards. The new CSP should
continue to inspire farmers to be ranked
among the best land stewards in the
country.
NRCS Response
The CMT scores the exceptional
steward much higher than the applicant
that just barely meets eligibility. NRCS
acknowledges that the number of
enhancements available and the
environmental points granted to a
‘‘barely eligible’’ producer could result
in an application to be ranked higher
than for an exceptional steward. NRCS
will be reviewing the stewardship
eligibility levels for each resource
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
concern to ensure that good and poor
stewards are properly indentified. This
could ultimately have some effect on
who is eligible for the program and
better identify the good steward.
Comments
One commenter recommended the
CMT needs to better recognize and score
certain practices. For example, terracing
is a conservation practice that was
advocated for decades by the Soil
Conservation Service and is still part of
the FOTG. Terracing is a vital
component in controlling water erosion,
especially where residue production is
low. No-till or cover crops are not
always an acceptable substitute for
terraces, and CMT scoring must
recognize that fact. Producers who have
installed and farmed with terraces have
incurred significant costs in additional
time, machinery, and labor
requirements. Ignoring both the benefits
and producer costs, the CMT recognizes
terracing with at most only 45 points
(questions 13 and 14) and specifically
only 16 points (question 14).
NRCS Response
While NRCS recognizes the
significant contribution that some
applicants have made to improve the
farming landscape by installing terrace
systems, CMT is designed to judge the
conservation outcome of activities
rather than the capital and labor input
to install the practices. Farmers make
choices based on the land they farm, the
crops they choose to grow, and other
site-specific factors. In most cases, there
are multiple paths to achieve a good
conservation outcome. The CMT does
not try to define the path, rather it tries
to judge the result of the choices the
farmer makes. The farmer is free to
make these choices based on their
operational goals.
Comments
One commenter opined that the CMT
is particularly flawed in being heavily
weighted towards practices that are
impractical for some regions. Although
it is recognized that the CSP is outcome
based, it will not further national
conservation efforts to exclude some
regions. The CMT needs to be expanded
with questions and points that match a
reasonable conservation outcome for a
given region. It also needs a mechanism
to omit questions inappropriate for a
particular region.
NRCS Response
NRCS will take this concern under
advisement and look for opportunities
for States or regions to customize the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CMT within the constraints of a national
program.
Comments
One commenter questioned in what
manner does the CMT account for the
costs (or lack thereof) of given practices/
enhancements? Question 11 provides up
to 64 points for the use of a no-till
system. However, in many instances notill systems are actually adopted for cost
savings. This is in conflict with the
language in section 1470.24 and with
World Trade Organization requirements.
Given these payment requirements, how
do practices/enhancements such as notill (which is potentially income
enhancing) warrant high CMT points
when significant conservation practices
such as terracing (which clearly has
high costs) are assigned much lower
point values?
NRCS Response
NRCS developed CMT to determine
the environmental benefits points using
conservation physical effects and does
not take into account costs of activities.
The payment process takes into account
costs incurred, income foregone, and to
the extent practical, environmental
benefits.
Comments
One commenter expressed that the
CMT asks no questions related to
strategies for the management of
herbicide resistance in weeds. With
reduced till/no-till systems relying on
the availability of effective herbicides
(especially glyphosate in which
resistance is an increasing problem) this
topic must be addressed.
NRCS Response
The CMT includes a section on pest
management with the highest scoring
being the use of an integrated pest
management plan (IPM). The IPM can
include a host of activities that range
from the use of herbicides to avoidance
techniques that rely on management
strategies. This plan provides sufficient
options to address herbicide resistant
weeds and reward applicants that
choose environmentally sound options
without CMT prescribing the necessary
treatment.
Comments
One commenter responded that other
than referencing residue cover at
planting, the CMT asks no major
questions about management for the
control of wind erosion. This is an
example of an issue where regional
practices/enhancements must be more
fully addressed by the CMT. This
commenter also expressed that despite
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the otherwise heavy emphasis on plant
diversity and cover crops, the CMT does
not recognize the identical role that
facilitating postharvest volunteer plant
growth provides in wheat-fallow
rotations.
NRCS Response
NRCS will take the comments under
advisement to ensure that additional
clarification is included in the CMT.
Comments
One commenter recommended that
NRCS refine the CMT to allow for the
creation of more precise resource
concern categories within the land use
category of forest land. This would
allow States to set priorities for
conservation on forest land in the same
manner that they do for other land use
types when selecting resource concerns
and priority resource concerns for
cropland, rangeland, or pasture.
NRCS Response
At this time NRCS does not anticipate
changing the micro resource concerns
that are considered by CSP. Cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and forest land
are evaluated across the same 27 micro
resource concerns.
Ranking—Environmental Benefits
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
NRCS received 102 comments on the
ranking for environmental benefits. The
majority of the comments pertained to
organic farming and livestock systems
and ranking applications based on
environmental outcomes. NRCS
received a few comments in support of
small farms. The comments are
summarized as follows:
Organic Production
NRCS received 43 comments related
to organic production. The majority of
these commenters expressed that
organic crop and livestock systems
should get extra consideration because
of their environmental benefits. One
commenter requested NRCS make the
rules flexible enough to fit the various
needs of organic farmers, since their
overall system is beneficial but does not
always fit the narrow guidelines for
conventional farming. A number of
commenters expressed that organic and
those transitioning into organic should
be treated similarly. Ranking and
payment point values should be roughly
equivalent for ongoing organic
management and new conversions or
transition to organic. Another
commenter expressed that the points
given to organic farmers are quite fair,
and it is apparent that many organic
farming practices are sustainable. Those
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
practices may be adopted, at least in a
modified form, by non-organic farms as
a way to become more sustainable and
protective of the environments.
Not all the commenters supported
giving organic and livestock producers
special consideration. One commenter
expressed that organic and livestock
practices should not be given higher
ranking or points because it is organic.
The end result is what matters; if
conventional agriculture or organic
agriculture accomplishes the same
result, the reward should be the same.
Another commenter expressed that
organic farming is not sustainable, and
the added tillage to control weeds only
increases soil erosion. The use of
manure encourages phosphorus run off,
and there is not scientific proof that
their producer is any better for humans
than that produced with no-till.
NRCS Response
The CMT evaluates the impacts of
organic systems in the same manner as
for non-organic systems. All producers
are required to meet the same
stewardship threshold for each of the
resource concerns. The CMT evaluates
the environmental benefits provided by
an operation regardless of operation
size, land use, or production system.
Environmental Outcomes
Comments
NRCS received 36 comments
recommending that CSP applications be
ranked and paid based on
environmental outcomes. Examples of
specific comments include:
Conservation strategies that yield the
largest environmental performance and
provide multiple benefits should receive
priority ranking; it would be great if
subsidy payments would shift towards
CSP; effective application ranking that
prioritizes enrollment of producers
promising to do the most to address the
important resource concerns in a
particular area will be critical to
maximizing the environmental benefits
CSP can deliver; and reward good
outcomes such as enhanced wildlife
habitat, better watershed protection, and
higher regard for air quality. These
outcomes should be rewarded whether
the conservation practice was adopted
this year or in the past so that farmers
with good practices are not punished for
starting conservation early.
NRCS Response
The CMT will credit producers with
higher points if their existing and
proposed system is addressing the
priority resource concerns identified by
the State for the geographic area they are
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31635
competing in. In addition, existing and
proposed activities’ performance are
calculated by resource concern for each
land use ensuring the producers are
rewarded for multiple benefits they are
producing.
Small Farms/Farm Size
Comments
Two commenters urged NRCS to
encourage farms of all sizes to practice
conservation methods on their farms.
NRCS Response
NRCS promotes conservation methods
on all farms. The program is designed in
a way that allows participants to be
ranked and evaluated on the
environmental merit of their on-farm
activities, regardless of the size of their
operation.
Comments
NRCS received comments expressing
disappointment from applicants whose
applications were not selected for
participation. Commenters indicated
their applications were rejected due to
their size, lack of sufficient income, or
cropping history.
NRCS Response
The CSP has no minimum income or
size limitation. However, the CSP
statute provides that land used for crop
production after June 18, 2008, that had
not been planted, considered planted, or
devoted to crop production for at least
4 of the 6 years preceding that date is
not eligible. Certain exceptions apply.
NRCS recommends the commenters
contact their local NRCS office for
additional clarification.
Resource-Conserving Crop
Comments
One commenter recommended
mechanical row crop cultivation with
equipment leaving high levels of surface
residue should be assigned some points
when it results in a reduction of
herbicide use. Another commenter
recommended NRCS give more credit
for spring planted small grains with an
under seeding of a legume or legume/
grass mix. This is a common practice
among sustainable farmers here in the
Midwest.
NRCS Response
CMT considers residue amounts and
the use of pesticides (including
herbicides) separately. The applicant
has the opportunity to be scored for
high residue levels under questions 2
and 11. Pesticide related questions are
dealt with under question 15. In the
case described above, high residue
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31636
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
levels could be part of an IPM plan to
reduce the application of herbicides.
The use of a nurse crop of grass or
legume should be credited under
question 3 as a cover crop depending
upon how it is handled after the small
grain is harvested and under question 4
for increased crop diversity. It might
also gain points from question 12 for
wildlife considerations, again
depending on how it is handled after
harvest.
agricultural production. The current
version does not differentiate between
forests and shrubs or grasses.
Fallow Practices
Comments
Comments
One commenter recommended that
fallow practices are not all the same and
should not all be ranked the same. The
commenter suggested a way be
established to account for conservation
fallow such as chemical fallow. In arid
agricultural regions, the purpose of this
fallow type is to idle the land for a
growing season, and conserve and even
recharge soil moisture while
maintaining a cover of previous crop
stubble serving to protect the soil from
wind and water erosion.
Scoring for manure/pesticide
application setbacks should be tiered to
reward greater distances from water
bodies. The current version only
rewards setbacks greater than 33 feet.
Higher scores should be available for
setbacks greater than 100 feet (#9 on
Water Bodies/Water Courses Existing
Activity Conservation Performance).
NRCS Response
In the CMT, Questions 7 and 8 on
Water Bodies/Water Courses ask
questions about the quality of the
vegetation in riparian buffers. Buffers
that are composed of native vegetation
should be scored higher than those that
have non-natives.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes that fallow with
high residue was not accounted for in
the current version of CMT. This
oversight will be corrected for future
sign-ups.
Water quality research has shown that
most of the water quality benefits are
attained in buffers in the first few yards.
While we recognize that additional
width is beneficial, in order to reduce
the complexity of the CMT questions we
chose to craft question 9 under the
Water Bodies/Water Courses section to
ask about the minimum width necessary
for water quality.
Wildlife Habitat/Riparian Buffers
Comments
Comments
One commenter requested riparian
buffers wider than 50 feet should be
rewarded. Currently the highest ranking
is for buffers with a width of 33 feet or
2.5 times the stream channel width, but
wider buffers capture more nutrients
and provide real wildlife habitat.
One commenter requested NRCS
provide special consideration to the
environmental benefits of protection of
wildlife habitats and corridors,
promoting biodiversity and protecting
species from the dangerous effects of
overuse of pesticides.
NRCS Response
Water quality research has shown that
most of the water quality benefits are
attained in buffers in the first few yards.
While we recognize that additional
width is beneficial, in order to reduce
the complexity of the CMT questions,
we chose to craft question 7 under the
Water Bodies/Water Courses section to
ask about the minimum width necessary
for water quality. Additionally, question
7 in Cropland and question 5 in Pasture
will reward an applicant for buffers that
are wider than the minimum for water
quality. NRCS is not changing the
riparian buffer requirements.
The CMT accomplishes this through a
series of questions that address (1) the
occurrence of native vegetation in buffer
areas, (2) the current level of
management of pesticides, and (3)
additional enhancements the applicant
will apply that will reduce pesticide
exposure to the environment and
improve the quality of wildlife habitat.
Applicants that do all of these activities
to protect and benefit wildlife should
score well in the CMT.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
Comments
The buffer scoring should also reward
higher levels of forest canopy in regions
where forests were the predominant
land cover prior to conversion to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRCS Response
Comments
A third commenter expressed that the
commenter devoted many areas of their
farm to providing habitat for reptiles
and amphibians. A true
environmentalist works from the bottom
of the food chain up. These types of
land stewards should be rewarded for
protecting this base, not penalized.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NRCS Response
There are many opportunities in the
CMT to recognize fish and wildlife
activities an applicant is currently
implementing, as well as many
opportunities for enhancements to
improve fish and wildlife habitat on a
farm.
Pollinators
Comments
NRCS received requests that
landowners be given credit in the
scoring system for pollinator-related
values of conservation practices that
provide habitat for native and managed
pollinators. Two examples are (1) the
ecosystem services that native
pollinators provide, and (2) giving
beekeepers permission to place
managed hives on their land to take
advantage of natural forage. To the
extent innovative approaches are
developed that offer premium CSP
payments, the same principles could
apply. The scoring system could also be
weighted to provide additional value to
practices that provide multiple
environmental benefits.
NRCS Response
NRCS recognizes the value of
pollinators to agriculture and the
environment. NRCS agrees to make
changes in the CMT to specifically
include pollinator habitat in areas that
are managed for wildlife habitat. This
will provide scoring in the CMT for
those applicants that are managing noncropped and non-pastured areas for
pollinator habitat.
Comments
Another commenter recommended
NRCS consider awarding additional
points for selecting additional
conservation practices that address
State, regional, or national resource
concerns.
NRCS Response
The CMT currently does this by
rewarding applicants that choose to
address additional State priority
resource concerns during the life of the
contract.
Other
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
consider ALL the environmental
ramifications AND the food
ramifications of its decisions. Another
commenter expressed that CSP should
continue to reward farmers who are
farming at a high stewardship threshold
and should provide an incentive to
maintain those high standards.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS Response
NRCS is following the legislation and
program purpose. The CSP is a new
program with a new purpose. The
program is a voluntary conservation
program that encourages producers to
address resource concerns in a
comprehensive manner by:
(1) Undertaking additional
conservation activities; and
(2) Improving, maintaining, and
managing existing conservation
activities.
Applicants that are farming at high
resource stewardship levels will score
very well on the existing activities
which will be reflected in program
payments. NRCS is not authorized to
provide payments solely for improving,
maintaining, and managing
conservation activities in place on the
operation. Conservation programs are
not authorized to make incentive
payments. Under CSP, participants are
paid for conservation performance; the
higher the operational performance, the
higher their payment will be.
Comments
Another commenter expressed that a
practice designed to achieve wildlife or
other conservation practices could
generate significant benefits for native
and managed pollinators by integrating
modest enhancements such as
selections of pollinator-beneficial
plants. Similarly, conservation efforts
for native and managed pollinators will
advance other natural resource
objectives including the new natural
resource challenge of mitigating and
managing the adverse impacts of climate
change.
NRCS Response
A review of CSP enhancements and
practices is currently underway with
recommended changes and
improvements to be incorporated into
the next ranking period. Of the 82 CSP
enhancements that were available
during the first sign-up period, 27
included a wildlife focus or purpose. In
addition, over 70 percent of the funding
pools identified wildlife related issues
as one of their priority resource
concerns. No changes are made to the
rule in response to these comments.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One commenter encouraged NRCS to
consult with USFS on analysis of
environmental benefits. Considerable
data and research guidance on such
matters is available from the USFS State
and private forestry, as well as the
recently established USDA Office of
Ecosystem Services and Markets.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
One commenter recommended NRCS
give additional weight to projects that
yield significant public benefits beyond
the boundaries of the enrollee’s
property. For example, NRCS could
develop a suite of priorities that prequalify proposals that achieve one or
more of the following: Nitrogen and
sediment run-off benefits in targeted
watersheds.
Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Benefits
One commenter expressed that some
areas of resource concerns seem
undervalued. For example, the fertilizer
decisionmaking questions in the
operation profile focus on soil nutrient
tests, but the California perennial crop
growers have long used the more
sophisticated plant tissue testing
methods which are not mentioned until
you reach the ‘‘enhancement’’ section.
One commenter requested NRCS
encourage proposals/awards to farms/
farmers that make a contribution to
lessen C02 emissions from sunlight
oxidizing organic material from bare soil
on America’s Farms.
NRCS Response
CSP currently rewards farmers who
limit tillage and keep the soil covered
either with residue or cover crops and
practice advanced nutrient management
techniques. This is done by questions in
the CMT and through enhancements
that are targeted to these concerns.
Application and Ranking—Weighting
of Ranking Factors
Comments
NRCS received numerous comments
regarding policy options for the
weighting of ranking factors. The
comments were evaluated and given
consideration in the development of the
CEA. To add clarity to the issue of
weighting ranking factors, NRCS
amended 1470.20(d) to read, ‘‘Weighting
of ranking factors. To the extent CSP
objectives, including implementing new
conservation, are not being achieved as
determined by the Chief, NRCS will
adjust the weighting of ranking factors
in order to place emphasis on improving
and adding conservation activities.’’
Additionally, NRCS adds a new
paragraph (e) regarding State and local
priorities that enables the Chief to
develop and use additional criteria for
evaluating applications to ensure
national, State, and local priorities are
effectively addressed.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31637
Weight Between Existing/Additional
Conservation Activities
Supporters of Equal Weighting
Overall, commenters expressed
concern over how NRCS will weight
new and existing practices. Numerous
comments were received expressing
concern that if NRCS selects those who
have considerable conservation
measures to adopt over those who have
actively been practicing higher levels of
stewardship, NRCS will be punishing
those who are practicing good
stewardship. A recurring theme within
the comments is that NRCS should not
discriminate against early adopters and
that the sole measure should be the
environmental benefits secured by the
total conservation system regardless of
the timing of adoption of various parts
of the system.
Thirty-one comments were received
expressing that CSP should equally
balance the benefits of both existing and
new practices. The most important
aspect of CSP needs to be the measure
and rewarding of conservation benefits
secured by a farm regardless of the
timing or adoption of various
conservation measures or practices.
Farmers who have adopted conservation
measures should get the same incentive
as a farmer who newly adopts
conservation measures and agrees to
continue them into the future. This
policy will reward farmers who have
been doing good things for the
environment, it will give them an
incentive to continue the conservation
practices, and it will encourage
surrounding farmers to do more
conservation to qualify for CSP
incentives. Ultimately this will result in
better conservation of our environment
overall. Another commenter who
supported this position recommends
existing and new practices have equal
merit in determining participation
because existing practices require
intensive management to sustain them.
Similarly, 45 commenters expressed
that farmers applying to participate in
CSP should be ranked on environmental
outcomes regardless of whether the
conservation practice was previously
adopted. A system that emphasizes the
existing environmental outcome should
be the ultimate goal.
Two commenters requested that
conservation enhancements score higher
than related conservation practices, and
that point values for existing
conservation score equally with new
conservation. Moreover, the baseline
portion of the CMT should allow farms
to accumulate points for the full range
of conservation practices and
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31638
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
enhancements that are in the nonbaseline portion of the CMT.
NRCS Response
NRCS acknowledges the concerns and
will seek to clarify that the CSP is not
penalizing good stewards of the land.
CSP is a competitive program that
rewards applicants for their existing
conservation system as well as for the
proposed increased conservation
performance. NRCS has designed the
program as presented in the 2008 Act.
The ranking factors used to evaluate an
applicant’s conservation performance
are provided by the legislation, in which
three out of the four factors are crediting
producers for additional conservation
activities. NRCS recognizes this is a
significant concern for good stewards of
the land, and while reviewing the first
sign-up data, will consider all the
comments made about this topic. NRCS
will take in consideration all comments
received for future analysis and if
adjustments are needed, will be made
before the next ranking period.
It is important to emphasize that each
applicant’s existing conservation
activities are evaluated and used to
determine if they have met the
minimum stewardship threshold for
resource concerns. Those applicants
with a high level of conservation are
more likely to exceed the minimum
stewardship threshold on more resource
concerns resulting in a higher ranking
score, increasing their chances of being
selected for program funding.
Good stewards are encouraged to
adopt additional conservation activities
while increasing the environmental
benefits they are providing which in
turn will result in a higher ranking score
and increase their chances of being
selected for program funding.
NRCS acknowledges the concerns and
will seek policy options that ensure that
CSP does not penalize good stewards of
the land.
Supporters of More Weight on
Additional Practices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
Not all commenters supported the
equal weighting concept. Five
commenters supported placing greater
weight on additional practices. One
commenter expressed that both the law
and conference report, ‘‘encourage the
Secretary to place emphasis on
improving and adding conservation
activities.’’ Therefore, NRCS should
follow this guidance by placing an
emphasis in the ranking criteria for new
practices adopted with less weight for
existing practices. Another urged that
greater emphasis and valuation be given
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
to scoring additional conservation
practices and the increased outcomes
they will provide. The third commenter
urged implementation of the CSP
consistent with statutory intent, with
emphasis on rewarding landowners for
additional conservation enhancements.
Habitat loss and degradation is a major
identified cause of decline for both
native and managed pollinator
populations. CSP provides economic
reward to landowners to increase
habitat as part of their farming,
ranching, and stewardship actions.
Several comments suggested that
more weight should be on existing
practices. One commenter
recommended that the program and its
benefits be geared to those who have
taken the steps to conserve their
resources and that other USDA
programs are available for those wanting
to install new practices. Three others
offer that the most cost-effective
conservation practices are the ones
already installed; therefore, early
adopters should receive credit and not
be penalized.
Other Comments
One commenter offered that during
the most recent CSP application period,
it was common for producers to have
already enacted several of the
enhancements listed. In many cases,
compensation and recognition for these
conservation efforts farmers have
adopted on their own was not possible.
There should be a way when
establishing the producer’s conservation
activity baseline with the CMT that the
questions asked and points offered
correspond with the enhancements
offered. The producer then would get
credit in ranking factor 1 for those
enhancements already adopted and
correspondingly would be able to add
them as enhancements and receive
credit if they are not in practice.
One commenter recommended that if
a producer receives credit for a practice
as an enhancement, then a producer
should receive the same credit for the
practice if it is already implemented on
their operation.
One commenter suggested that there
needs to be a way within the CMT to
address and give credit to farmers who
have been extremely active in adopting
conservation practices. If a practice is
listed as an enhancement, then the
producer that has already adopted that
particular practice should receive equal
points or credit within the CMT. If the
CMT can be used to estimate the
existing and proposed conservation
performance, it should therefore be able
to credit existing conservation practices.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NRCS Response
NRCS has thoroughly reviewed the
questions in the CMT and the
enhancements. Almost all of the
enhancements are reflected either
directly or indirectly in the CMT. The
few that are not are inconsequential in
terms of CMT scoring. Therefore, an
applicant’s current level of stewardship,
even if it includes enhancement
activities, should be reflected in the
CMT score.
Comments
Seven commenters expressed that
ranking and payment point values
should be roughly equivalent for
ongoing organic management and new
conversions or transition to organic.
Another recommended NRCS credit
existing organic system plans with a
specific baseline question and ranking
score for existing conservation
activities.
NRCS Response
The CSP evaluates each applicant’s
conservation activities as to their impact
on seven resource concerns plus energy.
No two systems will have the exact
same impact on all resource concerns.
Giving equal environmental benefits to
an established organic system and one
that is in transition would be penalizing
the established organic producer at the
expense of the one in transition. While
over the course of time the transition
farmer might catch up, the CSP rules
require the conservation evaluation to
be done on the system at the time of
application. This same concept would
apply to an organic system plan. While
they all may meet the national organic
plan rules, they all do not provide the
same level of environmental benefits.
Comments
One commenter recommended that
CSP continue to require additional
practices, especially when the farm
operator already is practicing multiple
conservation practices.
NRCS Response
The CSP offers a defined, limited
suite of management practices for the
explicit purpose of encouraging
producers to meet additional
stewardship thresholds.
Comments
One commenter expressed that there
are point values that are off by very
large factors, well beyond any possible
justification based on cost. For instance,
NRCS estimates the payment range for
newly adopted resource-conserving crop
rotations at $12–16 per acre, yet the
payment for an existing resource-
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
conserving crop rotation as reflected in
the baseline assessment points could be
as low as $1 per acre. This is a
fundamental flaw in the current CMT
that needs to be quickly addressed and
remedied before the FY 2010 enrollment
process gets underway. We have
previously suggested different ways to
fix this problem to the agency, and we
are very interested in continuing to
pursue practical solutions.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS respectfully disagrees with the
comments. The contrast between
payment for adopting a resourceconserving crop rotation and existing
conservation activities is because they
are compensated through two different
payment types, not because CMT point
values are off. By statute, CSP offers
participants two possible types of
payments:
(1) Annual payments for installing
and adopting additional activities, and
improving, maintaining, and managing
existing activities; and
(2) A supplemental payment for the
adoption of resource-conserving crop
rotations.
NRCS received significant feedback
from national, State, and regional
organizations that emphasized the crop
rotation provision’s importance to the
overall success of the program and the
need to implement it in a
comprehensive, meaningful manner.
NRCS also found direction in the Farm
Bill Joint Explanatory Statement of the
Committee of Conference, which
provided guidance that, ‘‘The Managers
intend for the supplemental payment to
encourage producers to adopt new,
additional beneficial crop rotations that
provide significant conservation
benefits.’’ With consideration to that
feedback, NRCS used variable cost and
price information to compare the
difference in net-returns between
‘‘conventional’’ and ‘‘resourceconserving’’ crop rotations and arrive at
the supplemental payment rate. Based
on past program experience, NRCS
believes this approach provides the
level of meaningful compensation
needed to encourage producers to adopt
additional resource-conserving crop
rotations and effectively use this aspect
of the program.
Comments
This feature is of critical importance
to sustainable and organic farming. The
ranking and payment system, which is
currently equally weighted between
existing and new superior conservation,
should be changed. USDA has indicated
that serious consideration is being given
to giving more weight to the adoption of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
practices, resulting in smaller
enrollment chances and smaller
payments for farmers already practicing
superior land stewardship.
NRCS Response
NRCS is currently evaluating the first
sign-up data and will make adjustments
needed to the program to ensure the
program objectives are met.
Stewardship Threshold
Comments
NRCS received nine comments on the
topic of stewardship thresholds. One
commenter encouraged forest
landowners to participate in CSP and in
general believe that conservation
assistance should be available for farm,
ranch, and forest lands. Eligible
participants should meet the
stewardship threshold for one resource
concern at the time of their application.
The commenter believes that this
approach will allow more participants
to be eligible for the program.
Two commenters recommended that
the applicant should be meeting the
stewardship threshold on a minimum of
three resource concerns that includes at
least one priority concern. Requiring
producers to meet at least three of the
nine potential resource categories is
more commensurate with the goal of
encouraging producers to adopt a
rewardable level of conservation on
their farmed lands.
One commenter expressed that
meeting the stewardship threshold and
one priority resource concern is not
adequate unless that priority resource
concern includes wildlife. Wildlife
enhancements provide multiple
resource benefits to soil, water, and
wildlife as well as greater conservation
return for the dollars invested. Another
commenter thought the level was
adequate, providing it is considered an
entry level requirement for the program.
The entry level must be low, but at the
same time not discourage the best
farmers in America.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the regulation
in response to this comment. The statute
provides that to be eligible to participate
in the CSP, a producer will demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that
a producer, at the time of the contract
offer, is meeting the stewardship
threshold for at least one resource
concern and would, at a minimum, meet
or exceed the stewardship threshold for
at least one priority resource concern by
the end of the stewardship contract.
NRCS does not have authority to
require a producer to meet a specific
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31639
priority resource concern to participate
in the program. The CSP authorizing
language provides that three to five
priority resource concerns are identified
at the State level for each geographic
area or region, in consultation with the
State Technical Committee, as a priority
for a particular watershed or area of the
State.
Comments
One commenter requested each State
be given the authority to increase the
stewardship threshold if they wish to
have a more targeted impact to achieve
particular conservation goals.
NRCS Response
The CMT is not currently designed to
allow States to make adjustments on
scorings, thresholds, questions, or
activities. The tool has been normalized
and calibrated and to enable State
access, will require a major rebuild of
the tool that will also impact other
program processes. However, NRCS will
explore options to allow States to make
adjustments as we move into the future
with the program.
Comments
One commenter expressed that the
statute provides a choice to the
applicant to address one or more
resource concerns as a condition of
eligibility and requires them to choose
one more priority resource concern to
address either at the outset or during the
first contract term, but does not provide
discretion to the Department to require
more. Therefore, the commenter does
not recommend the agency consider
changing the interim final rule
provision.
NRCS Response
NRCS agree with the commenter and
intends to maintain the provision in the
interim final rule as stated in the
legislation.
Comments
One commenter questioned how high
is the stewardship threshold for the
resource concern or priority resource
concern?
Second, how comprehensive is the
level of treatment required for each
resource concern and priority resource
concern, and is it truly based on
resource outcomes and conditions?
NRCS Response
NRCS set the threshold numbers for
each resource concern by running a
nation-wide test on a sampling of farms.
NRCS Conservationists judged the level
of resource treatment on each farm, and
the CMT was then run on each of the
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31640
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
farms. The resulting scores were
compared to the level of treatment that
was determined by the Conservationist.
Threshold scores were then set at the
average of the scores for the farms that
were determined to be adequately
addressing the resource concerns on the
farm, what NRCS refers to as the
Resource Management System level of
treatment.
Comments
Third, is it possible that the priority
resource concern might be the same as
the resource concern? The answer to
each of these questions will inform our
understanding of whether the bar for
participation in CSP has been set at an
appropriate level.
NRCS Response
The resource concern and priority
resource concern used to meet the
stewardship threshold criteria must be
different for the same land use. For
example, an applicant is only meeting
one resource concern, which also
happens to be a priority resource
concern at the time of application. That
resource concern would meet the ‘‘one
resource concern at the time of
application’’ criterion. However, a
different priority resource concern
would need to be used to meet the ‘‘one
priority resource concern at the time of
application, or by the end of the
stewardship contract’’ criterion.
Comments
One commenter expressed support for
using EQIP practices that directly
contribute to a CSP participant’s ability
to meet or exceed stewardship
thresholds. It will both allow CSP to
function properly and be an excellent
use of EQIP, because the funds will be
directed to meeting the stewardship
threshold for priority resource concerns
for the State or geographic area within
the State. The commenter requested
NRCS design a process that eliminates
redundancy and minimizes paperwork
in the sign-up process. The commenter
urged NRCS to have this process ready
for the 2010 sign-up period.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees to address the
recommendation by adding language to
section 1470.7(c) as follows:
‘‘CSP encourages the use of other
NRCS programs to install practices that
are required to meet the agreed-upon
stewardship threshold only if the
practice is not compensated through
CSP.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Resource Concerns
Comments
NRCS received several comments
related to resource concerns. NRCS
should include consideration of habitat
and forage needs for both native and
managed pollinators, requiring
producers to address multiple resource
concerns fits within the purpose of CSP
to promote comprehensive conservation
planning and to encourage producers to
adopt new activities or maintain
existing ones. NRCS should include the
addition of a special provision for firstyear beginning farmers or ranchers in
the eligibility section (1470.20(b)(1)
concerning resource concerns.
NRCS Response
Regarding eligibility, NRCS decided
to adopt the statutory provision without
additional restrictions in order to attract
a broad spectrum of eligible producers.
NRCS does have flexibility with how it
ranks applications. The greater the
number of resource concerns the
applicant addresses and those planning
on being addressed, increases the
ranking score. Data from the first signup shows that 99 percent of applicants
are meeting more than one resource
concern at the time of application.
Comments
Another commenter expressed
concern that the practices that rank
‘‘very high’’ seem targeted at Midwestern
grain producers.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the
regulation. NRCS keeps the language in
the interim final rule to be consistent
with the language in legislation.
Practices are scored based on the
environmental impact they have across
27 micro-resource concerns regardless
of physical location. Further, program
allocations and ranking pools are
established and operated at the State
level. Applications do not compete
across State boundaries or ranking
pools.
Pollinators
Comments
Several comments were received
related to pollinators. Commenters
asked NRCS to seek innovative ways in
the CSP to maximize forage outcomes
for honey bees and other pollinators;
place emphasis on rewarding
landowners for additional bee forage;
enhance planting mixes to include
plants that provide optimal forage for
honey bees; and urged NRCS to allow
planting mixes to be enhanced at the
national and State levels by including
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
plants suitable for each region that
provide optimal forage for honey bees.
Additionally, NRCS received a number
of specific recommendations to address
the habitat needs of native and managed
native pollinators.
NRCS Response
NRCS welcomes suggestions on
additional enhancements from all
partners. NRCS solicited input from a
wide source of expertise and will
continue to do so for future
enhancements. NRCS will evaluate the
recommended enhancements and will
incorporate those viable for future
ranking periods.
Comments
One commenter urged the Chief to
direct the development and integration
of appropriate additional criteria that
adequately reflect the objectives of the
new conservation provisions of the
Farm Bill for native and managed
pollinators as an important part of
ensuring that national, State, and local
conservation priorities address resource
needs related to native and managed
pollinators and the agriculture
pollination and ecosystem services they
provide.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the regulation
in response to this comment. NRCS will
modify the questions in the CMT to
specifically mention pollinator habitat
as part of these questions. Pollinator
habitat can be considered when
answering the inventory questions,
specifically question 7 under cropland
and question 5 under pasture. In
addition, the program offers an
enhancement to Establish Pollinator
Habitat for cropland, pastureland,
rangeland, and forest land. In the 2009
sign-up this enhancement was in the top
ten most popular enhancements
selected by applicants.
Priority Resource Concerns
Comments
NRCS received numerous comments
on the topic of priority resource
concerns. In the interim final rule,
NRCS requested specific comments on
whether wildlife should be a required
resource concern, and as a result, many
of the comments focused on wildlife.
NRCS received the following feedback:
NRCS should establish wildlife as one
of the national ranking priorities by
incorporating State wildlife action plans
in the CSP ranking tool and require
producers to address multiple resource
and priority concerns, rather than just
requiring all States to select ‘‘wildlife’’ as
a priority resource concern. NRCS
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
should clearly require States to be more
strategic by identifying particular
indicator species or suites of species
and specific habitats as priority resource
concerns for at least one geographic area
within the State. Forty-one respondents
identified biodiversity and fish,
wildlife, pollinator, and beneficial
insect habitat to be specifically added as
a priority resource concern; priority
resource concerns related to the needs
of native and managed pollinators
should be incorporated, it is important
that fish, forest, and wildlife resources
be given adequate priority and attention;
the agency should strongly encourage
but not absolutely mandate that one or
more wildlife habitat resource concerns
be included among the up to five
priority resource concerns in each
watershed or State; NRCS should
identify forage and habitat for
agriculture pollinators—honey bees and
native pollinators—as a national priority
resource concern; State offices should
be encouraged to make a similar
determination, especially in States or
regions where agriculture pollination
services are important and where forage
deficits are recognized as a limiting
factor for healthy honey bees and native
agriculture pollinators.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
Although the commenters preferred to
include wildlife as a priority resource
concern, NRCS has determined the
decision will continue to be made at the
State level in consultation with the State
Technical Committee. NRCS prefers to
have the resource concerns determined
at the State level by people more
familiar with the local issues. NRCS
evaluated data from the initial program
sign-up and determined it is not
necessary to identify wildlife as a
priority resource concern at the national
level. Seventy-seven percent of the
funding pools identified wildlife as one
of the priority resource concerns. With
such a high percentage of pools
recognizing the importance of wildlife,
the national designation seems
unnecessary. Therefore, NRCS
encourages commenters and others to
voice their concerns or
recommendations to the NRCS State
Conservationist and the State Technical
Committee in their respective State as to
which resource concerns should be a
priority in their State or area of the
State.
Comments
Commenters questioned specific
priority resource concerns selected by
States.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRCS Response
NRCS has chosen broader resource
concerns categories which is consistent
with the agency planning procedures.
NRCS historically has planned to
address soil, water, air, plants, and
animal concerns. The recommended
priority resource concerns fall under
one or more existing categories that are
used for CSP. NRCS encourages
commenters and others to voice their
concerns or recommendations to the
NRCS State Conservationist and the
State Technical Committee in their
respective State as to which resource
concerns should be a priority in their
State or area of the State.
Comments
NRCS received suggestions regarding
broad priority resource concern
categories for State selection. Another
commenter recommended biodiversity
promoting Prairie Reconstructions (50
species or greater) as a priority resource
concern.
NRCS Response
NRCS welcomes the suggestions to
improve CSP and will consider
recommendations related to priority
resource concern categories. NRCS has
included Prairie Reconstructions in the
resource concerns under the Plants
category. No changes are made to the
regulation in response to this comment
as the regulation does not include
language on each priority resource
concern.
Comments
Another commenter recommended
farm energy efficiency and the reduction
of direct and indirect fossil fuel based
energy in agriculture needs to be more
emphasized as a priority resource
concern.
NRCS Response
NRCS already considers farm energy
efficiency and the reduction of fossil
fuels under the Energy category. No
changes are made to the rule in response
to the comment.
Comments
One commenter recommended that
farms in impaired watersheds, listed by
the EPA under section 303(d) of the
Federal Clean Water Act, should be
required to address water quality as one
of their priority resource concerns.
Another recommended, in addition to
the priority resource concerns that are
identified by the NRCS State offices,
codify a suite of criteria tailored to
ensure that CSP addresses targeted
regional and national resource priorities
that are inherently cross boundary and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31641
multi-jurisdictional; for example,
projects that produce measurable
downstream outcomes in reducing
nitrogen and sediment run-off in
targeted watersheds (i.e. the Chesapeake
Bay) that are shared by multiple States
or projects that have measurable
benefits in sequestering or preventing
the release of N20 and other greenhouse
gasses.
Three commenters recommended
NRCS set priorities on specific resource
concerns at the State and local levels in
close coordination with the landowners
that the program is targeted to serve.
Such coordination will provide the best
opportunity for CSP to fulfill Congress’
intent of targeting the conservation
needs of working agricultural lands and
their operators.
One commenter encouraged strategic
emphasis on ‘‘at least’’ one priority
resource concern.
NRCS Response
No change is made to the regulation
in response to these comments. The
priority resource concerns are selected
at the State level. States use a variety of
resources to determine the priority
resource concerns. NRCS agrees that the
303(d) list of waters reports on streams
and lakes could be a good reference to
assist States in determining the priority
resource concerns for their geographic
areas. In the initial CSP sign-up, 89
percent of the funding pools listed water
quality as one of the priority resource
concerns.
Comments
One commenter expressed, with the
exception of unusual geographic
circumstances where the consensus is
that one priority resource concern is
overridingly important, the goal should
be for landowners to meet more than
stewardship threshold. Additional
enhancements should be designed to
meet more than one stewardship
threshold where practicable.
NRCS Response
Most enhancements provide benefits
to multiple resource concerns.
Enhancements that produce multiple
benefits across resource concerns are
scored as such in the CMT. Producers
will be rewarded for each resource
concern individually.
Comments
One commenter recommended
amending paragraph 1470.20(b)(2) to
add ‘‘in addition to the resource concern
described in (b)(1)’’ after the words
‘‘priority resource concern.’’
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31642
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the commenter and
will amend paragraph 1470.20(b)(2) as
suggested. The paragraph will read
‘‘Would, at minimum, meet or exceed
the stewardship threshold for at least
one priority resource concern in
addition to the resource concern
described in (b)(1) by the end of the
conservation stewardship contract
* * *’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
Several commenters identified that
resource and priority resource concerns
for an area need to be specific, stable,
and consistent to give producers
confidence that bringing their
operations up to the basic stewardship
threshold level for one or more of the
resource concerns may in fact lead to a
CSP contract in the future. If the
resource concerns change too often and
in an unpredictable manner, CSP cannot
serve as an effective incentive for
operators to improve their performance.
NRCS heard from several commenters
that it needs to provide clear guidance
on how States choose priority resource
concerns. One commenter requested
NRCS take a close look at how all States
selected priority resource concerns for
the FY 2009 sign-up. States should
choose priority resource concerns that
are both specific and are, in fact, the
most important environmental
challenges associated with agricultural
production in particular areas of the
State. Another commenter suggested
NRCS closely follow the definition set
in the statute, and require States to
select priority resource concerns for
specific geographic areas.
NRCS received a comment that it
should consider offering an incentive
through higher acreage allocations to
States that do a good job of
implementing CSP to produce
measurable improvements to specific
habitat types and other specific priority
resource concerns. Another commenter
suggested States establish very broad
priority resource concerns. NRCS also
received a comment that the potential
benefit of geographically-focused
ranking pools may not be realized
because it may be difficult to ensure that
priority is given to applicants who offer
to do the most to solve specific pressing
resource concerns in each geographic
area.
NRCS Response
NRCS will consider the
recommendations for future ranking
periods. NRCS will give States an
opportunity to review the priority
resource concerns to ensure they select
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
the most appropriate priority resource
concerns that best represent the
impairments and concerns in their areas
for subsequent ranking periods.
Applicants who offer a management
system that addresses the priority
resource concerns selected for the
geographic area will score very well and
increase their chances of being awarded
a contract. However, applicants are
competing among other applicants with
similar resource challenges. Program
funding, State acreage distribution
among ranking pools, and
characteristics of the applicants within
a ranking pool will be determining
factors in whether an applicant is
awarded a contract.
Section 1470.21
Requirements
Contract
Comments
NRCS received four comments related
to the contract requirements in this
section. The comments are addressed
separately.
One commenter expressed there is
considerable discussion regarding
‘‘available funds.’’ Should a situation
arise that Federal funding is incomplete
or not available for CSP, the farmer’s
continued contract obligation should be
reduced proportional to the reduction in
payment.
NRCS Response
NRCS believes this scenario is
unlikely to happen as Congress
recognizes the positive benefits on the
environment produced by the CSP.
However, in the event that funds are
reduced, NRCS will make Congress fully
aware of the impacts this action will
have on participants’ contracts and on
the landscape. No change is needed to
the rule in response to this comment.
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
create an exception that allows for a
temporary suspension of practices or a
temporary reduction in conservation
performance for the installation of
infrastructure and equipment necessary
to undertake additional CSP
enhancements. This exception could be
administered by setting a specific
timeframe and conditioned on a
requirement that the project is
anticipated to result in higher overall
levels of conservation performance.
NRCS Response
NRCS understands there may be
circumstances where a temporary
reduction is justified when the
reduction is very minor compared to an
eventual much larger stewardship gain
or the plan might include mitigating
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
activities to offset the temporary
situation. In either case, it should be
covered in the stewardship plan on a
case-by-case basis and does not require
any change in the CSP rule.
Comments
One commenter expressed that the 5
years of an operator’s contract is not a
very long time for an environmentally
friendly conservation practice. The
commenter suggested that 10 years of a
landowner’s commitment to a
conservation practice is worth a lot
more.
NRCS Response
No change in the rule is needed.
NRCS is following a legislative
requirement regarding the duration of
the contract. A conservation
stewardship contract will be for 5 years.
However, at the end of an initial
conservation stewardship contract
NRCS may renew the contract for one
additional 5-year period when the
participant demonstrates compliance
with terms of the existing contract and
agrees to adopt new conservation
activities.
Comments
One commenter observed that each of
these provisions contains important
applicant and participant rights and
obligations about which they must be
clearly and regularly informed during
each of these CSP phases. Clear and
regular NRCS guidance about these
rights and obligations would give
applicants and participants appropriate
information to reinforce their ability to
apply for or implement a CSP contract
without reservation or uncertainty.
NRCS Response
Program contract requirements are
explained in great detail on the Contract
Appendix (Form NRCS–CPA–1202).
The appendix is given to producers at
the time of application. The Appendix
is reviewed, accepted, and signed by the
applicant before contract obligation and
is incorporated into the contract by
reference. Additional efforts to inform
producers of their obligations are listed
on the conservation performance
summary report from CMT, producers
self screening checklist, conservation
stewardship plan, job sheets, and
practice standards. In addition, NRCS
continuously updates the CSP Web site
with information pertaining to program
requirements and participants’
obligations.
Comments
Another commenter expressed that
the conservation stewardship plan will
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
clearly be an important, integral part of
any contract, but the plan development
and oversight costs must be balanced
with the implementation costs borne by
the participating farm operator.
NRCS Response
Farm planning is an integral part of
any agricultural operation, and
developing and following a
conservation plan does take time and
effort. While financial assistance
programs such as CSP compensate the
landowner for many of the incurred
costs of conservation measures, farm
programs cannot cover all costs. The
landowner (and the community)
receives benefits from conservation
activities in the form of sustainable crop
and livestock yields, improved water
quality, reduced labor, improved
wildlife habitat, and many other
monetary, social, and environmental
benefits. NRCS requests that the
commenter consider these benefits as
off-setting the uncompensated planning
costs of a conservation plan. No changes
are made to the rule in response to this
comment.
Section 1470.22 Conservation
Stewardship Plan
Comments
NRCS received six comments related
to conservation planning. One
commenter recommended that the term
‘‘conservation stewardship plan’’ when
expressed in the context of NIPF
participation specifically reference the
forest stewardship plan as the requisite
plan to participate in CSP (pursuant to
the Forest Stewardship Program, section
5 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act of 1978). Another commenter
expressed that nothing in the rule
should prevent forest landowners with
a FSP from participating in the program.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The CMT is
used to determine program eligibility,
ranking score, and payment points. A
FSP is not a requisite to participate in
CSP. However, if a FSP exists it could
be referenced in the conservation
stewardship plan.
There is nothing in the rule that will
prevent forest landowners with a
conservation stewardship plan from
participating in the program.
Comments
One commenter recommended, in
paragraph 1470.22(b), NRCS add the
words ‘‘maintained’’ after ‘‘managed.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comment. The
Conservation Performance Summary
Report from CMT documents the
existing system that the participants are
required to maintain. This information
is not duplicated in the conservation
stewardship plan. By signing the
contract, applicants agree to the
conservation plan and to maintain
existing conservation performance
levels and achieve additional
conservation performance
improvements as identified on the
Conservation Performance Summary
Report by land use for the contract
period.
Comments
One commenter identified that the
CTA conservation plan approach has
long dealt at the field level with the
realities of conservation planning for
farms that have sizable quantities of
rental acres. The commenter
recommends that NRCS draw upon this
field level expertise with preparing
conservation plans for farms, in
combination with the CSP’s statutory
direction to comprehensively address a
farm’s resource concerns, to determine
on a case-by-case basis how much of a
producer’s acreage under their
operational control must be enrolled in
a CSP contract to make the conservation
planning process work for that
operation.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. However,
minor changes were made to the rule in
response to comments about control of
the land. The rule was amended in
1470.6 to mirror the statute. The CSP
statute states that eligible land will
include all acres in an agricultural
operation of a producer whether or not
contiguous, that are under the effective
control of the producer at the time the
producer enters into a stewardship
contract, and is operated by the
producer with equipment, labor,
management, and production or
cultivation practices that are
substantially separate from other
agricultural operations.
Section 1470.23 Conservation Activity
Operation and Maintenance
Comments
Section 1470.23, ‘‘Conservation
system operation and maintenance,’’
addresses the participant’s
responsibility for operating and
maintaining existing conservation
activities on the agricultural operation
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31643
to at least the level of conservation
performance identified at the time the
application is obligated into a contract
for the conservation stewardship
contract period.
Operation and Maintenance
NRCS received two comments
regarding operation and maintenance. In
particular, both respondents
recommended changing ‘‘Operation and
Maintenance’’ to ‘‘Management and
Maintenance’’ to reflect accurately the
statutory terms.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the commenters
and amends section 1470.23,
Conservation activity operation and
maintenance, to read as follows: The
participant will maintain and manage
existing conservation activities to at
least the level of conservation
performance identified at the time the
application is obligated for the contract
period and any additional activities
installed and adopted over the term of
the contract.
Section 1470.24
Payments
Section 1470.24, ‘‘Payments,’’
describes the types of payments issued
under CSP, how payments will be
derived, and payment limitations.
Payments-In General
NRCS received 53 comments on the
topic of payments in general. These
comments can be organized into
subtopics including:
Adjustments
Comments
NRCS received three comments on
adjustments to payments rates. One
commenter urged NRCS to adjust
payment rates based on the results of
monitoring and evaluation and on-farm
research and demonstration. Another
commenter recommended if the
payments are raised for any of the
practices, they should be made
retroactive to the farmers who sign-up
this year. A third commenter strongly
encouraged NRCS to clarify that CSP
contracts may be modified to address
additional resource concerns.
NRCS Response
CSP participants will receive an
annual land use payment for operationlevel environmental benefits they
produce. Under CSP, participants are
paid for conservation performance not
for individual activities.
Payment supporting information used
for establishing the 2009 national
payment rates will not change for
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31644
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
contracts enrolled in the initial ranking
period.
NRCS will not be modifying contracts
to address additional resource concerns.
Applicants will be evaluated based on
the activities they have implemented
and additional activities they commit to
at the time of application that they are
willing to install and adopt. NRCS will
not allow contract improvement
modifications that will increase annual
payments in order to manage fund
obligation amounts.
Rewarding Existing Conservation
Comments
One commenter expressed that
maintaining payments for farms already
engaged in sound conservation methods
will provide a network for such farmers
and new and beginning farmers.
Another encouraged NRCS to continue
to work toward establishing equity in
benefits paid to farmers for equivalent
levels of conservation to ensure that
farmers who work towards greater levels
of conservation are recognized for their
contributions. One commenter
expressed that the payment rate should
be the same for current and new
activities. This commenter could not
select several enhancements because the
commenter was already doing them.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
The CSP Managers’ Report provides
that the managers encourage the
Secretary to place emphasis on
improving and adding conservation
activities. In general it costs more to
implement new practices than to
maintain existing practices. NRCS
intends to implement a split payment
structure with one payment rate for
existing activities and a higher payment
rate for additional activities. NRCS’
payment structure will recognize
producer’s conservation contributions
regardless of the timing of
implementation. The structure is
designed to encourage participants to
adopt enhancements to accelerate their
conservation efforts. NRCS amended the
rule in paragraph 1470.24(a) to add ‘‘A
split-rate annual payment structure will
be used to provide separate payments
for additional and existing conservation
activities in order to place emphasis on
implementing additional conservation.’’
To further encourage additional
activities, the final rule provides in
paragraph (a)(2) that participants must
schedule, install, and adopt at least one
additional conservation activity on a
land use in order for that land use to
earn annual payments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Statutory Adherence
Comments
NRCS received a few comments
related to whether payment rates
adherred to statutory provisions.
Two commenters identified that
NRCS gives no apparent explanation in
the interim final rule’s Summary of
Provisions why it is requiring in subpart
B, one- and three-year schedules for the
completion of contractual CSP
enhancements. Congress does not
address this issue in the Farm Bill or the
Statement of Managers. Absence of an
explanation makes the provision appear
arbitrary. It should be dropped from the
rule because the schedules would
unfairly and unreasonably limit a
participant’s flexibility and adaptability
to achieve, productively and
realistically, the targeted conservation
benefits.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The
requirement that a participant must
schedule, install, and adopt at least one
activity in the first year of the contract
is an agency policy and is incorporated
into the final rule. NRCS chooses to
retain the requirement to be consistent
with other NRCS programs and to
accelerate conservation benefits. The
requirement that all enhancements must
be scheduled, installed, and adopted by
the end of the third year is a
programmatic decision to ensure that
program objectives are met and allow
sufficient time to evaluate the
conservation system. Participants will
receive prorated annual payments over
5 years for the activities they install,
adopt, and maintain. The policy to
require all enhancements to be started
by year three of the contract is designed
to achieve conservation benefits on the
land at a faster rate than if producers
choose to adopt activities in year four or
five of the contract.
NRCS believes this policy maximizes
the environmental benefits produced,
minimizes contract administration, and
helps producers maximize their
payments. Payments are based on the
participant’s performance which is
calculated based on the potential and
environmental benefits produced. The
longer the activity is on the ground, the
more environmental benefits they
produce translating to a higher payment.
Enhancements
Comments
Six respondents addressed the issue
of payments for enhancements. NRCS
received requests for higher payment
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
levels; one commenter expressed that
Enhancement ANM11, patch burning to
enhance wildlife habitat, does not pay
enough to persuade producers
considering the danger and work
involved. FSA pays considerably more
to burn entire patches of CRP; one
commenter expressed a willingness to
plant native shrubs, trees, create
shallow ponds, and otherwise create a
haven for wildlife on his property rather
than mow 10 acres like all of his
neighbors if a financial incentive were
provided; one commenter opined that
based on the intent of the law it appears
a producer would only receive the
maximum CSP payment from NRCS if
they had addressed all resource
concerns on their entire operation. If
such is the case, then the producer
would simply continue receiving
payments with a contract extension as
long as they continued to follow their
plan. If a producer had not addressed all
resource concerns, then higher
payments could only be awarded if
additional resource concerns were
addressed.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. Participants
are being compensated for existing
conservation through the annual
payment. However, legislation requires
that payments are made for existing and
new conservation activities.
The CSP presents a significant shift in
how NRCS provides conservation
program payments. CSP participants
will receive an annual land use payment
for operation-level environmental
benefits they produce. Under CSP,
participants are paid for conservation
performance—the higher the operational
performance, the higher their payment.
Participants’ annual payments are not
determined using the traditional
compensation model where they receive
a percentage of the estimated practice
installation cost or a per acre rental rate.
Instead participants’ annual payment
level will be unique for their operation
and land uses based on the combined
total of environmental benefits from
existing and new activities.
Comments
One commenter recommended NRCS
add in paragraph (a)(4)(i)—‘‘and
practices’’ after ‘‘enhancements’’ both
times and add ‘‘practice’’ after
‘‘enhancement.’’ In paragraph (b) and
(b)(2) add ‘‘or improve’’ after ‘‘adopt.’’
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. CSP allows
producers to substitute enhancements.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Practices are not to be substituted as
they are utilized to encourage producers
to meet additional resource concerns. A
practice substitution may not meet the
stewardship threshold for a resource
concern which may result in a producer
being ineligible for the program.
Other Program Payments
Comments
Five respondents address the
interrelationship between CSP
payments and other program payments.
One commenter recommended that
producers be allowed to utilize
programs, including EQIP and WHIP, to
help fund the installment of
enhancements as long as they do not
duplicate payments on lands enrolled in
CSP. In addition, NRCS should allow
the use of other conservation programs
to assist producers with meeting
comprehensive stewardship goals.
Using other conservation programs will
shift some of the costs to these programs
and more readily allow NRCS to meet
CSP acreage and funding requirements.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The policy
related to the source of payments is
designed to avoid duplication of
payment. When an enhancement is
scheduled to be completed in CSP
through the CMT, the producer is
receiving compensation for the
enhancement through their annual
payment rather than receiving a direct
cost-share payment like they would
through EQIP. The statute prohibits
payments to participants for new
activities that were applied with
financial assistance through other USDA
programs on the same land.
If an applicant wishes to install
conservation practices or activities not
included in the CSP contract, then other
programs could be used to assist
producers meet their goals.
Comments
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
One commenter recommended that
the rule explicitly exclude from the CSP
annual payment rate calculation, costs
incurred for conservation practices, or
enhancements applied with financial
assistance through other USDA
conservation programs.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comment. Legislation
states that the amount of conservation
stewardship payment will be
determined and based, to the maximum
extent practicable, on the following
factors:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(a) Cost incurred by the producer
associated with planning, design,
materials, installation, labor,
management, maintenance, or training;
(b) Income forgone by the producer;
and
(c) Expected environmental benefits
as determined by the CMT.
Comments
One commenter strongly encouraged
NRCS to improve estimated payment
rates and clarify that CSP contracts can
be modified to allow producers to
participate in other Title II Conservation
Programs such as CRP, EQIP, or WHIP.
NRCS Response
To manage CSP funding and meet
legislative requirements, NRCS used the
2009 application period to arrive at a
uniform payment rate per land use
conservation performance point. NRCS
modeled the annual land use payment
rates using the following nationwide
sign-up data from the 2009 application
period pre-approved applications:
(a) New and existing environmental
benefits measured in conservation
performance points generated by land
use type;
(b) Costs incurred and income
foregone for conservation activities; and
(c) Available program funding levels.
Land use payment rates represent the
costs of existing and new activities per
performance point proportionally
adjusted to manage program payments
to achieve the national average rate of
$18 per acre.
Each case where a potential
modification could be needed will be
evaluated in a case-by-case basis by the
State to determine if contract provisions
are being met.
Legislation prohibits land to be
enrolled in CRP, WRP, or GRP and CSP
at the same time. If a producer wants to
transition out of the CSP contract to
another land retirement or working land
preservation program, the CSP contract
will terminate with respect to the acres
enrolled in the other program. The
annual payment for the land remaining
in CSP will be reduced in proportion to
the acres removed.
It is also important to mention that
CSP participants can participate in EQIP
or WHIP, but must ensure they follow
agency policy that prohibits the
participants from receiving financial
assistance from more than one program
on the same land for the same practice
or activity.
Public Information
Comments
One respondent addressed the need to
keep the public informed. In addition, it
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31645
is essential that USDA keep participants
and the public informed on a regular
basis about its payment rate findings
during the first ranking period. USDA is
to be commended for its dedication to
making payments more consistent and
predictable because these factors will
have a strong impact on future CSP
participation rates, and most
importantly, achieving the conservation
benefits desired by Congress.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. NRCS agrees
that it is critical to keep the participants
and the public informed of program
information on a regular basis. NRCS
continuously posts information on the
NRCS Home Page at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov to ensure producers
are informed and processes are
transparent. NRCS has posted a onepage ‘‘Payment for Performance’’
document to explain the process used to
establish the national payment rates.
This information, along with other
important information related to the
program, can be found at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/
csp.html.
Fairness of Payments
Comments
Three respondents touched on the
topic of fairness of CSP payments
between farmers. One expressed that
some have spent years increasing soil
organic matter and nutrients, reducing
soil erosion, and increasing beneficial
wildlife habitat with our own resources
while watching neighbors do just the
opposite with intensive grain
production on erodible land and having
USDA pay them a subsidy for their
actions; another expressed concern
about huge sums of money for no-till
planters of corn in Iowa as being unfair
to small struggling dairy farmers that
adopt practices that are much more
sustainable in the long run; one
recommended NRCS should be paying
farmers for producing healthier soil,
cleaner water, climate change
mitigation, and greater bio-diversity
instead of an approach that encourages
farmers to get bigger, faster, better, and
cheaper with little to no regard for the
environmental impacts they have.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. The CSP
provides an annual payment to contract
holders for the combined total of
environmental benefits from existing
and new activities. Payments are not for
specific conservation activities, instead
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31646
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
they are for the combined
environmental benefits. The CMT
calculated conservation performance for
existing and additional conservation
activities and benefits. It is computed by
land use type for cropland, pastureland,
rangeland, and forest land. The tool is
size neutral, ensuring that all applicants
regardless of the size or type of
operation have the same opportunity to
earn similar points.
Establishing Payments
Comments
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS received 17 comments related
to recommendations about how NRCS
should establish payment rates
including setting the payment rate at
inordinately low levels perpetuates the
ground being conventionally cropped.
NRCS should be emphasizing paying
good stewards over poor stewards who
agree to do better; USDA should
increase the payment levels for cropland
and pastureland. The 2009 estimated
payment ranges are not sufficient; using
the first ranking period as a payment
discovery period was a good idea; and
the preamble and rule do not
correspond. The preamble states ‘‘This
retrospective payment approach will
allow NRCS to field-verify applied
conservation activities prior to contract
obligation and payment.’’ No part of
paragraph 1470.24, references the same
intent and procedure. A reference
would clarify the rule for NRCS
employees and program participants.
Other comments included payment
point values should be roughly
equivalent for ongoing organic
management and new conversions or
transition to organic; encouragement to
clarify exact payment levels for
satisfying particular resource concerns
and for meeting other resource
concerns; and comments seeking
information about exact payments for
program enrollment. Regarding the
contract payments under CSP, the
majority of the payments should be
dedicated to the base contract payments
rather than separate enhancement
payment. Applicants should be giving
them priority points based on their
conservation value or effectiveness
which would be added into the point
total for the contract which in turn
would establish the per acre price.
NRCS Response
CSP does not provide payments for
individual activities. Applicants are
ranked and paid based on the
conservation performance points
generated by the environmental benefits
produced by the existing and new
activities. NRCS has made information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/new_csp/csp.html.
Comments
For many landowners, the promise of
CSP-generated income will not be
sufficient to prompt actions that
advance conservation practices that will
meet resource concerns, including those
for native and managed pollinators.
However, ‘‘bundling’’ of multiple values
for the multiple benefits that
conservation practices provide, such as
carbon sequestration and water quality
nutrient trading, is an approach that
offers considerable potential to generate
a combined economic value to
landowners that will stimulate
increased adoption and integration of
conservation practices into their
operations. Support was expressed for
both types of payments to reward
innovation and to advance new
conservation practices, particularly
those that yield multiple conservation
outcomes. NRCS received comments
that the CSP payment should recognize
the environmental benefits for adopting
a practice not only on the actual acres,
but also the benefits gained on adjacent
agricultural or forest land.
NRCS Response
Environmental benefits are based on
the actual amount of the activity the
producers agree to apply versus the
potential of land that could receive the
treatment. It measures the
environmental benefits generated by the
producer.
Comments
Four respondents recommended
payments be based on environmental
outcomes.
NRCS Response
To be able to implement the program
and meet legislative requirements, the
following three criteria were the driving
factors for establishing the payment
rates:
(1) Contract payment by CMT point
per land use fixed nationwide for four
eligible land uses: crop, pasture, range,
forest;
(2) National average payment less
than $18 per acre per year (includes
technical assistance and financial
assistance); and
(3) Payment limitations.
CSP makes payments for conservation
activities that benefit both the
landowner and community. The CSP
program must be fair, equitable, and
accessible to all landowners and easy to
administer by government agencies. CSP
cannot pay for all expenses incurred for
conservation activities, but CSP can
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
offset some expenses. CSP encourages
landowners to maintain and adopt new
conservation activities.
NRCS amended section 1470.20 to
add paragraph (h) to read, ‘‘NRCS will
conduct onsite field verification prior to
contract obligation to substantiate that
the information provided by preapproved applicants during the
application process is accurate prior to
contract obligation.’’
Owners of Forest Lands
Comments
NRCS received three comments
related to CSP payments and forest
landowners. The rules propose
payments for on-farm research,
demonstration, and pilot testing. It is
not clear if such payments are also
available to NIPF components. The
National Association of State Foresters
recommends that forestry research and
demonstration should also be eligible
for annual payments.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. On-farm
research and demonstrations and pilot
projects are eligible for cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, and NIPF. The
protocols for the States to offer these
activities can be found at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/
csp.html.
Comments
One commenter expressed that it
would seem apparent that NIPF would
deserve the highest annual payment per
acre to encourage people to continue to
invest time and labor to benefit our
environment.
One commenter expressed concern
that the low payment per acre and no
cost-share will also discourage
participation, especially among forest
landowners.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. Land use
payment rates represent the composite
costs of existing and new activities per
performance point proportionally
adjusted to manage program payments
to achieve the national average rate of
$18 per acre. NRCS has supporting cost
information to demonstrate that national
payment rates were established
following the established process and
ensuring fairness with all land uses.
To manage CSP funding and meet
legislative requirements, NRCS used the
2009 application period to arrive at a
uniform payment rate per land use
conservation performance point. NRCS
modeled the annual land use payment
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
rates using the following nationwide
sign-up data from 2009 application
period pre-approved applications:
(a) New and existing environmental
benefits measured in conservation
performance points generated by land
use type;
(b) Costs incurred and income
foregone for conservation activities; and
(c) Available program funding levels.
Other
Comments
One commenter provided that the
statement that no payment will be made
for which there is no cost incurred or
income forgone by the participant, is
truly biased toward the individual who
has in the past raped the soil, and now
wants to possibly change his ways if
you pay him enough. Not the spirit that
CSP was intended to convey.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comment. NRCS is
following CSP authorizing language that
provides that the amount of
conservation stewardship payment will
be determined and based, to the
maximum extent practicable, on the
following factors:
(a) Cost incurred by the producer
associated with planning, design,
materials, installation, labor,
management, maintenance, or training;
(b) Income forgone by the producer;
and
(c) Expected environmental benefits
as determined by the CMT.
Exclusions
SEC(e)(3)(B) payments to a producer
will not be provided for conservation
activities for which there is no cost
incurred or income forgone to the
producers.
Comments
One commenter recognized and
applauded NRCS’ effort to place the
dollars in the hands of the operator.
This policy avoids creating unnecessary
angst within the farming communities.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
The CSP statutory authority requires
that NRCS provide contract holders
payments to compensate for installing
and adopting additional conservation
activities, and improving, maintaining,
and managing conservation activities in
place on the operation of the producer
at the time the contract offer is accepted.
NRCS has added clarity to the rule in
paragraph 1470.6(a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Interaction With Subsidy Payments
Comments
NRCS received two comments
regarding CSP and subsidy payments.
One commenter expressed that it is
about time that we stop giving subsidies
to specific farmers on the basis of
specific crops. We can ALL benefit
greatly if these subsidies were
distributed instead on the basis of their
environmental effectiveness; and two, in
no way should these payments be added
to the government’s corn or grain
subsidies obtained by those who rent
the land.
NRCS Response
NRCS is following statutory authority
by providing contract holders payments
to compensate for installing and
adopting additional conservation
activities, and improving maintaining,
and managing conservation activities in
place at the operation of the producer at
the time the contract offer is accepted.
The CSP payment is based on
environmental benefits accrued across
the four major land uses authorized by
the program and is not crop specific.
Annual Payments
Comments
Commenters expressed a number of
concerns related to annual payments
including that payment rates are too low
and that low payment rates push
landowners towards less beneficial
enhancements. Additionally, the ability
to receive cost-share assistance or use
other conservation programs to improve
conservation systems is a disincentive
to participate in CSP, especially when
combined with the low payment rate;
producers cannot determine their exact
cost and benefit of program
participation if they are provided
estimated annual payment rates;
payment rates for cropland, pastureland,
and managed grazing lands are too low;
managed grazing land should be paid at
the same rate as cropland; and NIPF
deserves the highest annual payment
rate. NRCS also heard that prompt
payments are important to cover
participant expenses incurred in the
preceding months.
NRCS Response
The CSP statute provides a maximum
acreage enrollment and funding level for
each fiscal year. NRCS needed the
payment discovery period, described in
the ‘‘Discussion of Payment’’ section,
because no historical information was
available to be able to establish the rates
for performance points and still be able
to meet the program constraints. NRCS
used real time data from the first sign-
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31647
up to establish the national payment
rate per point by land use. It is NRCS’
intention to maintain, to the extent
practicable, the per point payment rates
established for the first sign-up in future
ranking periods. This decision allows
NRCS to provide estimated payment
amounts to applicants early in the
application process.
To manage CSP funding and meet
legislative requirements, NRCS used the
2009 application period to arrive at a
uniform payment rate per land use
conservation performance point. NRCS
modeled the annual land use payment
rates using the following nationwide
sign-up data from the 2009 application
period:
(a) New and existing environmental
benefits measured in conservation
performance points generated by land
use type;
(b) Costs incurred and income
foregone for conservation activities; and
(c) Available program funding levels.
Note that land use payment rates
represent the composite costs of existing
and new activities per performance
point, proportionally adjusted to
manage program payments to achieve
the national average rate of $18 per acre.
CSP payments by statute are based on
the costs associated with agriculture on
different land uses. In general, the costs
associated with the maintenance and
enhancements on pastureland are lower
than those associated with cropland;
therefore, the payment rate for
pastureland is lower.
The CSP statute establishes that the
Secretary look at current practices and
future commitments to conservation.
Historical changes to agricultural
operations were made for a multitude of
personal, financial, and cultural
reasons. Although it is difficult to fairly
assess past actions, CSP payments are
calculated based on existing levels of
conservation stewardship as well as a
commitment to add conservation. A
grass based farm should score well for
existing levels of stewardship, and the
CSP payment should reflect this.
NRCS has established that grassland,
that is managed for hay or haylage, is
considered cropland. If the land is also
grazed, a determination must be made
about which is the predominant
activity, haying or grazing. The
predominant activity will determine the
land use category. If it is split evenly
between the two activities the applicant
should decide which land use will be
considered.
Although many commenters
referenced payment rates in terms of
payment per acre, under CSP,
participants are paid for operational
conservation performance—the higher
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31648
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the performance, the higher their
payment. It is inappropriate to refer to
the national payment rates on a per acre
basis as the payments are made for
performance points, and they are unique
for each operation. NRCS clarifies that
the estimated payment rates were made
available to applicants in the 2009 signup to provide a proxy of type of national
average payment that the program could
offer. Additional information related to
payments can be located at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/
csp.html.
Regarding concerns related to prompt
payments, NRCS will make payments as
soon as practicable after October 1 of
each fiscal year for activities carried out
in the previous fiscal year. NRCS
amends 1470.24(d), timing of payments,
to add, ‘‘For newly enrolled contracts,
payments will be made as soon as
practicable after October 1 following the
fiscal year of enrollment.’’
Supplemental Payments—ResourceConserving Crop Rotation
Comments
NRCS received 5 comments on the
topic of supplemental payments.
One commenter expressed the timely
release of the rules for implementation
of and application for resourceconserving crop rotation supplemental
payments is very important, in
particular for rice, which is an irrigated
crop. The Farm Bill says that the term
resource-conserving crop means, in part,
a rotation that reduces soil-moisture
depletion or otherwise reduces the need
for irrigation. With irrigation being the
essence of rice production, rice
producers who apply for the rotation
supplement should not be
disadvantaged in any way because they
must irrigate their rice crop. Prompt
USDA determinations about what
rotations are beneficial and the
definition of resource-conserving crops,
for purposes of this program
component, would assist prospective
applicants in making informed, timely
decisions about applying.
Another commenter recommended no
supplemental payment will be made
until the crop rotation is installed.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
NRCS acknowledges the concerns and
encourages producers to refer to the
activity criteria listed on the resourceconserving crop rotation jobs sheet at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/
new_csp/csp.html. In addition, refer to
the State Web site where eligible
resource-conserving crops are posted.
NRCS understands the importance of
this under advisement for future ranking
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
periods. However, the procedures allow
applicants to schedule the resourceconserving crop rotation when the
resource-conserving crop is planted on
at least one-third of the rotation acres.
The resource-conserving crop must be
adopted by the third year of the contract
and established or planted on all
rotation acres by the fifth year of the
contract.
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
provide more than one resource
outcome, combined with the concept of
supplemental payments. Consideration
should be given to resource-conserving
crops that provide nectar and pollen for
native and managed pollinators. Alfalfa
is a good example, so long as the
practice includes allowing the plants to
bloom and providing access to
beekeepers.
NRCS Response
The benefits of a resource-conserving
crop rotation include protection and
habitat for pollinators. A resourceconserving crop rotation means a crop
rotation that includes at least one
resource-conserving crop, and reduces
wind and water erosion, increases soil
organic matter, improves soil fertility
and tilth, interrupts pest cycles, reduces
depletion of soil moisture or reduces the
need for irrigation in applicable areas,
and may provide protection and habitat
for pollinators.
Comments
Finally, one commenter expressed
that the payment for a resourceconserving crop rotation is inadequate
to encourage change.
Payment Limitations
NRCS received 58 comments on the
topic of payment limitations. Although
commenters expressed both support for
and dissatisfaction with payment
limitations, more commenters
supported the limitations than did not.
One commenter expressed that
section 1470.24(g) imposes an arbitrary
contract limit of $200,000 per contract
regardless of the number of producers
involved in the farming operation
covered by the contract. This limit is
outside the clear language of the statute
and will negatively impact commercialsize farming operations.
Thirty-two respondents stated that the
CSP payment limits should be retained
and enforced. Many of these
respondents also expressed that NRCS
should resist pleas to incorporate
payment limitation loopholes. One of
the respondents expressed that USDA
needs to ensure that as many farmers as
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
possible can access the program for the
greatest environmental benefit and
farmers’ bottom lines. Another
respondent recommended an addition
to the rule to make CSP contracts and
payments subject to the FSA ‘‘actively
engaged in farming’’ rules. One
respondent identified that payment
limits should remain a separate
payment limitation and not be
combined with other payments to
encourage more moderate sized farms to
participate and keep the total cost of the
program at the limits of $40,000 per
person or legal entity during any fiscal
year, and $200,000 over any 5-year
period.
Conversely, NRCS received many
comments expressing that the only CSP
payment limit the Farm Bill does
declare explicitly is that $200,000 is the
amount that a person or legal entity may
receive in the aggregate, but may not
exceed for all CSP contracts entered into
during any 5-year period. A limit on a
CSP contract as proposed in the interim
final rule paragraph 1470.24 (g), is
neither legislated in the Farm Bill nor
discussed in the Statement of Managers.
NRCS Response
NRCS follows the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) regulation in 7CFR
part 1400 when applying its statutory
payment limitation requirements for
CSP. This regulation is applicable to
most CCC and FSA commodity, price
support, and conservation programs.
NRCS used 7 CFR part 1400 as a guide
for establishing the CSP contract
limitation. A joint operation is
composed by members who are either
persons or legal entities. Based on how
joint operations are characterized in
section 1400.106, the statutory payment
limitation applies to each person or
legal entity that comprises the joint
operation. NRCS recognizes the
$200,000 contract limitation established
in the interim final rule was too low and
unfairly restricted certain joint
operations who achieve the
conservation performance levels needed
to earn the payments. Therefore, NRCS
raises, in the final rule, the CSP contract
limitation to $400,000, which would
allow two members of a joint-tenancy
operation to earn the payments to obtain
their $200,000 per person payment
limitation authorized in statute. Further,
NRCS establishes in paragraph (h) an
annual contract limit for these joint
operations of up to $80,000. These
payment limitations do not apply to
funding arrangements with federally
recognized Indian tribes or Alaska
Native corporations.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comments
Twenty-one respondents expressed
concern about the payment limits.
NRCS received comments suggesting
where CSP accepted farming operations
that exceed the $40,000 payment limit,
NRCS should only include the acres
necessary to reach the $40,000 payment
limit against the State’s allotted acres
because the limit is understood and
acceptable to producers. There is no
advantage to NRCS offering a program
that results in artificially low per acre
contracts. If large farms only consumed
their proportional share of the allotted
CSP acres, large farms would present no
threat to other operations. Large farms
offer tremendous value to the United
States taxpayer by providing more acres
of conservation practices for the tax
dollar. The current rule could result in
large farms avoiding CSP.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. NRCS
acknowledges the concern and explored
this recommendation during the
payment discovery period. NRCS cannot
limit the acres it considers attributable
to the authorized enrollment level. By
statute, NRCS is required to enroll in the
program no more than 12,769,000 acres
for each fiscal year.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One respondent expressed that it is
important to consider the longer-term
implication of the agency’s decision to
create program provisions that run
contrary to clear statutory language. If
the agency can create its own set of
payment limitations in each regulation
it issues, the same overriding logic
would allow it to impose its own set of
environmental requirements, or allow it
to change or override clear
congressional guidelines with respect to
expected environmental benefits.
One commenter recommended
program participants should be able to
roll over the annual payment limit for
cause, so if they cannot undertake the
conservation activity in a given year, but
shift that work into the next year, the
limit should be lifted if they request and
extension on the activity.
NRCS Response
NRCS will not make payments for
individual activities, so an annual
payment amount will not be changed to
adjust for actual performance. An actual
performance level below what is
required in the contract is considered a
potential contract violation. Potential
contract violations are addressed with a
formal contract review as per agency
policy in the Conservation Programs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Manual, Part 512.55. In these cases, the
annual payments will not be issued
until NRCS and the applicant agree to
a timeframe when the applicant will be
back in compliance with the contract
provisions. This agreement is official
when form NRCS–CPA–153 has been
signed by the participant and NRCS.
Statutory Acreage/Payment Constraints
Comments
NRCS received four comments on the
statutory acreage and payment
constraints. One respondent stated that
payment constraints should be
addressed in part by enrolling
considerably more grassland than is
assumed by the economic analysis, but
rather is more in keeping with 2009
applications by land-use type. Payment
constraints should also be addressed by
allowing for year-to-year flexibility in
meeting the statutory average per-acre
payment cap over the full 9-year period
provided by statute.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. NRCS is not
limiting the acres of grassland that
enrolls in the program. The amount
projected in the economic analysis was
used in lieu of historical data for
analytical purposes only. The analysis is
being reviewed with actual sign-up data
which will reflect the amount of
pastureland that sign-up for the
program. NRCS is offering fair payment
rates to encourage participation by
operators of all land uses.
Comments
One respondent stated that as the
level of CSP payments per acre is
relatively low (not to exceed an average
of $18 per acre), we anticipate that
smaller acreage producers that might
need to install a more costly
enhancement on their own will be
discouraged from applying for CSP
because their expense to adopt some
costlier enhancements (e.g. conversion
of cropland to native grass for wildlife,
alternative water sources, and exclusion
fencing) may exceed their CSP payment.
Thus, the commenter recommends that
producers be allowed to utilize
programs including EQIP and WHIP to
help fund the installment of
enhancements, as long as they do not
duplicate payments on lands enrolled in
CSP.
NRCS Response
No changes are made to the rule in
response to the comments. NRCS
recognizes the concerns related to small
acreage producers. Participants have an
extensive menu of enhancements to
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31649
choose from that vary significantly in
cost and environmental benefits.
Although NRCS will not allow
producers to combine programs to help
producers install enhancements as that
will be considered a duplicate payment,
CSP participants can participate and
receive funds under EQIP providing
they do not receive payment for the
same practice on the same land under
both programs.
Comments
One respondent stated that given that
the 2008 Farm Bill set caps on average
payment rate and total acres, NRCS will
need the flexibility to make changes
based on the real data that a sign-up
would offer to keep within the
congressionally-set parameters.
NRCS Response
NRCS acknowledges the
recommendation and will take under
advisement for future ranking periods.
However, it is NRCS’ intention to
maintain the per point payment rates in
future ranking periods close to the same
that was used in the first sign-up. This
should allow NRCS to tell applicants
early in their application process what
their estimated payment will be.
Comments
One respondent urged NRCS to
attempt to keep the average cost per acre
for CSP down to $18 per acre ‘‘to the
extent practicable’’ as required by the
statute.
NRCS Response
NRCS followed rigorous processes
during the payment discovery period to
ensure payment rates were established
based on sign-up data and not to exceed
legislative requirements. NRCS is
currently monitoring the contract
obligation process, and program
constraints are being met. However, the
States have not completed the obligation
process which may result in small
variations of the expected results.
Minimum Contract Payment
Comments
NRCS received 55 comments
expressing support that the final rule
incorporates a minimum payment. Of
these 55 comments, 21 respondents
identified that the minimum payment
should be at least $1,500. The
respondents asserted that a minimum
payment would encourage participation
among small farms, especially among
organic producers and producers in the
New England States. The respondents
expressed that small farms are
important links in our ecological
system. The respondents were
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31650
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
concerned that without this minimum,
there may be no incentive for farmers
operating at a scale smaller than 50–100
acres to take part in the program.
However, one of the respondents, while
supporting the $1,500 minimum
payment, urged that the CSP payment
limits in the interim final rule be
retained and enforced to prevent
payment limitation loopholes. NRCS
also received comments that producers
in certain geographic locations, such as
Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska would
potentially not participate in the
program if the contract payment was too
low.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
NRCS Response
Under the existing payment structure,
payments consider the environmental
benefits produced on each acre. NRCS
recognizes that small scale operations,
beginning farmers or ranchers, and
limited resource farmers or ranchers
could be discouraged from participating,
as well as producers in certain
geographic locations and those who
have been historically underserved.
NRCS intends to encourage
conservation on all agriculture
operations regardless of size or type of
operation, including organic production
systems. NRCS is seeking CSP
regulatory provisions to more directly
encourage participation of small-scale
producers, socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers, beginning farmers
or ranchers, and limited resource
farmers or ranchers. NRCS believes that
participation by these agricultural
producers will provide for more
conservation assistance for those who
traditionally have not participated in
USDA programs, as well as beginning
farmers or ranchers seeking assistance
with their operations.
Therefore, NRCS modified the rule in
1470.24 to add a new paragraph (d) that
provides authority for minimum
contract payments to socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers,
beginning farmers or ranchers, and
limited resource farmers or ranchers.
Paragraph (d) now reads, ‘‘Minimum
contract payment. NRCS will make a
minimum contract payment to
participants who are socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers,
beginning farmers or ranchers, or
limited resource farmers or ranchers at
a rate determined by the Chief in any
fiscal year that a contract’s payment
amount total is less than $1,000.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 1470.25 Contract
Modifications and Transfers of Land
Comments
NRCS received ten comments on the
topic of contract modifications and
transfers of land.
NRCS received several comments in
support of the provisions in the interim
final rule. One commenter supported
the interim final rule regarding NRCS’
ability to modify, renew, and terminate
contracts found in § 1470.25, § 1470.26,
and § 1470.27. Another commenter
supported the ability to transfer all or
portions of the CSP contract if land is
transferred or control of land changes.
NRCS may wish to allow 90 days rather
than 60 days to accomplish the transfer
to ensure transfers are completed.
However, another commenter expressed
that the proposed rule provides for no
contract modifications. Farm operations
are dynamic organizations, and
provisions should be allowed for the
addition of qualifying land during the
contract period. The other option would
be to allow producers to enter into
separate contracts for land added to the
farm operation subsequent to an initial
contract.
NRCS Response
NRCS chooses to retain the 60 days to
accomplish the transfer to be consistent
with other NRCS programs’ contract
prohibitions. NRCS has determined that
although participants cannot modify
contracts to add lands after a contract
has been approved due to complexities
related to ranking and payment rates,
participants may offer new applications
for additional lands they acquire after
the initial contract is approved. The
application on the newly acquired land
will have to compete against other lands
being offered for the program at the
same time.
Comments
One commenter expressed that
section 1470.25(b) prohibits
modifications that increase the contract
obligation over the initial amount with
the exception of contracts that are
renewed after the 5-year period. This
prohibition has no basis in statute, and
it is unclear why NRCS would want to
prohibit contract modifications that
increase the initial obligation as long as
the increase is within the overall person
or entity cap of $200,000.
NRCS Response
NRCS has amended the rule to allow
participants who expand their farming
operation to submit new applications
for additional contracts on the newly
acquired acreage. Any new application
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
will have to compete with other
applications received during the same
ranking period. This policy enables
producers to participate in CSP on
newly acquired land while maintaining
the integrity of the ranking and payment
process.
Comments
Two commenters strongly encouraged
NRCS to not penalize producers for
amending their contract to enroll
sensitive lands in other Title II
Conservation Programs such as CRP,
GRP, or WRP. Another recommended
clarifying that CSP contracts can be
modified to allow producers to enroll
land into other conservation programs
and payments should be modified to
reflect the producers’ costs and the
environmental benefits gained on the
entire field.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the commenters
and amended the final rule in paragraph
1470.25 to allow modifications to
contracts to cancel and remove contract
acres enrolled in programs like CRP,
GRP, WRP, or other similar Federal or
State programs without penalty to the
participant.
Comments
One commenter recommended when
renewable energy facilities and
infrastructure are built on existing CSP
contracts, the contract should be
modified to address acres impacted by
earthmoving and construction activities.
These activities change the intent and
purpose of the CSP contract.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the commenter.
NRCS will consider taking land out of
production in a potential noncompliance situation. State
Conservations will evaluate these cases
individually and decide if contract
termination is needed or if a
modification of contract acres is
permitted to allow the producer to
maintain the contract with the reduced
acres.
Section 1470.26
Contract Renewal
Comments
NRCS received nine comments on the
topic of contract renewal. One
commenter supported the interim final
rule regarding NRCS’ ability to modify,
renew, and terminate contracts found in
§ 1470.25, § 1470.26, and § 1470.27.
NRCS Response
NRCS appreciated the positive
feedback.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comments
NRCS received a comment that it
should be much clearer and more
explicit in the final rule. As a condition
of eligibility for renewal, the participant
should be required to meet or exceed
the stewardship threshold for at least
two additional priority resource
concerns during the second contract
term, provided they are not already
exceeding the threshold for all or at
least four priority resource concerns. In
addition, the requirement to adopt
additional conservation activities
should be tied directly to the
requirement to meet or exceed the
threshold on those additional priority
resource concerns.
NRCS Response
NRCS intends to follow the Managers’
Report language that provides, ‘‘The
Secretary is provided authority to
require new conservation activities as
part of the contract renewal process. It
is the intent of the Managers that this
could include expanding the degree,
scope, and comprehensiveness of
conservation activities adopted by a
producer to address the original priority
resource concerns or addressing one or
more additional priority resource
concerns.’’ To add clarity to the rule,
NRCS amends paragraphs 1470.26(b)(3)
and (4) to read as follows: ‘‘(3) At a
minimum, meet stewardship thresholds
for at least two priority resource
concerns; and (4) agree to adopt
additional conservation activities to
address at least one additional priority
resource concern during the term of the
renewed conservation stewardship
contract.’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Comments
One respondent identified that
section 1470.26 of the interim final rule
provides that NRCS will permit contract
renewals to foster participant
commitment to increased conservation
performance. The commenter believes
that payment for implementing
additional conservation activities
should be equally weighted with
payment for implementing existing
conservation activities.
NRCS Response
NRCS established the National
Payment Rates which include the
conservation performance for existing
and new activities. It anticipates it will
maintain the same payment structure on
renewed contracts.
Comments
One commenter supported the idea of
contract renewals. Some practices take
years of implementation before you
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
31651
actually see financial results. When
transitioning to no-till farming practices
in semi-arid Montana, it takes between
7 and 10 years before the nutrient
requirements stabilize and the producer
is able to reduce the amount of fertilizer
that is required. Assisting farmers and
ranchers with additional time to
implement larger practices can only
serve to help the meet the goals of CSP
and improve our environment.
provisions. NRCS has provisions that
explain that participants will not be
considered in violation of the contract
for failure to comply with the contract
due to circumstances beyond the control
of the participant. In addition, NRCS
will ensure that producers who would
have an interest in acreage being offered
received treatment which NRCS deems
to be equitable.
NRCS Response
NRCS agrees with the commenter.
Contract renewal will ensure that
conservation benefits achieved in the
first period will be maintained longer.
In addition, this will allow participants
to adopt new conservation activities and
address additional stewardship
thresholds. No change is made to the
rule in response to the comment.
Section 1470.30 Fair Treatment of
Tenants and Sharecroppers
Section 1470.27 Contract Violations
and Termination
Comments
Section 1470.27, ‘‘Contract violations
and termination,’’ addresses the
procedures that NRCS will take when a
violation has occurred or a contract
termination is needed. NRCS received
four comments on this section.
One commenter recommended NRCS
remove the penalty for terminating the
CSP contract before the 5 years is done.
The environment will reap a benefit
from even just one year of CSP
enrollment and conservation practices.
We should be trying to encourage
participation rather than instilling fear
of repercussions.
NRCS Response
NRCS will follow agency contracting
policies to be consistent with other
NRCS programs and ensure program
objectives are met. However, NRCS will
not penalize a participant if they failed
to comply with contract provisions due
to circumstances beyond their control.
Comments
One commenter requested NRCS
include verbiage that specifically says
the landowner will not be held liable in
any manner if their tenant does not
fulfill the 5-year contract. This would
encourage landowners to cooperate with
tenants who want to do good things for
the environment.
NRCS Response
NRCS does not consider it appropriate
to include the language recommended
above as NRCS may not have any
contractual obligations with the
landlords. NRCS enters into a contract
with the applicant who is held
responsible for meeting the contract
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Subpart C—General Administration
Comments
Section 1470.30, ‘‘Fair treatment of
tenants and sharecroppers,’’ specifies
that any CSP payments received must be
divided in the manner specified in the
contract. Where conflicts arise between
an operator and landowner, NRCS may
refuse to enter into a CSP contract.
NRCS received two comments on this
section.
One commenter expressed that tenant
and sharecropper treatment must be a
priority and communicated clearly and
frequently to applicants and
participants during every phase of the
CSP process. In particular, USDA must
clearly and frequently communicate to
applicants and participants the interim
final rule statement, i.e., that the
Department may refuse to enter into a
CSP contract when there is a
disagreement amongst joint applicants
seeking enrollment as to an applicant’s
eligibility to participate in the contract
as a tenant.
NRCS Response
NRCS does not want to interfere with
the contractual relationship between
landowners and tenants. However,
NRCS has a responsibility to ensure fair
treatment of tenants. NRCS feels that
this concern has been addressed in the
program contract appendix which is
given to the applicants at the time of
application and reviewed, accepted, and
signed before contract obligation. The
contract appendix provides that:
No payment will be approved for the
current year if the CCC determines that
any of the following conditions exist: (1)
The landlord or operator has not given
the tenants that have an interest in the
agricultural operation covered by the
contract, or that have a lease that runs
through the contract term at the time of
sign-up, an opportunity to participate in
the benefits of the program, and (2) The
landlord or operator has adopted any
other scheme or device for the purpose
of depriving any tenant of any benefits
to which such tenant would otherwise
be entitled. If any such conditions occur
or are discovered after payments have
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31652
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
NRCS Response
NRCS supports the comment and has
inserted ‘‘or its authorized
representative’’ after ‘‘NRCS’’ where
appropriate within this section of the
rule.
been made, all or any part of the
payments, as determined by the CCC,
must be refunded according to
paragraph 5F of the contract, and no
further payments will be made.
Comments
The second commenter recommended
NRCS adopt additional procedures to be
sure that the contracts themselves
provide fair treatment to tenants, and
that landowners be required to disclose
any operators on the land who may be
farming on the land covered under CSP
who lack adequate written lease
agreements.
NRCS Response
NRCS accepts applications from the
operator of record in the FSA farm
records management system. Exceptions
may be made for other tenants, other
producers, and owners in the FSA farm
records management system that can
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
NRCS, they are the operator and have
effective control of the land at the time
of enrollment in the program. This
should ensure that the contracts provide
for fair treatment of tenants.
Section 1470.31
Appeals
No comments were received.
Section 1470.32 Compliance With
Regulatory Measures
No comments were received.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Section 1470.33
Unit
Access to Operating
NRCS received three comments
regarding access to operating unit. One
commenter requested USDA inform and
make clearly available notices in its
national, State, and local offices during
public outreach activities, and during
prospective applicants’ and active
participants’ meetings, that its
authorized representatives have certain
limited rights to enter a private
agricultural operation solely for CSPrelated purposes. The interim final rule
statement that NRCS will make every
effort to contact the participant prior to
the exercise of this provision must be
honored and fulfilled to the fullest
extent. Every effort to make prior
contact must be documented and
logged, using permissible and
appropriate means of communication.
Two commenters recommended that the
right to access be extended to any
representative of USDA, as in other
USDA regulations. This will allow
conservation partners with TSP
agreements to assist with applications
and conservation planning on the
applications land.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 1470.34 Equitable Relief
No comments were received.
Section 1470.35 Offsets and
Assignments
No comments were received.
Section 1470.36 Misrepresentation
and Scheme or Device
No comments were received.
Section 1470.37 Environmental
Credits for Conservation Improvements
Section 1470.37, ‘‘Environmental
credits for conservation improvements,’’
provides NRCS’ policy on
environmental credits. NRCS received
five comments on this section.
Two commenters were encouraged to
see the provisions included on
environmental credits and support the
policy that any environmental credits
(for example carbon or water quality)
created in conjunction with a CSP
contract are solely the property of the
contract holder. This is consistent with
policy statements made by USDA in
reference to EQIP and CRP.
NRCS Response
NRCS appreciates the positive
feedback. It is correct that the policy on
this issue with respect to CSP is
consistent with many other USDA
programs. Although such assistance
may favor program participants at the
expense of non-participants, this stance
is based on the Department’s desire to
foster the creation of credits to spur the
supply side of these markets.
Comments
One commenter expressed that
although NRCS is asserting no interest
in the credits that may be generated due
to participation in CSP, it is possible
that the rules of an ecosystem services
market may preclude the purchase of
credits that may have already been
partially funded by the taxpayer. In
almost all cases, it is highly likely that
NRCS has only financed the creation of
a portion of the credits that may be
generated by an operation, and that a
large percentage of the potential
ecosystem service credit is being
generated through ongoing labor and
investment on the part of the farm
operator. It would help ensure the
ability of all USDA conservation
program participants to sell ecosystem
services credits in any ecosystem
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
services market if USDA would
calculate what portion of the potential
credit they have financed and what
portion remains that could be sold into
an ecosystem services market. This
would create more stability and
assurance for producers who wish to
participate in these markets.
NRCS Response
USDA recognizes and respects the
rights for markets to establish their own
technical and trading requirements for
market participants. The rationale for
precluding environmental credits
generated by taxpayer-assisted programs
is that these markets only want to
recognize ‘‘additional’’ credits produced
without tax-payer assistance. These
markets would contend that credits
generated through such programs would
have been produced regardless of the
presence of an environmental market
and in fact, could affect the decision of
non-program participants to create and
enter into environmental markets.
Measuring the degree of distortion
created by tax-payer assistance
programs to extricate its portion of the
credits due to their influence would add
another level of complexity to these
emerging markets.
Comments
One commenter supported the
provision of the regulation regarding
environmental credits for conservation
improvements. It is important the
conservation program participants be
able to participate in future ecosystem
services markets regardless of whether
they have or have not participated in
Federal conservation programs.
NRCS Response
USDA supports the creation of
environmental markets and does not
directly affect the decision of program
participants to participate in them.
Comments
One commenter recommended NRCS
provide additional weight to projects
that acreage CSP program goals while
concurrently facilitating emerging
environmental credit markets (i.e. those
projects that are well-tailored to
resulting in the production of
marketable climate and water quality
credits). In addition to meeting program
goals, these projects will meet the
administration’s goal for fostering
economic stimulus through enhanced
markets in ecosystem services.
NRCS Response
The CSP has the potential to address
specific resource concerns by allowing
the State Technical Committee to select
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
the priority resource concerns in their
State. Also, although NRCS recognizes
that there may be substantial indirect
impacts on local economies and
employment, NRCS’ primary objective
is to put conservation on the ground.
Other Regulatory Changes
NRCS made the following
administrative changes to add clarity to
the rule:
(1) Text related to funding reserves for
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers or
Ranchers and Beginning Farmers or
Ranchers was removed from paragraph
1470.2(e) and relocated more
appropriately under 1470.4, Allocation
and Management;
(2) Paragraphs 1470.2(f)(1)(i) through
(iii) were added to place responsibilities
of the State Technical Committees and
local working groups in one location
within the rule.
(3) Paragraph 1470.4(e) was added to
include a statutory requirement to
identify that CSP may contribute to the
Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative (CCPI). CCPI provides that, for
the funds available for CCPI, 90 percent
will be allocated for projects selected at
the State level and 10 percent for
projects offered through a national
competitive process. For the percentage
of funds allocated based on a national
competitive process, this regulation
identifies that funding allocation
decisions will consider the extent to
which the project addresses national
and regional conservation priorities.
(4) Paragraph 1470.3 includes a new
definition for limited resource farmer
and rancher for consistency with other
NRCS regulations.
(5) Outreach—in paragraph 1470.5(b),
deleted redundant text and added
paragraph 1470.5(d) clarifying that
NRCS will conduct focused outreach in
regions of national significance in order
to maximize program participation.
(6) Paragraph 1470.6(b)(4) was
amended to provide clarification to
‘‘other eligible lands’’ to include ‘‘other
private agricultural land as determined
by the Chief, on which resource
concerns related to agricultural
production could be addressed by
enrolling the land in CSP.’’
(7) The text in paragraph 1470.20(e),
Application, was deleted and relocated
to ‘‘Administration’’ to keep reference to
administrative functions in one
location. A new paragraph (e) has been
added regarding State and local
priorities.
(8) Paragraph 1470.24(e) clarified the
timing of payments for newly enrolled
contracts. In paragraph (i) clarified
payment limitation provisions for
Indian tribes, Pueblos, and Indian
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:42 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
nations. In paragraph (j) clarified that
payments will be directly attributed to
entity members.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1470
Agricultural operation, Conservation
activities, Conservation measurement
tool, Natural resources, Priority resource
concern, Stewardship threshold,
Resource-conserving crop rotation, Soil
and water conservation, Soil quality,
Water quality and water conservation,
Wildlife and forest management.
■ For the reasons stated above, the CCC
adds part 1470 of Title 7 of the CFR to
read as follows:
PART 1470—CONSERVATION
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec.
1470.1 Applicability.
1470.2 Administration.
1470.3 Definitions.
1470.4 Allocation and management.
1470.5 Outreach activities.
1470.6 Eligibility requirements.
1470.7 Enhancements and conservation
practices.
1470.8 Technical and other assistance.
Subpart B—Contracts and Payments
1470.20 Application for contracts and
selecting offers from applicants.
1470.21 Contract requirements.
1470.22 Conservation stewardship plan.
1470.23 Conservation activity operation
and maintenance.
1470.24 Payments.
1470.25 Contract modifications and
transfers of land.
1470.26 Contract renewal.
1470.27 Contract violations and
termination.
Subpart C—General Administration
1470.30 Fair treatment of tenants and
sharecroppers.
1470.31 Appeals.
1470.32 Compliance with regulatory
measures.
1470.33 Access to agricultural operation.
1470.34 Equitable relief.
1470.35 Offsets and assignments.
1470.36 Misrepresentation and scheme or
device.
1470.37 Environmental credits for
conservation improvements.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d–3838g.
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 1470.1
Applicability.
(a) This part sets forth the policies,
procedures, and requirements for the
Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP) as administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
for enrollment during fiscal year (FY)
2009 and thereafter.
(b) The purpose of CSP is to
encourage producers to address resource
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31653
concerns in a comprehensive manner
by:
(1) Undertaking additional
conservation activities; and
(2) Improving, maintaining, and
managing existing conservation
activities.
(c) CSP is applicable in any of the 50
States, District of Columbia,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
Virgin Islands of the United States,
American Samoa, and Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(d) NRCS provides financial
assistance and technical assistance to
participants for the conservation,
protection, and improvement of soil,
water, and other related natural
resources, and for any similar
conservation purpose as determined by
NRCS.
§ 1470.2
Administration.
(a) The regulations in this part will be
administered under the general
supervision and direction of the Chief,
NRCS, who is a Vice President of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
(b) The Chief is authorized to modify
or waive a provision of this part if the
Chief deems the application of that
provision to a particular limited
situation to be inappropriate and
inconsistent with the purposes of the
program. This authority cannot be
further delegated. The Chief may not
modify or waive any provision of this
part which is required by applicable
law.
(c) To achieve the conservation goals
of CSP, NRCS will:
(1) Make the program available
nationwide to eligible applicants on a
continuous application basis with one
or more ranking periods to determine
enrollments. One of the ranking periods
will occur in the first quarter of each
fiscal year, to the extent practicable; and
(2) Develop conservation
measurement tools (CMT) for the
purpose of carrying out the program.
(d) During the period beginning on
October 1, 2008, and ending on
September 30, 2017, NRCS will, to the
maximum extent practicable:
(1) Enroll in CSP an additional
12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year;
and
(2) Manage CSP to achieve a national
average rate of $18 per acre, which
includes the costs of all financial and
technical assistance and any other
expenses associated with program
enrollment and participation.
(e) The State Conservationist will:
(1) Obtain advice from the State
Technical Committee and local working
groups on the development of Statelevel technical, outreach, and program
matters, including:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31654
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Establishment of ranking pools
appropriate for the conduct of CSP
within the State to ensure program
availability and prioritization of
conservation activities. Ranking pools
may be based on watersheds, geographic
areas, or other appropriate regions
within a State and may consider highpriority regional and State-level
resource concern areas;
(ii) Identification of not less than
three, nor more than five priority
resource concerns in particular
watersheds, geographic areas, or other
appropriate regions within a State;
(iii) Identification of resourceconserving crops that will be part of
resource-conserving crop rotations;
(iv) Development of design protocols
and participation procedures for
participation in on-farm research, and
demonstration and pilot projects; and
(v) Evaluation of Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative
(CCPI) projects and allowable program
adjustments for the conduct of projects.
(2) Assign NRCS employees as
designated conservationists to be
responsible for CSP at the local level;
and
(3) Be responsible for the program in
their assigned State.
(f) NRCS may enter into agreements
with Federal, State, and local agencies,
conservation districts, Indian tribes,
private entities, and individuals to assist
NRCS with program implementation.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 1470.3
Definitions.
The following definitions will apply
to this part and all documents issued in
accordance with this part, unless
specified otherwise:
Agricultural land means cropland,
rangeland, and pastureland on which
agricultural products or livestock are
produced and resource concerns may be
addressed. Agricultural lands may also
include other land and incidental areas
included in the agricultural operation as
determined by NRCS. Other agricultural
lands include cropped woodland,
marshes, incidental areas included in
the agricultural operation, and other
types of agricultural land used for
production of livestock.
Agricultural operation means all
agricultural land and other land, as
determined by NRCS, whether
contiguous or noncontiguous:
(1) Which is under the effective
control of the applicant; and
(2) Which is operated by the applicant
with equipment, labor, management,
and production or cultivation practices
that are substantially separate from
other operations.
Animal waste storage or treatment
facility means a structural conservation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
practice used for storing or treating
animal waste.
Applicant means a person, legal
entity, joint operation, or Indian tribe
that has an interest in an agricultural
operation, as defined in 7 CFR part
1400, who has requested in writing to
participate in CSP.
Beginning farmer or rancher means:
(1) An individual or legal entity who:
(i) Has not operated a farm, ranch, or
nonindustrial private forest land (NIPF),
or who has operated a farm, ranch, or
NIPF for not more than 10 consecutive
years (this requirement applies to all
members of a legal entity); and
(ii) Will materially and substantially
participate in the operation of the farm
or ranch.
(2) In the case of a contract with an
individual, individually, or with the
immediate family, material and
substantial participation requires that
the individual provide substantial dayto-day labor and management of the
farm or ranch, consistent with the
practices in the county or State where
the farm is located.
(3) In the case of a contract with a
legal entity or joint operation, all
members must materially and
substantially participate in the
operation of the farm or ranch. Material
and substantial participation requires
that each of the members provide some
amount of the management or labor and
management necessary for day-to-day
activities, such that if each of the
members did not provide these inputs,
operation of the farm or ranch would be
seriously impaired.
Chief means the Chief of NRCS, or
designee.
Conservation activities means
conservation systems, practices, or
management measures needed to
address a resource concern or improve
environmental quality through the
treatment of natural resources, and
includes structural, vegetative, and
management activities as determined by
NRCS.
Conservation district means any
district or unit of State, tribal, or local
government formed under State, tribal,
or territorial law for the express purpose
of developing and carrying out a local
soil and water conservation program.
Such district or unit of government may
be referred to as a ‘‘conservation
district,’’ ‘‘soil conservation district,’’
‘‘soil and water conservation district,’’
‘‘resource conservation district,’’ ‘‘land
conservation committee,’’ ‘‘natural
resource district,’’ or similar name.
Conservation measurement tool
means procedures developed by NRCS
to estimate the level of environmental
benefit to be achieved by a producer
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
using the proxy of conservation
performance.
Conservation planning means using
the planning process outlined in the
applicable National Planning
Procedures Handbook (NPPH).
Conservation practice means a
specified treatment, such as a structural
or vegetative practice or management
technique, commonly used to meet a
specific need in planning and carrying
out conservation programs for which
standards and specifications have been
developed. Conservation practices are in
the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide,
section IV, which is based on the
National Handbook of Conservation
Practices.
Conservation stewardship plan means
a record of the participant’s decisions
that describes the schedule of
conservation activities to be
implemented, managed, or improved.
Associated supporting information that
identifies and inventories resource
concerns and existing conservation
activities, establishes benchmark data,
and documents the participant’s
conservation objectives will be
maintained with the plan.
Conservation system means a
combination of conservation practices,
management measures, and
enhancements used to address natural
resource and environmental concerns in
a comprehensive, holistic, and
integrated manner.
Contract means a legal document that
specifies the rights and obligations of
any participant who has been accepted
into the program. A CSP contract is an
agreement for the transfer of assistance
from NRCS to the participant for
installing, adopting, improving,
managing, and maintaining
conservation activities.
Designated conservationist means an
NRCS employee whom the State
Conservationist has designated as
responsible for CSP at the local level.
Effective control means possession of
the land by ownership, written lease, or
other legal agreement and authority to
act as decisionmaker for the day-to-day
management of the operation both at the
time the applicant enters into a
stewardship contract and for the
required period of the contract.
Enhancement means a type of
conservation activity used to treat
natural resources and improve
conservation performance.
Enhancements are installed at a level of
management intensity that exceeds the
sustainable level for a given resource
concern, and those enhancements
directly related to a practice standard
are applied in a manner that exceeds the
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
minimum treatment requirements of the
standard.
Enrollment means for the initial signup for FY 2009, NRCS will consider a
participant ‘‘enrolled’’ in CSP based on
the fiscal year the application is
submitted, once NRCS approves the
participant’s contract. For subsequent
ranking cut-off periods, NRCS will
consider a participant enrolled in CSP
based on the fiscal year the contract is
approved.
Field office technical guide means the
official local NRCS source of resource
information and interpretations of
guidelines, criteria, and standards for
planning and applying conservation
practices and conservation management
systems. It contains detailed
information on the conservation of soil,
water, air, plant, and animal resources
applicable to the local area for which it
is prepared.
Indian lands means all lands held in
trust by the United States for individual
Indians or Indian tribes, or all land titles
held by individual Indians or tribes,
subject to Federal restrictions against
alienation or encumbrance, or lands
subject to the rights of use, occupancy,
or benefit of certain Indian tribes. This
term also includes lands for which the
title is held in fee status by Indian tribes
and the U.S. Government-owned land
under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
jurisdiction.
Indian Tribe means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized
group or community, including any
Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.), which is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
Joint operation means, as defined in
part 1400 of this chapter, a general
partnership, joint venture, or other
similar business arrangement in which
the members are jointly and severally
liable for the obligations of the
organization.
Legal entity means, as defined in part
1400 of this chapter, an entity created
under Federal or State law.
Limited Resource Farmer or Rancher
means:
(1) A person with direct or indirect
gross farm sales not more than the
current indexed value in each of the
previous 2 years ($142,000 is the
amount for 2010, adjusted for inflation
using Prices Paid by Farmer Index as
compiled by the National Agricultural
Statistical Service); and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Has a total household income at or
below the national poverty level for a
family of four, or less than 50 percent
of county median household income in
each of the previous 2 years (to be
determined annually using Department
of Commerce Data).
Liquidated damages means a sum of
money stipulated in the CSP contract
that the participant agrees to pay NRCS
if the participant fails to fulfill the terms
of the contract. The sum represents an
estimate of the technical assistance
expenses incurred to service the
contract, and reflects the difficulties of
proof of loss and the inconvenience or
non-feasibility of otherwise obtaining an
adequate remedy.
Local working group means the
advisory body as described in 7 CFR
part 610.
Management measure means one or
more specific actions that is not a
conservation practice, but has the effect
of alleviating problems or improving the
treatment of the natural resources.
National Organic Program means the
program, administered by the
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Marketing Service, which
regulates the standards for any farm,
wild crop harvesting, or handling
operation that wants to market an
agricultural product as organically
produced.
Natural Resources Conservation
Service means an agency of USDA
which has responsibility for
administering CSP using the funds,
facilities, and authorities of the CCC.
Nonindustrial private forest land
means rural land that has existing tree
cover or is suitable for growing trees,
and is owned by an individual, group,
association, corporation, Indian tribe, or
other private legal entity that has
definitive decisionmaking authority
over the land.
Operation and maintenance means
work performed by the participant to
maintain existing conservation activities
to at least the level of conservation
performance identified at the time the
application is obligated into a contract,
and maintain additional conservation
activities installed and adopted over the
contract period.
Participant means a person, legal
entity, joint operation, or Indian tribe
that is receiving payment or is
responsible for implementing the terms
and conditions of a CSP contract.
Payment means financial assistance
provided to the participant under the
terms of the CSP contract.
Person means, as defined in part 1400
of this chapter, an individual, natural
person and does not include a legal
entity.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31655
Priority resource concern means a
resource concern that is identified by
the State Conservationist, in
consultation with the State Technical
Committee and local working groups, as
a priority for a State, or the specific
geographic areas within a State.
Producer means a person, legal entity,
joint operation, or Indian tribe who has
an interest in the agricultural operation,
as defined in part 1400 of this chapter,
or who is engaged in agricultural
production or forest management.
Resource concern means a specific
natural resource problem that is likely
to be addressed successfully through the
implementation of conservation
activities by producers.
Resource-conserving crop means a
crop that is one of the following:
(1) A perennial grass;
(2) A legume grown for use as forage,
seed for planting, or green manure;
(3) A legume-grass mixture;
(4) A small grain grown in
combination with a grass or legume,
whether inter-seeded or planted in
rotation.
Resource-conserving crop rotation
means a crop rotation that:
(1) Includes at least one resourceconserving crop as determined by the
State Conservationist;
(2) Reduces erosion;
(3) Improves soil fertility and tilth;
(4) Interrupts pest cycles; and
(5) In applicable areas, reduces
depletion of soil moisture or otherwise
reduces the need for irrigation.
Secretary means the Secretary of
USDA.
Socially disadvantaged farmer or
rancher means a producer who has been
subjected to racial or ethnic prejudices
because of their identity as a member of
a group without regard to their
individual qualities. A socially
disadvantaged group is a group whose
members have been subject to racial or
ethnic prejudice because of their
identity as members of a group, without
regard to their individual qualities.
These groups consist of American
Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians,
Blacks or African Americans, Native
Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders,
and Hispanics. A socially disadvantaged
applicant is an individual or entity who
is a member of a socially disadvantaged
group. For an entity, at least 50 percent
ownership in the farm business must be
held by socially disadvantaged
individuals.
State Conservationist means the
NRCS employee authorized to
implement CSP and direct and
supervise NRCS activities in a State,
Caribbean Area, or Pacific Islands Area.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31656
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Five percent to assist beginning
farmers or ranchers, and
(2) Five percent to assist socially
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
(d) In any fiscal year, allocated acres
that are not enrolled by a date
determined by NRCS may be reallocated
with associated funds for use in that
fiscal year under CSP. As part of the
reallocation process, NRCS will
consider several factors, including
demand from applicants, national and
regional conservation priorities, and
prior-year CSP performance in States.
(e) Of the CSP funds and acres made
available for each fiscal year:
(1) The Chief will reserve 6 percent of
funds and acres to ensure an adequate
source of funds and acres for the CCPI.
Of the funds and acres reserved, the
Chief will allocate:
(i) Ninety percent to projects based on
the direction of State Conservationists,
with the advice of State Technical
Committees; and
(ii) Ten percent to projects based on
a national competitive process
established by the Chief. In determining
funding allocation decisions for these
projects, NRCS will consider the extent
to which they address national and
regional conservation priorities.
(2) Any funds and acres reserved for
the CCPI in a fiscal year that are not
obligated by April 1 of that fiscal year
may be used to carry out other CSP
activities during the remainder of that
fiscal year.
§ 1470.4
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
State Technical Committee means a
committee established by the Secretary
in a State pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3861.
Stewardship threshold means the
level of natural resource conservation
and environmental management
required, as determined by NRCS using
the CMT, to conserve and improve the
quality and condition of a natural
resource.
Technical assistance means technical
expertise, information, and tools
necessary for the conservation of natural
resources on land active in agricultural,
forestry, or related uses. The term
includes the following:
(1) Technical services provided
directly to farmers, ranchers, forest
producers, and other eligible entities,
such as conservation planning,
technical consultation, preparation of
forest stewardship management plans,
and assistance with the design and
implementation of conservation
activities; and
(2) Technical infrastructure, including
processes, tools, and agency functions
needed to support delivery of technical
services, such as technical standards,
resource inventories, training, data,
technology, monitoring, and effects
analyses.
Technical Service Provider means an
individual, private-sector entity, or
public agency certified by NRCS to
provide technical services to program
participants in lieu of, or on behalf of,
NRCS as referenced in 7 CFR part 652.
§ 1470.5
Allocation and management.
(a) The Chief will allocate acres and
associated funds to State
Conservationists:
(1) Primarily on each State’s
proportion of eligible land to the total
amount of eligible land in all States; and
(2) On consideration of:
(i) The extent and magnitude of the
conservation needs associated with
agricultural production in each State
based on natural resource factors that
consider national, regional, and Statelevel priority ecosystem areas,
(ii) The degree to which
implementation of the program in the
State is, or will be, effective in helping
producers address those needs, and
(iii) Other considerations determined
by the Chief to achieve equitable
geographic distribution of program
participation.
(b) The State Conservationist will
allocate acres to ranking pools, to the
extent practicable, based on the same
factors the Chief considers in making
allocations to States.
(c) Of the acres made available for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012
to carry out CSP, NRCS will use, as a
minimum:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Outreach activities.
(a) NRCS will establish program
outreach activities at the national, State,
and local levels to ensure that potential
applicants who control eligible land are
aware and informed that they may be
eligible to apply for program assistance.
(b) Special outreach will be made to
eligible producers with historically low
participation rates, including but not
restricted to, beginning farmers or
ranchers, limited resource farmers or
ranchers, and socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers.
(c) NRCS will ensure that outreach is
provided so as not to limit producer
participation because of size or type of
operation or production system,
including specialty crop and organic
production.
(d) NRCS will conduct focused
outreach in regions of national
significance in order to maximize
program participation. These areas
could include landscapes such as the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and Great
Lakes basin.
§ 1470.6
Eligibility requirements.
(a) Eligible applicant. To be an
eligible applicant for CSP, a producer
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
must be the operator in the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) farm records
management system. Potential
applicants that are not in the FSA farm
records management system must
establish records with FSA. Potential
applicants whose records are not
current in the FSA farm records
management system must update those
records prior to the close of the
evaluation period to be considered
eligible. NRCS may grant exceptions to
the ‘‘operator of record’’ requirement for
producers, tenants, and owners in the
FSA farm records management system
that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of NRCS, they will operate and have
effective control of the land. Applicants
must also meet all of the following
requirements:
(1) Have effective control of the land
unless an exception is made by the
Chief in the case of land administered
by the BIA, Indian lands, or other
instances in which the Chief determines
that there is sufficient assurance of
control;
(2) Be in compliance with the highly
erodible land and wetland conservation
provisions found at 7 CFR part 12;
(3) Be in compliance with Adjusted
Gross Income provisions found at 7 CFR
part 1400;
(4) Supply information, as required by
NRCS, to determine eligibility for the
program, including but not limited to,
information related to eligibility
requirements and ranking factors;
conservation activity and production
system records; information to verify the
applicant’s status as a historically
underserved producer, if applicable;
and payment eligibility as established
by 7 CFR part 1400; and
(5) Provide a list of all members of the
legal entity and embedded entities along
with members’ tax identification
numbers and percentage interest in the
entity. Where applicable, American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Pacific
Islanders may use another unique
identification number for each
individual eligible for payment.
(b) Eligible land. A contract
application must include all of the
eligible land on an applicant’s
agricultural operation, except as
identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section. A participant may submit an
application(s) to enter into an additional
contract(s) for newly acquired eligible
land, which would then compete with
other applications in a subsequent
ranking period. The land as described
below is part of the agricultural
operation and eligible for enrollment in
the CSP:
(1) Private agricultural land;
(2) Agricultural Indian lands;
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(3) NIPF:
(i) By special rule in the statute, NIPF
is eligible land,
(ii) No more than 10 percent of the
acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal
year may be NIPF,
(iii) The applicant will designate by
submitting a separate application if they
want to offer NIPF for funding
consideration,
(iv) If designated for funding
consideration, then the NIPF component
of the operation will include all the
applicant’s NIPF. If not designated for
funding consideration, then the
applicant’s NIPF will not be part of the
agricultural operation; and
(4) Other private agricultural land, as
determined by the Chief, on which
resource concerns related to agricultural
production could be addressed by
enrolling the land in CSP.
(c) Ineligible land. The following
ineligible lands are part of the
agricultural operation, but ineligible for
inclusion in the contract or for payment
in CSP:
(1) Land enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), 7 CFR part
1410;
(2) Land enrolled in the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP), 7 CFR part
1467;
(3) Land enrolled in the Grassland
Reserve Program (GRP), 7 CFR part
1415;
(4) Land enrolled in the Conservation
Security Program, 7 CFR part 1469;
(5) Public land including land owned
by a Federal, State, or local unit of
government; and
(6) Land used for crop production
after June 18, 2008, that had not been
planted, considered to be planted, or
devoted to crop production for at least
4 of the 6 years preceding that date,
unless that land:
(i) Had previously been enrolled in
CRP,
(ii) Has been maintained using longterm crop rotation practices as
determined by the designated
conservationist, or
(iii) Is incidental land needed for
efficient operation of the farm or ranch
as determined by the designated
conservationist.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 1470.7 Enhancements and conservation
practices.
(a) Participant decisions describing
the additional enhancements and
conservation practices to be
implemented under the conservation
stewardship contract will be recorded in
the conservation stewardship plan.
(b) NRCS will make available to the
public the list of enhancements and
conservation practices available to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
installed, adopted, maintained, and
managed through the CSP.
(c) NRCS will make available bundled
suites of conservation activities for
participants to voluntarily select to
include as part of their conservation
stewardship plans. The bundles will be
designed to coordinate the installation
and adoption of enhancements with
each other to address resource concerns
in a more comprehensive and costeffective manner.
(d) CSP encourages the use of other
NRCS programs to install conservation
practices that are required to meet
agreed-upon stewardship thresholds,
but the practices may not be
compensated through CSP.
§ 1470.8
Technical and other assistance.
(a) NRCS may provide technical
assistance to an eligible applicant or
participant either directly or through a
technical service provider (TSP) as set
forth in 7 CFR part 652.
(b) NRCS retains approval authority
over certification of work done by nonNRCS personnel for the purpose of
approving CSP payments.
(c) NRCS will ensure that technical
assistance is available and program
specifications are appropriate so as not
to limit producer participation because
of size or type or operation or
production system, including specialty
crop and organic production. In
providing technical assistance to
specialty crop and organic producers,
NRCS will provide appropriate training
to field staff to enable them to work
with these producers and to utilize
cooperative agreements and contracts
with nongovernmental organizations
with expertise in delivering technical
assistance to these producers.
(d) NRCS will assist potential
applicants dealing with the
requirements of certification under the
National Organic Program and CSP
requirements concerning how to
coordinate and simultaneously meet
eligibility standards under each
program.
(e) NRCS may utilize the services of
State foresters and existing technical
assistance programs such as the Forest
Stewardship Program of the U.S. Forest
Service, in coordinating assistance to
NIPF owners.
Subpart B—Contracts and Payments
§ 1470.20 Application for contracts and
selecting offers from applicants.
(a) Submission of contract
applications. Applicants may submit an
application to enroll all of their eligible
land into CSP on a continuous basis.
(b) Stewardship threshold
requirement. To be eligible to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31657
participate in CSP, an applicant must
submit to the designated conservationist
for approval, a contract application that:
(1) Indicates the applicant’s
conservation activities, at the time of
application, are meeting the
stewardship threshold for at least one
resource concern;
(2) Would, at a minimum, meet or
exceed the stewardship threshold for at
least one priority resource concern in
addition to the resource concern
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section by the end of the conservation
stewardship contract by:
(i) Installing and adopting additional
conservation activities, and
(ii) Improving, maintaining, and
managing conservation activities
present on the agricultural operation at
the time the contract application is
accepted by NRCS;
(3) Provides a map, aerial photograph,
or overlay that:
(i) Identifies the applicant’s
agricultural operation and NIPF
component of the operation, and
(ii) Delineates eligible land with
associated acreage amounts; and
(4) If the applicant is applying for onfarm research and demonstration
activities or for pilot testing, describes
the nature of the research,
demonstration, or pilot testing in a
manner consistent with design protocols
and application procedures established
by NRCS.
(c) Evaluation of contract
applications. NRCS will conduct one or
more ranking periods each fiscal year.
(1) To the extent practicable, one
ranking period will occur in the first
quarter of the fiscal year;
(2) In evaluating CSP applications, the
State Conservationist or designated
conservationist will rank applications
based on the following factors, using the
CMT, to the maximum extent
practicable:
(i) Level of conservation treatment on
all applicable priority resource concerns
at the time of application,
(ii) Degree to which the proposed
conservation treatment on applicable
priority resource concerns effectively
increases conservation performance,
(iii) Number of applicable priority
resource concerns proposed to be
treated to meet or exceed the
stewardship threshold by the end of the
contract, and
(iv) Extent to which other resource
concerns, in addition to priority
resource concerns, will be addressed to
meet or exceed the stewardship
threshold by the end of the contract
period;
(3) In the event that application
ranking scores from (2) above are
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31658
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
similar, the application that represents
the least cost to the program will be
given higher priority; and
(4) The State Conservationist or
designated conservationist may not
assign a higher priority to any
application because the applicant is
willing to accept a lower payment than
the applicant would otherwise be
eligible to receive.
(d) Weighting of ranking factors. To
the extent the CSP objective of
additional conservation is not being
achieved, as determined by the Chief,
NRCS will adjust the weighting of
ranking factors in order to place
emphasis on increasing net conservation
benefits.
(e) State and local priorities. The
Chief may develop and use additional
criteria for evaluating applications that
are determined necessary to ensure that
national, State, and local conservation
priorities are effectively addressed.
(f) Ranking pools. Ranking pools will
be established in accordance with
§ 1470.2(e)(1)(i).
(1) NIPF will compete in ranking
pools separate from agricultural land.
An applicant with both NIPF and
agricultural land will have the options
to submit:
(i) One application for NIPF;
(ii) One application for agricultural
land; or
(iii) Two applications, one for each
land type.
(2) An applicant with an agricultural
operation or NIPF component of the
operation that crosses ranking pool
boundaries will make application and
be ranked in the ranking pool where the
largest acreage portion of their operation
occurs.
(3) Within each State or established
ranking pool, the State Conservationist
will address conservation access for
certain farmers or ranchers, including:
(i) Socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers; and
(ii) Beginning farmers or ranchers.
(g) Application pre-approval. The
State Conservationist or designated
conservationist will make application
pre-approval determinations during
established ranking periods based on
eligibility and ranking score.
(h) Field verification. NRCS will
conduct onsite field verification prior to
obligation of contract funding to
substantiate the accuracy of the
information provided by pre-approved
applicants during the application
process.
§ 1470.21
Contract requirements.
(a) After a determination that the
application will be approved and a
conservation stewardship plan will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
developed in accordance with
§ 1470.22, the State Conservationist or
designee will enter into a conservation
stewardship contract with the
participant to enroll all of the eligible
land on a participant’s agricultural
operation.
(b) The conservation stewardship
contract will:
(1) Provide for payments over a period
of 5 years;
(2) Incorporate by reference the
conservation stewardship plan;
(3) State the payment amount NRCS
agrees to make to the participant
annually, subject to the availability of
funds;
(4) Incorporate all provisions as
required by law or statute, including
requirements that the participant will:
(i) Implement the conservation
stewardship plan approved by NRCS
during the term of the contract,
(ii) Operate and maintain
conservation activities on the
agricultural operation consistent with
§ 1470.23,
(iii) Comply with the terms of the
contract or documents incorporated by
reference into the contract,
(iv) Refund as determined by NRCS,
any program payments received with
interest, and forfeit any future payments
under the program, upon the violation
of a term or condition of the contract,
consistent with § 1470.27,
(v) Refund as determined by NRCS,
all program payments received with
interest, upon the transfer of the right
and interest of the participant, in land
subject to the contract, unless the
transferee of the right and interest agrees
to assume all obligations of the contract,
consistent with § 1470.25,
(vi) Maintain and make available to
NRCS upon request, appropriate records
documenting applied conservation
activity and production system
information, and provide evidence of
the effective and timely implementation
of the conservation stewardship plan
and contract, and
(vii) Not engage in any action during
the term of the conservation
stewardship contract on the eligible
land covered by the contract that would
interfere with the purposes of the
conservation stewardship contract;
(5) Permit all economic uses of the
land that:
(i) Maintain the agricultural or
forestry nature of the land, and
(ii) Are consistent with the
conservation purposes of the contract;
(6) Include a provision to ensure that
a participant will not be considered in
violation of the contract for failure to
comply with the contract due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
participant, including a disaster or
related condition, as determined by the
State Conservationist; and
(7) Include such other provisions as
NRCS determines necessary to ensure
the purposes of the program are
achieved.
§ 1470.22
Conservation stewardship plan.
(a) NRCS will use the conservation
planning process as outlined in the
NPPH to encourage participants to
address resource concerns in a
comprehensive manner.
(b) The conservation stewardship plan
will contain a record of the participant’s
decisions that describes the schedule of
conservation activities to be
implemented, managed, or improved
under the conservation stewardship
contract.
(c) Associated supporting information
maintained with the participant’s plan
will include:
(1) CMT documentation that will be
the basis for:
(i) Identifying and inventorying
resource concerns,
(ii) Establishing benchmark data on
the condition of existing conservation
activities, and
(iii) Documenting the participant’s
conservation objectives to reach and
exceed stewardship thresholds;
(2) A plan map delineating enrolled
land with associated acreage amounts;
(3) In the case where a participant
wishes to initiate or retain organic
certification, documentation that will
support the participant’s transition to or
participation in the National Organic
Program;
(4) In the case where a participant is
approved for the on-farm research and
demonstration or pilot testing option, a
research, demonstration, or pilot testing
plan consistent with design protocols
and application procedures established
by NRCS; and
(5) Other information as determined
appropriate by NRCS.
§ 1470.23 Conservation activity operation
and maintenance.
The participant will maintain and
manage existing conservation activities
on the agricultural operation to at least
the level of conservation performance
identified at the time the application is
obligated into a contract for the
conservation stewardship contract
period, and additional activities
installed and adopted over the term of
the conservation stewardship contract.
§ 1470.24
Payments.
(a) Annual payments. Subject to the
availability of funds, NRCS will
provide, as appropriate, annual
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
payments under the program to
compensate a participant for installing
and adopting additional conservation
activities, and improving, maintaining,
and managing existing conservation
activities. A split-rate annual payment
structure will be used to provide
separate payments for additional and
existing conservation activities in order
to place emphasis on implementing
additional conservation.
(1) To receive annual payments, a
participant must:
(i) Install and adopt additional
conservation activities as scheduled in
the conservation stewardship plan. At
least one additional enhancement must
be scheduled, installed, and adopted in
the first fiscal year of the contract. All
enhancements must be scheduled,
installed, and adopted by the end of the
third fiscal year of the contract, and
(ii) As a minimum, maintain existing
activities to the level of existing
conservation performance identified at
the time the application is obligated into
a contract for the conservation
stewardship contract period;
(2) To earn annual payments for an
eligible land use, a participant must
schedule, install, and adopt at least one
additional conservation activity on that
land-use type. Eligible land-use types
that fail to have at least one additional
conservation activity scheduled,
installed, and adopted will not receive
annual payments;
(3) A participant’s annual payments
will be determined using the
conservation performance estimated by
the CMT and computed by land-use
type for eligible land earning payments.
Conservation performance is prorated
over the contract term so as to
accommodate, to the extent practicable,
participants earning equal annual
payments in each fiscal year;
(4) The annual payment rates will be
based to the maximum extent
practicable, on the following factors:
(i) Costs incurred by the participant
associated with planning, design,
materials, installation, labor,
management, maintenance, or training,
(ii) Income foregone by the
participant, and
(iii) Expected environmental benefits,
determined by estimating conservation
performance improvement using the
CMT;
(5) The annual payment method will
accommodate some participant
operational adjustments without the
need for contract modification.
(i) Enhancements may be replaced
with similar enhancements without
adjustment of annual payment as long
as the conservation performance is
determined by NRCS to be equal to or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
better than the conservation
performance of the additional
enhancements offered at enrollment. An
enhancement replacement that results
in a decline below that conservation
performance level will not be allowed,
and
(ii) Adjustments to existing activities
may occur consistent with conservation
performance requirements from
§ 1470.23; and
(6) Enhancements may be applied on
other land included in an agricultural
operation, as determined by NRCS.
(b) Supplemental payments. Subject
to the availability of funds, NRCS will
provide a supplemental payment to a
participant receiving annual payments,
who also agrees to adopt a resourceconserving crop rotation.
(1) The State Conservationist will
determine whether a resourceconserving crop rotation is eligible for
supplemental payments based on
whether the resource-conserving crop
rotation is designed to provide natural
resource conservation and production
benefits;
(2) A participant must agree to adopt
and maintain a beneficial resourceconserving crop rotation for the term of
the contract to be eligible to receive a
supplemental payment. A resourceconserving crop rotation is considered
adopted when the resource-conserving
crop is planted on at least one-third of
the rotation acres. The resourceconserving crop must be adopted by the
third fiscal year of the contract and
planted on all rotation acres by the fifth
fiscal year of the contract; and
(3) The supplemental payment is set
at a rate needed to encourage a producer
to adopt a resource-conserving crop
rotation and will be based, to the
maximum extent practicable, on costs
incurred and income foregone by the
participant and expected environmental
benefits, determined by estimating
conservation performance improvement
using the CMT.
(c) On-farm research and
demonstration or pilot testing. A
participant may be compensated
through their annual payment for:
(1) On-farm research and
demonstration activities; or
(2) Pilot testing of new technologies or
innovative conservation activities.
(d) Minimum contract payment.
NRCS will make a minimum contract
payment to participants who are
socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers, beginning farmers or ranchers,
or limited resource farmers or ranchers,
at a rate determined by the Chief in any
fiscal year that a contract’s payment
amount total is less than $1,000.
Definitions of socially disadvantaged
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31659
farmers or ranchers, beginning farmers
or ranchers, and limited resource
farmers or ranchers are contained in
§ 1470.3.
(e) Timing of payments. NRCS will
make payments as soon as practicable
after October 1 of each fiscal year for
activities carried out in the previous
fiscal year. For newly enrolled
contracts, payments will be made as
soon as practicable after October 1
following the fiscal year of enrollment.
(f) Non-compensatory matters. A CSP
payment to a participant will not be
provided for:
(1) New conservation practices or
enhancements applied with financial
assistance through other USDA
conservation programs;
(2) The design, construction, or
maintenance of animal waste storage or
treatment facilities, or associated waste
transport or transfer devices for animal
feeding operations; or
(3) Conservation activities for which
there is no cost incurred or income
foregone by the participant.
(g) Payment limits. A person or legal
entity may not receive, directly or
indirectly, payments that, in the
aggregate, exceed $40,000 during any
fiscal year for all CSP contracts entered
into, and $200,000 for all CSP contracts
entered into during any 5-year period,
excluding funding arrangements with
federally recognized Indian tribes or
Alaska Native corporations, regardless
of the number of contracts entered into
under the CSP by the person or legal
entity.
(h) Contract limits. Payments under a
conservation stewardship contract with
joint operations will be limited to
$80,000 per fiscal year and $400,000
over the term of the initial contract
period, excluding funding arrangements
with federally recognized Indian tribes
or Alaska Native corporations. The
payment limits for contracts with
persons or legal entities are contained in
§ 1470.24(g).
(i) Payment limitation provisions for
individual Indians and Indian tribes.
Payment limitations apply to individual
tribal member(s) when applying and
subsequently being granted a contract as
an individual(s). Contracts with Indian
tribes or Alaska Native corporations are
not subject to payment or contract
limitations. Indian tribes and BIA will
certify in writing that no one individual,
directly or indirectly, will receive more
than the payment limitation.
Certification provided at the time of
contract obligation will cover the entire
contract period. The tribal entity must
also provide, upon request from NRCS,
a listing of individuals and payment
made, by Social Security number or
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
31660
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
other unique identification number,
during the previous year for calculation
of overall payment limitations.
(j) Tax Identification Number. To be
eligible to receive a CSP payment, all
legal entities or persons applying, either
alone or as part of a joint operation,
must provide a tax identification
number and percentage interest in the
legal entity. In accordance with 7 CFR
part 1400, an applicant applying as a
joint operation or legal entity must
provide a list of all members of the legal
entity and joint operation and
associated embedded entities, along
with the members’ Social Security
numbers and percentage of interest in
the joint operation or legal entity.
Payments will be directly attributed to
legal entity members for the purpose of
complying with § 1470.24(g).
(k) Unique tax identification numbers.
Where applicable, American Indians,
Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders
may use another unique identification
number for each individual eligible for
payment. Any participant that utilizes a
unique identification number as an
alternative to a tax identification
number will utilize only that identifier
for any and all other CSP contracts to
which the participant is a party.
Violators will be considered to have
provided fraudulent representation and
be subject to full penalties of § 1470.36.
(l) Payment data. NRCS will maintain
detailed and segmented data on CSP
contracts and payments to allow for
quantification of the amount of
payments made for:
(1) Installing and adopting additional
activities;
(2) Improving, maintaining, and
managing existing activities;
(3) Participation in research and
demonstration or pilot projects; and
(4) Development and periodic
assessment and evaluation of
conservation stewardship plans
developed under this rule.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 1470.25 Contract modifications and
transfers of land.
(a) NRCS may allow a participant to
modify a conservation stewardship
contract if NRCS determines that the
modification is consistent with
achieving the purposes of the program.
(b) NRCS will allow modification to a
conservation stewardship contract to
remove contract acres enrolled in the
CRP, WRP, or GRP or other Federal or
State programs that offer greater natural
resource protection. Such modifications
are consistent with the purposes of CSP.
Participants will not be subject to
liquidated damages or refund of
payments received for enrolling land in
these programs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
(c) NRCS will not allow a participant
to modify a conservation stewardship
contract to increase the contract
obligation beyond the amount of the
initial contract, with exception for
contracts approved by NRCS for renewal
or other exceptional cases as determined
by the Chief.
(d) Land under contract will be
considered transferred if the participant
loses control of the acreage for any
reason.
(1) The participant is responsible to
notify NRCS prior to any voluntary or
involuntary transfer of land under
contract;
(2) If all or part of the land under
contract is transferred, the contract
terminates with respect to the
transferred land unless:
(i) The transferee of the land provides
written notice within 60 days to NRCS
that all duties and rights under the
contract have been transferred to, and
assumed by, the transferee, and
(ii) The transferee meets the eligibility
requirements of the program; and
(e) Contract payment adjustments due
to modifications will be reflected in the
fiscal year following the modification.
§ 1470.26
Contract renewal.
(a) At the end of an initial
conservation stewardship contract,
NRCS may allow a participant to renew
the contract to receive payments for one
additional 5-year period, subject to the
availability of funds, if they meet
criteria from paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) To be considered for contract
renewal, the participant must:
(1) Be in compliance with the terms
of their initial contract as determined by
NRCS;
(2) Add any newly acquired eligible
land that is part of the agricultural
operation and meets minimum
treatment criteria as established and
determined by NRCS;
(3) At a minimum, meet stewardship
thresholds for at least two priority
resource concerns; and
(4) Agree to adopt additional
conservation activities to address at
least one additional priority resource
concern during the term of the renewed
conservation stewardship contract.
§ 1470.27 Contract violations and
termination.
(a) The State Conservationist may
terminate, or by mutual consent with
the participants, terminate a contract
where:
(1) The participants are unable to
comply with the terms of the contract as
the result of conditions beyond their
control; or
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) As determined by the State
Conservationist, it is in the public
interest.
(b) If a contract is terminated in
accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the State
Conservationist may allow the
participant to retain a portion of any
payments received appropriate to the
effort the participant has made to
comply with the contract, or in cases of
hardship, where forces beyond the
participant’s control prevented
compliance with the contract. If a
participant claims hardship, such
claims must be clearly documented and
cannot have existed when the applicant
applied for participation in the program.
(c) If NRCS determines that a
participant is in violation of the contract
terms or documents incorporated
therein, NRCS will give the participant
a period of time, as determined by
NRCS, to correct the violation and
comply with the contract terms and
attachments thereto. If a participant
continues in violation, NRCS may
terminate the CSP contract in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (c) of this section, a contract
termination will be effective
immediately upon a determination by
NRCS that the participant:
(1) Has submitted false information or
filed a false claim;
(2) Engaged in any act, scheme, or
device for which a finding of
ineligibility for payments is permitted
under the provisions of § 1470.36; or
(3) Engaged in actions that are
deemed to be sufficiently purposeful or
negligent to warrant a termination
without delay.
(e) If NRCS terminates a contract, the
participant will forfeit all rights to
future payments under the contract, pay
liquidated damages, and refund all or
part of the payments received, plus
interest. Participants violating CSP
contracts may be determined ineligible
for future NRCS-administered
conservation program funding.
(1) NRCS may require a participant to
provide only a partial refund of the
payments received if a previously
installed conservation activity has
achieved the expected conservation
performance improvement, is not
adversely affected by the violation or
the absence of other conservation
activities that would have been installed
under the contract, and has met the
associated operation and maintenance
requirement of the activity; and
(2) NRCS will have the option to
reduce or waive the liquidated damages,
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
depending upon the circumstances of
the case—
(i) When terminating a contract, NRCS
may reduce the amount of money owed
by the participant by a proportion that
reflects the good faith effort of the
participant to comply with the contract
or the existence of hardships beyond the
participant’s control that have
prevented compliance with the contract.
If a participant claims hardship, that
claim must be well documented and
cannot have existed when the applicant
applied for participation in the program,
and
(ii) In carrying out its role in this
section, NRCS may consult with the
local conservation district.
Subpart C—General Administration
§ 1470.30 Fair treatment of tenants and
sharecroppers.
Payments received under this part
must be divided in the manner specified
in the applicable contract. NRCS will
ensure that tenants and sharecroppers
who would have an interest in acreage
being offered receive treatment which
NRCS deems to be equitable, as
determined by the Chief. NRCS may
refuse to enter into a contract when
there is a disagreement among joint
applicants seeking enrollment as to an
applicant’s eligibility to participate in
the contract as a tenant.
§ 1470.31
Appeals.
A participant may obtain
administrative review of an adverse
decision under this part in accordance
with 7 CFR parts 11 and 614.
Determinations in matters of general
applicability, such as payment rates,
payment limits, the designation of
identified priority resource concerns,
and eligible conservation activities are
not subject to appeal.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
§ 1470.32 Compliance with regulatory
measures.
Participants will be responsible for
obtaining the authorities, rights,
easements, permits, or other approvals
or legal compliance necessary for the
implementation, operation, and
maintenance associated with the
conservation stewardship plan.
Participants will be responsible for
compliance with all laws and for all
effects or actions resulting from the
implementation of the contract.
§ 1470.33
Access to agricultural operation.
NRCS, or its authorized
representative, will have the right to
enter an agricultural operation for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:52 Jun 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
purpose of determining eligibility and
for ascertaining the accuracy of any
representations, including natural
resource information provided by an
applicant for the purpose of evaluating
a contract application. Access will
include the right to provide technical
assistance, determine eligibility, assess
natural resource conditions, inspect any
work undertaken under the contract,
and collect information necessary to
evaluate the implementation of
conservation activities in the contract.
NRCS, or its authorized representative,
will make an effort to contact the
participant prior to the exercise of this
provision.
§ 1470.34
Equitable relief.
(a) If a participant relied upon the
advice or action of NRCS and did not
know, or have reason to know, that the
action or advice was improper or
erroneous, the participant may be
eligible for equitable relief under 7 CFR
part 635. The financial or technical
liability for any action by a participant
that was taken based on the advice of a
TSP will remain with the TSP and will
not be assumed by NRCS.
(b) If a participant has been found in
violation of a provision of the
conservation stewardship contract or
any document incorporated by reference
through failure to comply fully with that
provision, the participant may be
eligible for equitable relief under 7 CFR
part 635.
§ 1470.35
Offsets and assignments.
(a) Any payment or portion thereof
due to any participant under this part
will be allowed without regard to any
claim or lien in favor of any creditor,
except agencies of the United States
Government. The regulations governing
offsets and withholdings found at 7 CFR
part 1403 will be applicable to contract
payments.
(b) Any participant entitled to any
payment may assign such payments in
accordance with regulations governing
assignment of payment found at 7 CFR
part 1404.
§ 1470.36 Misrepresentation and scheme
or device.
(a) If NRCS determines that an
applicant intentionally misrepresented
any fact affecting a CSP determination,
the application will be determined
ineligible immediately.
(b) A participant who is determined to
have erroneously represented any fact
affecting a program determination made
in accordance with this part will not be
entitled to contract payments and must
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
31661
refund to NRCS all payments, plus
interest determined in accordance with
7 CFR part 1403.
(c) A participant will refund to NRCS
all payments, plus interest determined
in accordance with 7 CFR part 1403,
received by such participant with
respect to all CSP contracts if they are
determined to have:
(1) Adopted any scheme or device
that tends to defeat the purpose of the
program;
(2) Made any fraudulent
representation;
(3) Adopted any scheme or device for
the purpose of depriving any tenant or
sharecropper of the payments to which
such person would otherwise be
entitled under the program; or
(4) Misrepresented any fact affecting a
program determination.
(d) Participants determined to have
committed actions identified in
paragraph (c) of this section will:
(1) Have their interest in all CSP
contracts terminated; and
(2) In accordance with § 1470.27(e),
may be determined by NRCS to be
ineligible for future NRCS-administered
conservation program funding.
§ 1470.37 Environmental credits for
conservation improvements.
NRCS believes that environmental
benefits will be achieved by
implementing conservation activities
funded through CSP. These
environmental benefits may result in
opportunities for the program
participant to sell environmental
credits. Any requirements related to
these environmental credits must be
compatible with the purposes of the
contract. NRCS asserts no direct or
indirect interest on these credits.
However, NRCS retains the authority to
ensure that operation and maintenance
(O&M) requirements for CSP-funded
improvements are met, consistent with
§ 1470.21 and § 1470.23. Where actions
may impact the land and conservation
activities under a CSP contract, NRCS
will at the request of the participant,
assist with the development of an O&M
compatibility assessment prior to the
participant entering into any credit
agreement.
Signed this 21st day of May in Washington,
DC.
Dave White,
Vice President, Commodity Credit
Corporation and Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–12699 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31610-31661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12699]
[[Page 31609]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Credit Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Part 1470
Conservation Stewardship Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 31610]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1470
RIN 0578-AA43
Conservation Stewardship Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 2301 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 Act) amended the Food Security Act of 1985 to establish the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). On July 29, 2009, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published an interim final rule
for CSP with a 60-day public comment period. On September 21, 2009, the
public comment period was extended 30 days. NRCS is publishing a final
rule that addresses the comments received on the interim final rule and
makes other minor adjustments to improve clarity of the rule.
DATES: Effective Date: The rule is effective June 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief, Financial
Assistance Programs Division, Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room
5237 South Building, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (202) 720-1845;
Fax: (202) 720-4265; or e-mail CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (FR Doc. 93-24523, September 30,
1993), this final rule is an economically significant regulatory action
since it results in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. The administrative record is available for public inspection at
the Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5242
South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, NRCS conducted an economic
analysis of the potential impacts associated with this program. A
summary of the economic analysis can be found at the end of the
Regulatory Certifications section of this preamble and a copy of the
analysis is available upon request from Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief,
Financial Assistance Programs Division, Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Room 5237 South Building,
Washington, DC 20250 or electronically at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/ under the CSP Rules and Notices with Supporting Documents
title.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NRCS has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this final rule because NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other provision of law, to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Environmental Analysis
Availability of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). A programmatic environmental assessment was
prepared in association with the CSP interim final rule. The analysis
determined that there was not a significant impact to the human
environment and as a result an Environmental Impact Statement was not
required to be prepared (40 CFR part 1508.13). The EA and FONSI were
available for review and comment for 30 days from the date the interim
final rule was published in the Federal Register.
For this final rulemaking, the agency has determined that there are
no new circumstances or significant new information that has a bearing
on environmental effects which warrant supplementing the previous EA
and FONSI. The proposed changes identified in this final rule are
considered minor changes that should be implemented for the program.
The majority of these changes are administrative or technical or
corrections to the regulation.
Copies of the EA and FONSI may be obtained from Matt Harrington,
National Environmental Coordinator, Ecological Sciences Division,
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6151 South Building, Washington, DC
20250. The CSP EA and FONSI are also available at the following
Internet address: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/Env_Assess.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
NRCS has determined through a Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA)
that the interim final rule discloses no disproportionately adverse
impacts for minorities, women, or persons with disabilities. The final
CRIA provides responses to the interim final rule's CRIA comments. The
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights (OASCR), Office of Compliance, Policy, and Training
(formally the Office of Adjudication and Compliance) worked with NRCS
in the initial preparation of the proposed interim final rule and CRIA.
Based on these preliminary meetings and their review, it was determined
there was no adverse impact. The OASCR concurred with the CRIA for the
proposed final rule.
The data presented indicates producers who are members of the
protected groups have participated in NRCS conservation programs at
parity with other producers. Extrapolating from historical
participation data, it is reasonable to conclude that NRCS programs,
including CSP, will continue to be administered in a non-discriminatory
manner. Outreach and communication strategies are in place to ensure
all producers will be provided the same information to allow them to
make informed compliance decisions regarding the use of their lands
that will affect their participation in USDA programs. CSP applies to
all persons equally regardless of their race, color, national origin,
gender, sex, or disability status. Therefore, the CSP rule portends no
adverse civil rights implications for women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 2904 of the 2008 Act provides that the promulgation of
regulations and the administration of Title II of the 2008 Act, which
contain the amendments that authorize CSP, will be made without regard
to chapter 35 of Title 44 of the U.S.C. also known as the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Therefore, NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or
estimated paperwork burden associated with this interim final rule.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act
NRCS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act, which requires government agencies, in general, to
provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum extent possible. To better
accommodate public access, NRCS has developed an online application and
information system for public use.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of this final rule
are not retroactive. The provisions of this final rule preempt State
and local laws to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this
[[Page 31611]]
final rule. Before an action may be brought in a Federal court of
competent jurisdiction, the administrative appeal rights afforded
persons at 7 CFR parts 614, 780, and 11 must be exhausted.
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994
Section 304 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994, Public Law 103-354, requires that a risk assessment be prepared
in conjunction with any notice of proposed rulemaking for a major
regulation. Pursuant to section 2904 of the 2008 Act, NRCS is
promulgating this final rule, and therefore, a risk assessment is not
required. However, risks associated with the final rule have been
assessed pursuant to the analysis prepared in compliance with Executive
Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
NRCS assessed the effects of this rulemaking action on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the public. This action does not
compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or
tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector; therefore, a
statement under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
is not required.
Executive Order 13132
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. USDA has determined
that this final rule conforms with the Federalism principles set forth
in the Executive Order, would not impose any compliance costs on the
States, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities on the various levels of
government. Therefore, USDA concludes that this final rule does not
have Federalism implications.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. NRCS has assessed the impact of this
final rule on Indian tribal governments and concluded that this final
rule will not negatively affect Indian tribal governments or their
communities. The rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments nor preempts tribal law. However, NRCS
plans to undertake a series of at least six regional tribal
consultation sessions before December 30, 2010, on the impact of NRCS
conservation programs and services on tribal governments and their
members to establish a baseline of consultation for future actions.
Reports from these sessions will be made part of the USDA annual
reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. NRCS will respond
in a timely and meaningful manner to all tribal governments' requests
for consultation.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Section 2904(c) of the 2008 Act requires that the Secretary use the
authority in section 808(2) of title 5 U.S.C., which allows an agency
to forgo the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
usual congressional review delay of the effective date of a regulation
if the agency finds that there is a good cause to do so. NRCS hereby
determines that it has good cause to do so in order to meet the
congressional intent to have the conservation programs authorized or
amended by Title II in effect as soon as possible. Accordingly, this
rule is effective upon filing for public inspection by the Office of
the Federal Register.
Section 2708 of the 2008 Act
Section 2708, ``Compliance and Performance,'' of the 2008 Act added
a paragraph to section 1244(g) of the Food Security Act of 1985 Act
entitled, ``Administrative Requirements for Conservation Programs,''
which states the following:
``(g) Compliance and performance.--For each conservation program
under Subtitle D, the Secretary will develop procedures--
(1) To monitor compliance with program requirements;
(2) To measure program performance;
(3) To demonstrate whether long-term conservation benefits of the
program are being achieved;
(4) To track participation by crop and livestock type; and
(5) To coordinate activities described in this subsection with the
national conservation program authorized under section 5 of the Soil
and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2004).''
This new provision presents in one place the accountability
requirements placed on the agency as it implements conservation
programs and reports on program results. The requirements apply to all
programs under Subtitle D, including the Wetlands Reserve Program,
Conservation Security Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, Farm
and Ranch Lands Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program (GRP),
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) (including the
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program), Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP), and Chesapeake Bay Watershed initiative. These
requirements are not directly incorporated into these regulations which
set out requirements for program participants. However, certain
provisions within these regulations relate to elements of section
1244(g) of the Food Security Act of 1985 Act and the agency's
accountability responsibilities regarding program performance. NRCS is
taking this opportunity to describe existing procedures that relate to
meeting the requirements of section 1244(g) of the Food Security Act of
1985, and agency expectations for improving its ability to report on
each program's performance and achievement of long-term conservation
benefits. Also included is reference to the sections of these
regulations that apply to program participants and that relate to the
agency accountability requirements as outlined in section 1244(g) of
the Food Security Act of 1985.
Monitor compliance with program requirements. NRCS has established
application procedures to ensure that participants meet eligibility
requirements and follow-up procedures to ensure that participants are
complying with the terms and conditions of their contractual
arrangement with the government and that the installed conservation
measures are operating as intended. These and related program
compliance evaluation policies are set forth in agency guidance
(Conservation Programs Manual--440--Part 512 and Conservation Programs
Manual --440--Part 508) (https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). The
program requirements applicable to participants that relate to
compliance are set forth in these regulations in Sec. 1470.6
``Eligibility requirements,'' Sec. 1470.21 ``Contract requirements,''
Sec. 1470.22 ``Conservation stewardship plan,'' and Sec. 1470.23
``Conservation activity operation and maintenance.'' These sections
make clear the general program eligibility requirements, participant
obligations for implementing a conservation stewardship plan, contract
obligations, and requirements for operating and maintaining CSP-funded
conservation activities.
Measure program performance. Pursuant to the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62, Sec.
1116) and guidance provided by Office of
[[Page 31612]]
Management and Budget Circular A-11, NRCS has established performance
measures for its conservation programs. Program-funded conservation
activity is captured through automated field-level business tools, and
the information is available to the public at https://ias.sc.egov.usda.gov/PRSHOME/. Program performance is also reported
annually to Congress and the public through the annual performance
budget, annual accomplishments report, and the USDA Performance
Accountability Report. Related performance measurement and reporting
policies are set forth in agency guidance (GM--340--401 and GM--340--
403) (https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
The conservation actions undertaken by participants are the basis
for measuring program performance; specific actions are tracked and
reported annually, while the effects of those actions relate to whether
the long-term benefits of the program are being achieved. The program
requirements applicable to participants that relate to undertaking
conservation actions are set forth in these regulations in Sec.
1470.21 ``Contract requirements,'' Sec. 1470.22 ``Conservation
stewardship plan,'' and Sec. 1470.23 ``Conservation activity operation
and maintenance.'' These sections make clear participant obligations
for installing, adopting, improving, maintaining, and managing
conservation stewardship activities which in aggregate result in the
program performance that is reflected in agency performance reports.
Demonstrating the long-term natural resource benefits achieved
through conservation programs is subject to the availability of needed
data, the capacity and capability of modeling approaches, and the
external influences that affect actual natural resource condition.
While NRCS captures many measures of ``output'' data, such as acres of
conservation practices, it is still in the process of developing
methods to quantify the contribution of those outputs to environmental
outcomes.
NRCS currently uses a mix of approaches to evaluate whether long-
term conservation benefits are being achieved through its programs.
Since 1982, NRCS has reported on certain natural resource status and
trends through the National Resources Inventory (NRI), which provides
statistically reliable, nationally consistent land cover/use and
related natural resource data. However, lacking has been a connection
between these data and specific conservation programs.\1\ In the
future, the interagency Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP),
which has been underway since 2003, will provide nationally consistent
estimates of environmental effects resulting from conservation
practices and systems applied. CEAP results will be used in conjunction
with performance data gathered through agency field-level business
tools to help produce estimates of environmental effects accomplished
through agency programs, such as CSP. In 2006 a Blue Ribbon panel
evaluation of CEAP \2\ strongly endorsed the project's purpose but
concluded ``CEAP must change direction'' to achieve its purposes. In
response, CEAP has focused on priorities identified by the panel and
clarified that its purpose is to quantify the effects of conservation
practices applied on the landscape. Information regarding CEAP,
including reviews and current status, is available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/. Since 2004 and the initial
establishment of long-term performance measures by program, NRCS has
been estimating and reporting progress toward long-term program goals.
The NRI and assessment and the performance measurement and reporting
policies are set forth in agency guidance (GM--290--400, GM--340--401,
and GM--340--403) (https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exception to this is the CRP; since 1987 the NRI has
reported acreage enrolled in CRP.
\2\ Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2006. Final Report from
the Blue Ribbon Panel Conducting an External Review of the US
Department of Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project.
Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. This review is
available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrating the long-term conservation benefits of conservation
programs is an agency responsibility. Through CEAP, NRCS is in the
process of evaluating how these long-term benefits can be achieved
through the conservation practices and systems applied by participants
under each of its programs. The CSP program requirements applicable to
participants that relate to producing long-term conservation benefits
are located in Sec. 1470.21 ``Contract requirements,'' Sec. 1470.22
``Conservation stewardship plan,'' and Sec. 1470.23 ``Conservation
activity operation and maintenance.'' These requirements and related
program management procedures supporting program implementation are set
forth in agency guidance (Conservation Programs Manual 440--Part 512
and Conservation Programs Manual --440--Part 508).
Coordinate these actions with the national conservation program
authorized under the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA).
The 2008 Act reauthorized and expanded on a number of elements of the
RCA related to evaluating program performance and conservation
benefits. Specifically, the 2008 Act added a provision stating:
``Appraisal and inventory of resources, assessment and inventory
of conservation needs, evaluation of the effects of conservation
practices, and analyses of alternative approaches to existing
conservation programs are basic to effective soil, water, and
related natural resources conservation.''
The program, performance, and natural resource and effects data
described previously will serve as a foundation for the next RCA, which
will also identify and fill, to the extent possible, data and
information gaps. Policy and procedures related to the RCA are set
forth in agency guidance (GM--290--400 and GM--130--402) (https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/).
The coordination of the previously described components with the
RCA is an agency responsibility and is not reflected in these
regulations. However, it is likely that results from the RCA process
will result in modifications to the program and performance data
collected, to the systems used to acquire data and information, and
potentially to the program itself. Thus, as the Secretary proceeds to
implement the RCA in accordance with the statute, the approaches and
processes developed will improve existing program performance
measurement and outcome reporting capability and provide the foundation
for improved implementation of the program performance requirements of
section 1244(g) of the Food Security Act of 1985.
Economic Analysis--Executive Summary
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
NRCS conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the CSP as
formulated for the interim final rule.
This CEA describes how CSP financial assistance and technical
assistance are made available to farmers and ranchers who agree to
install and adopt additional conservation activities; and improve,
maintain, and manage conservation activities in place in accordance
with CSP's objectives. The CEA compares the impact of these activities
in generating environmental benefits with program costs. Many of these
improvements can produce beneficial impacts concerning onsite
[[Page 31613]]
resource conditions (such as conserving soil) and significant offsite
environmental benefits (such as cleaner water, improved air quality,
and enhanced wildlife habitat).
The environmental outcomes expected to be generated by enhancement
activities are based on extrapolations of the environmental outcomes
that have been studied and associated with many traditional NRCS
conservation practices. While the outcomes from many traditional
conservation practices have been assessed, the impacts generated from
these enhancements are not as well studied. In conducting economic
analyses where benefits are not well understood or difficult to
measure, but activity costs are available, the traditional benefit-cost
analysis is generally replaced with a CEA, the approach used for both
this assessment and the interim final rule.
In considering alternatives for implementing CSP, NRCS followed the
legislative intent to establish a clear and transparent method to
determine in an open and participatory process, potential participants'
current and future levels of conservation stewardship in order to gauge
their environmental impacts and compare them. Because CSP is voluntary,
the program is not expected to impose any obligation or burden upon
agricultural producers and nonindustrial private forestland (NIPF)
owners who choose not to participate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An impact could be expected in cases where CSP funds
activities that lead to large increases of certain environmental
services and goods where those markets are beginning to get started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress authorized the enrollment of 12,769,000 acres for each
fiscal year (FY) for the period beginning October 1, 2008, through
September 30, 2017. For FY 2009 through FY 2012, CSP has been
authorized 51,076,000 acres (4 years multiplied by a 12,769,000 acre
program cap per year).
Total program costs for CSP are shown in Table 1. Full
participation is assumed for each of the 4 years CSP is offered, and
the duration of each contract is 5 years. Total costs include only
costs to the government.\4\ Cumulative program costs for four program
ranking periods are estimated to be $2.990 billion in constant 2005
dollars, discounted at 7 percent. At a 3 percent discount rate, program
costs increase to $3.520 billion in constant 2005 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Given the wide set of possible initial resource conditions
and conservation activities likely to be adopted, it is not possible
to ascertain whether (or to what extent) CSP payments offset
expected costs to producers in adopting new activities or past
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in Table 1 highlights the cumulative impacts of
four ranking periods and 5-year contracts. Each sign-up creates a
commitment of $229.842 million for 5 years. Participants in the initial
ranking period receive payments through FY 2014; participants in the
last ranking period receive payments through FY 2017. The largest
outlays of program funds occur in FY 2013 and FY 2014 and then begin to
taper off as contracts from the first and later ranking periods end.
Table 1--Total Program Costs of CSP, FY 2010 to FY 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDP price Yearly cost in
Yearly cost deflator \2\ constant Discount Present value Discount Present value
\1\ (million (chained, dollars \1\ factors for of costs-3% factors for of costs-7%
$) 2005=100) (million $) 3% (million $) 7% (million $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY10.................................... 229.842 108.5 211.836 0.9709 205.666 0.9346 197.978
FY11.................................... 459.684 110.1 417.515 0.9426 393.548 0.8734 364.674
FY12.................................... 689.526 111.3 619.520 0.9151 566.949 0.8163 505.713
FY13.................................... 919.368 113.1 812.881 0.8885 722.234 0.7629 620.143
FY14.................................... 919.368 115.6 795.301 0.8626 686.034 0.7130 567.039
FY15.................................... 689.526 118.1 583.849 0.8375 488.965 0.6663 389.043
FY16.................................... 459.684 120.7 380.848 0.8131 309.665 0.6227 237.173
FY17.................................... 229.842 123.4 186.258 0.7894 147.034 0.5820 108.404
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 4596.840 .............. 4008.008 .............. 3520.093 .............. 2990.166
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congress set a maximum acreage limit of 12,769,000 acres and a national average payment rate of $18 per acre.
\2\ USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019. Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared by
the Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee. Long-term Projections Report OCE-2010-1, page 15.
Methodology Employed in This Study
Many conservation practices have been extensively studied, but
similar studies pertaining to enhancement activities have not been
conducted. We do not have sufficiently detailed, site-specific
information on existing conservation practices and environmental
outcomes. As a result, estimation of a true baseline of environmental
conditions before and after CSP implementation is not possible.
The methodology employed in this final assessment is the same
methodology applied in the interim final rule except that data from the
initial CSP ranking period are substituted for the representative farm
and environmental data. Although instructive in identifying possible
outcomes of different formulations of CSP, actual enrollment and
contract data are necessary to provide a fuller assessment of CSP
outcomes. A relative comparison of results from the interim final rule
and the final rule was also conducted to identify differences between
predicted and actual outcomes, determine why differences were observed,
and make recommendations, when necessary, to improve CSP's cost
effectiveness. This comparison should not be used beyond its stated
purpose because of different data sets in the two analyses.
CSP and the Conservation Measurement Tool
CSP is a challenging program given its purpose, statutory mandates,
assessments of existing and future conservation activities and their
associated conservation indices, allocation of program funds and acres
across States, and price setting. The following are key elements about
CSP and the conservation measurement tool (CMT).
(a) NRCS allocated acreage for enrollment across States according
to each State's proportion of the Nation's agricultural land base.
(b) NRCS State offices created ranking pools, selected three to
five priority
[[Page 31614]]
resource concerns for every pool, and allocated acres and program
dollars from the national office across the pools.
(c) A national team of NRCS cropland, pastureland, rangeland, and
forest land specialists developed sets of questions by land use
category to identify conservation activities already applied to the
land and the associated level of stewardship by assigning conservation
performance points. The team also identified additional enhancements
for increasing stewardship and assigned conservation performance points
to the additional enhancements. NRCS' Conservation Practice Physical
Effects methodology was used in both of these instances to assign
performance points. Conservation performance points earned by land use
should be viewed as ``environmental indices.''
(d) NRCS developed a CMT to determine eligibility by verifying that
minimum stewardship thresholds were met, estimating conservation
performance from existing and additional activities, and ranking
applications.
(e) NRCS field staff tested the questions and the CMT and made
suggestions that improved CMT's use.
(f) During the initial ranking period, NRCS assisted producers in
completing their resource inventories in the CMT and determining
program eligibility. Eligible applicants identified additional
activities--enhancements and traditional conservation practices--they
were willing to adopt. Each applicant's resource inventory and
additional activities recorded in the CMT earned conservation
performance points per acre by land use.
(g) Every application was ranked within a pool according to the sum
of four equally weighted ranking factors. The maximum ranking score is
1,000; the minimum zero. NRCS selected applications for enrollment
beginning with the highest ranked one and worked down the ranked list
until a pool's funding limit or acreage limit was reached. A fifth
ranking factor came into play as a ``tie breaker'' when two or more
applications were ranked equally. When this situation occurred, the
application that minimized the cost to government was selected.\5\ The
four equally weighted ranking factors are below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``* * * the Secretary shall rank applications based on * * *
(E) the extent to which the actual and anticipated environmental
benefits from the contract are provided at the least cost relative
to other similarly beneficial contract offers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Ranking factor one measures the existing level of conservation
stewardship for priority resource concerns at the time of enrollment.
(2) Ranking factor two measures the degree that new conservation
activities improve priority resource concern conditions.
(3) Ranking factor three measures the number of priority resource
concerns the applicant agrees to meet during the contract period.
(4) Ranking factor four measures the degree that new conservation
activities improve other resource concern conditions.
(h) CSP payment per land use equals conservation performance points
per acre multiplied by acres multiplied by the land use payment rate.
Total payment per contract equals the sum of the individual land use
payments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For CSP ranking period one, payment rates are $0.0605 for
every cropland conservation performance point, $0.0329 for pasture,
$0.0120 for rangeland, and $0.0164 for NIPF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The four policy options used in the interim final rule are also
used in the final rule to identify tradeoffs among the policy options,
especially changes in program acres, conservation performance points,
program costs, and implications with respect to CSP's acreage and
funding constraints.
Detailed descriptions of CSP, CMT, ranking period results, and CEA
analysis can be found in the main body of the report and the
appendices.
Analysis
Results of this analysis show that CSP participation was high
across the nation. As of December 1, 2009, NRCS had classified 15,015
applications as eligible. These applications involved slightly more
than 20.8 million acres, close to double CSP's maximum allowable of
12.179 million acres.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To avoid enrolling too many acres or spending more than the
$230 million available for this first ranking period, NRCS initially
allocated 95 percent of the 12.769 million acres. As enrollment
progressed, NRCS allocated the remaining acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some concerns were raised regarding participation in ranking pools.
No applications were received in 250 of the 693 pools created for CSP.
NRCS found that the majority of these pools were established
specifically for conservation access by beginning farmers or ranchers
and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. All eligible
applications were preapproved in 303 ranking pools because allotted
acreage and funding allocations were not fully committed. The remaining
140 pools accounted for slightly more than 86 percent of eligible
acres, making them highly competitive.
More than 80 percent of the eligible applicants across all land
uses were already meeting and frequently exceeding minimum stewardship
levels on five of the eight resource concerns. Applicants in the
initial CSP ranking period appear to be practicing stewardship at a
fairly high level. As a result, one would expect to see conservation
performance points earned for existing activities to be higher than
performance points earned for additional activities. Summary data from
pre-approved applications in the initial ranking period confirm this
expectation. Existing conservation performance points amounted to 61
percent of total points awarded nationally. This 61-39 percent split
between existing and additional conservation performance points carried
directly over into payments, with 63 percent of projected $142.6
million in financial assistance tied to existing activities.
The policy options described and analyzed using representative farm
and environmental data in the interim final rule indicated that CSP
outcomes could be fine-tuned at the national level by changing the
relative importance of the ranking factors. Based on that analysis,
policy option 1 (four ranking factors were weighted equally) was
selected and used for the initial CSP ranking period. Because three of
the four ranking factors are linked directly to additional activities,
an equal weighting scenario places considerable importance on
additional activities--enhancements and traditional conservation
practices--proposed to be applied over a 5-year period. The expectation
was that the highest ranked applications would include substantially
more additional conservation activities than lower ranked applications.
One of the other policy options might be used to influence the mix
between existing and additional activities after reviewing actual CSP
enrollment.
The five policy options and their reported acreage and program
costs by land use are summarized in Table 2. Policy option 1 represents
the actual CSP ranking period where the ranking factors are equally
weighted. Analyses conducted for policy option 2 (ranking factor 1
receives 5 times the weight--62.5 percent--of the other ranking
factors), policy option 3 (ranking factor 2 receives 5 times the
weight--62.5 percent--of the other ranking factors), policy option 4
(ranking factor 3 receives 5 times the weight--62.5 percent--of the
other ranking factors), and policy option 5 (ranking factor 4 receives
5 times the weight--62.5 percent--of the other ranking factors) did not
appreciably change the percentage splits between existing and
additional performance points and funding. Though acres and costs
shifted among the different land uses, the
[[Page 31615]]
impact on total program costs and costs per acre suggests that policy
options 2 through 5 did not substantially change the current
distributions of funds and acres under policy option 1, which was used
for the initial CSP ranking period.
Table 2--Summary of Program Acreage and Costs by Land Use and Policy Options for CSP Sign-Up One
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres funded in program \a\ Total program cost \b\
Cost per -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Option acre Range Range
Crop land Pasture land NIPF Total\2\ Crop land Pasture land NIPF Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(millions of acres)
($ millions)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No CSP.......................... N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 14.30 38.90 9.96 180.48
PO-1............................ $14.82 4.833 0.797 5.529 1.019 12.179 117.308 6 9 3 6
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 14.33 39.16 9.68 176.16
PO-2............................ 14.79 4.570 0.792 5.568 0.985 11.914 112.988 2 2 7 9
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 14.36 37.08 9.36 171.47
PO-3............................ 14.66 4.752 0.786 5.204 0.951 11.694 110.659 4 3 7 2
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 14.36 38.41 9.86 177.85
PO-4............................ 14.88 4.726 0.773 5.452 1.004 11.955 115.581 8 5 6 0
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 13.83 36.13 9.32 179.46
PO-5............................ 15.27 4.949 0.757 5.097 0.950 11.753 120.171 6 7 1 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For this analysis, the CSP acreage cap is 12.179 million acres including the 10 percent allocated to NIPF. This was the initial allocation
distributed to States shortly after closure of the initial CSP ranking period.
\b\ Includes financial and technical assistance.
NRCS noticed some large operations fell just below the cutoff line
in many of the pools for policy option 1, the actual ranking period.
These operations moved up the ranked list and effectively prevented the
distribution of the full amount of acres under the other policy
options. Their impact can be seen by examining the total acres in Table
2.
In examining the summaries of conservation performance points and
costs per point, the agency reached a similar conclusion regarding the
effectiveness of policy options 2 through 5 in changing the emphasis of
CSP between existing and additional activities (see Table 3). The
relatively insignificant changes in total conservation performance
points and dollars per point suggest that significant changes in the
ranking process yield few tangible results in practice. A closer
examination of the applications show considerable shifting of the
applications in terms of rankings, but few of the applications that
were ranked low during the actual ranking period moved up the list to
the level of approval.
Table 3--Summary of Conservation Performance Points and Cost per Point for CSP Policy Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars per point
Existing Additional -----------------------------------
activities activities Total points Additional
activities All activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(millions of conservation performance points)
($)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No CSP \a\.................................................... Indeterminate N/A N/A N/A N/A
PO-1.......................................................... 3,960 2,488 6,448 0.0573 0.0221
PO-2.......................................................... 3,964 2,368 6,332 0.0590 0.0220
PO-3.......................................................... 3,779 2,502 6,281 0.0564 0.0225
PO-4.......................................................... 3,920 2,398 6,319 0.0587 0.0223
PO-5.......................................................... 3,790 2,481 6,271 0.0576 0.0228
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Assumes CSP is not available to landowners. Data are not available to assess this situation.
\b\ Indeterminate.
Other possible reasons were identified to explain why the ranking
process produced such minor shifts in conservation performance points
and funding between existing and additional activities. Applicants, for
example, who were addressing a State's priority resource concerns
received more ranking points than applicants who chose to address fewer
priority resource concerns. As part of the policy analysis, it became
apparent that ranking factor 3 moved closely with ranking factor 1. A
recommendation in the conclusions and recommendations section breaks
this relationship with ranking factor 1, making it strictly a factor
that awards ranking points based on proposed new activities that assist
producers in meeting minimum stewardship levels of priority resource
concerns.
Another possible reason is the CMT and how activities and
conservation performance points are assigned. An additional reason is
the ranking process itself. Modifications to account for these two
reasons are detailed in the recommendations.
The results reported above and other secondary results from the
analysis of eligible applications and preapproved contracts in CSP's
initial ranking period substantiate many of the initial CEA findings
reported in the interim final rule. One primary finding was that the
policy constraints on the program posed serious challenges for the
model developers. It is obvious that these constraints will pose
similar challenges in implementing this program. In particular,
achieving the national annual acreage enrollment goal at the designated
average costs per acre mandated in legislation will be a challenge
given the heterogeneity of producers' initial resource conditions and
demand for enhancements. This cautionary observation held true in the
initial ranking period and appears to be a major concern in subsequent
ranking periods.
Second, the annual contract limit of $40,000 per contract imposed
by the interim final rule influences program
[[Page 31616]]
outcomes. CSP gains program acreage when large operations, 13.8 percent
of the preapproved contracts in the first ranking period, hit the
maximum annual payment limit and remain enrolled. Costs per acre for
the program decrease because program funding is spread over more acres.
As predicted though, CSP's acre constraint of 12.769 million acres
becomes the controlling factor because of the acres linked to the large
operations. Though NRCS received an apportionment of $229,842,000, the
financial assistance portion cannot be fully spent because the acreage
constraint was met for the initial CSP ranking period. Furthermore,
NRCS offices incur technical assistance costs associated with these
additional acres, regardless if the acres are capped for payment.
Third, the policy options that were part of the CEA in the interim
final rule proved useful in the final assessment. The different policy
scenarios reinforced the fact that CSP outcomes depend to a large
extent on the applications submitted for enrollment. The policy
scenarios also contributed to a better understanding of how the ranking
factors were defined and implemented.
Finally, program design and adaptive program management are
critical in satisfying the mandated constraints of this program. The
model results of the CEA used in the interim final rule showed that
caution must be used in setting land use payment rates. This is due to
the changing land use compositions and conservation performance
outcomes that resulted under each alternative policy option. Such
changes could be expected in subsequent ranking periods and alter the
acreage and conservation performance points produced. Such changes
would need to be included in the calculation of appropriate land use
payment rates that conform to the CSP statute, particularly the $18 per
acre national program cost constraint.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As part of the 2008 Act, Congress created the CSP and instructed
the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program that compensates a
producer for ``* * * installing and adopting additional conservation
activities; and improving, maintaining, and managing conservation
activities in place at the operation of the producer at the time the
contract offer is accepted by the Secretary.'' Producers must also meet
minimum stewardship levels before they become eligible for CSP.
Acreage, budget, a national average price of $18 per acre, and a
maximum annual payment of $40,000 per contract established in the
interim final rule also complicate program implementation.
The CSP as currently implemented received more than enough
applications to make it a competitive program. Of the 15,015 eligible
applications, 10,743 were preapproved for enrollment, and those
selected were the highest ranked eligible applications. The preapproved
applications resulted in 61-39 percent split in conservation
performance points and 63-37 percent split in program payments between
existing and additional activities, respectively. The acreage
constraint limited the ability of NRCS to distribute all the funds
provided by Congress.
Though little guidance is given on a suitable split of financial
assistance funds between existing and additional conservation
activities, preliminary analysis indicates that the initial CSP ranking
period attracted practicing conservationists. Almost every applicant
met the stewardship threshold requirement at the time of application.
More than 80 percent of the applicants were meeting five resource
concerns at time of application. The $40 thousand cap per contract and
the requirement that all acres of an operation must be enrolled
impacted CSP. The acreage constraint became the limiting factor because
1,487 (13.8 percent) preapproved applications exceeded the cap, but
their acres were counted, making it impossible for NRCS to distribute
all the funds.
A total of five policy options were developed as candidates for
improving CSP's overall cost effectiveness at the national level. These
policy options are directly tied to CSP's ranking process. Under policy
option 1, the four ranking factors are equally weighted. In the
remaining options, each ranking factor is separately weighted five
times more important than the other factors. Based on the interim
analysis, the ranking process recommended and implemented for the first
CSP sign-up was policy option 1. This translated into an effective
weighting scheme of 25 percent for existing activities and 75 percent
for additional activities.
For the most part, these policy options exhibited their intended
impacts. With each change in the weights assigned to the ranking
factors, ranking scores changed, and applications moved up and down in
ranking based on their mix of existing and additional conservation
activities and whether priority resource concerns were being targeted.
With five times the weight assigned to ranking factor 1 (policy option
2), for example, NRCS observed applications with many existing
practices earning more ranking points than applications with fewer
existing practices and applications with similar additional activities.
When weights were assigned to ranking factors that captured additional
activities, NRCS observed the opposite. Applications with many
additional activities ranked higher than applications with a similar
complement of existing activities and applications with fewer
additional activities. Overall, policy options 2 through 5 did not
yield substantially different changes in conservation performance
points and financial assistance between existing and additional
activities. Analysis of the data suggests that this initial CSP ranking
period attracted practicing conservationists. NRCS expects future
ranking periods to be more representative of the larger agricultural
sector as others learn about CSP and the remaining population of
practicing conservationists yet to enroll declines with each ranking
period.
There is insufficient evidence of improved cost effectiveness to
replace policy option 1 with any of the other options. Prior to CSP
ranking period two, NRCS will review key program components--
eligibility requirements, minimum stewardship levels, conservation
activities and conservation performance points, CMT, and ranking factor
specifications--and make any necessary modifications. In addition, NRCS
will investigate other ranking factor processes, additional ranking
criteria, and separate prices for existing and additional conservation
performance points. As data becomes available and is analyzed from each
new ranking period, NRCS will make necessary changes to improve CSP's
cost effectiveness.
Discussion of Program
The 2008 Act amended the Food Security Act of 1985 to establish the
CSP and authorize the program in fiscal years 2009 through 2012. The
CSP statute provides that the Secretary will carry out a stewardship
program to encourage producers to address resource concerns in a
comprehensive manner by (1) undertaking additional conservation
activities, and (2) by improving, maintaining, and managing existing
conservation activities. On July 29, 2009, NRCS published an interim
final rule for CSP with a 60-day public comment period. On September
21, 2009, the public comment period was extended 30 days.
NRCS explained in the preamble of the interim final rule, that it
will provide financial and technical assistance to eligible producers
to
[[Page 31617]]
conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on
their land. Eligible lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land,
improved pastureland, rangeland, NIPF, agricultural land under the
jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, and other private agricultural land
(including cropped woodland, marshes, and agricultural land used for
the production of livestock) on which resource concerns related to
agricultural production could be addressed.
The NRCS State Conservationist, in consultation with the State
Technical Committee and local working groups, will focus program
impacts on natural resources that are of specific concern for a State,
or the specific geographic areas within a State. Applications will be
evaluated relative to other applications addressing similar priority
resource concerns to facilitate a competitive ranking process among
applicants who face similar resource challenges. The program is
national in scope, and participation is voluntary.
CSP provides participants with two possible types of payments: (1)
Annual payments will be offered through split-rate payments; one
payment for installing and adopting additional activities, and one for
improving, maintaining, and managing existing activities. This payment
structure is different from the annual payments offered for contracts
selected in the 2009 enrollment period. Contracts selected in the 2009
enrollment period will receive an annual payment that combines the
conservation performance from additional and existing conservation
activities. Annual payments may also include compensation for on-farm
research and demonstration activities or pilot testing, and (2)
Supplemental payment for the adoption of resource-conserving crop
rotations on cropland.
The 2008 Act directed the development of the CMT to estimate the
level of environmental benefit to be achieved by a producer in
implementing conservation activities. NRCS successfully implemented the
CMT during its first sign-up. The CMT effectively evaluated the
stewardship threshold requirements, estimated conservation performance,
generated a ranking score, and calculated conservation performance
payment points. Preliminary data analysis showed the CMT fairly
evaluated conservation performance on different sizes and types of
operations, across different land uses, for all regions of the country.
Although the tool performed well, NRCS recognized that improvements
were necessary to improve clarity of the questions being asked of
clients. Therefore, NRCS assembled a team of technical experts to
analyze the questions in the CMT that could be misunderstood, identify
those needing adjustment, and provide recommendations to the Chief.
NRCS designed the program to recognize excellent stewards and
deliver valuable new conservation on every CSP contract. The agency
developed multiple program features to enable it to realize this
objective, including:
(1) Bundling enhancements to encourage participants to address
additional resource concerns in a more comprehensive manner. NRCS
updated its enhancement list and adopted the concept of bundling for
the second ranking period. Certain enhancements will be offered as
``bundles.'' The bundling concept enables participants and the nation
to realize conservation benefits from the synergy that results when
activities are implemented as a system. Participants who elect to
bundle enhancements receive a positive adjustment in their ranking
score and payments.
(2) Calculating payments based on a process that considers
conservation performance points rather than just acres. Each
conservation activity has a performance value. Basing payments on
conservation performance points rather than a rate per acre enables
participants to influence their payment rates according to the type and
number of conservation activities they are willing to adopt.
(3) Placing a higher value on payments for additional activities
versus existing activities through split-rate payments. For contracts
selected for enrollment during the first ranking period, NRCS provided
participants with an annual payment. Although the single annual payment
was calculated giving consideration to both new and existing
activities, participants could not readily distinguish the value of
each since the participant received one payment. For the second and
future application ranking periods, NRCS intends to calculate payments
for additional conservation activities at a higher payment rate than
existing activities with the goal of providing a majority of payments
to compensate producers for implementing additional conservation. In
the initial ranking period, 63 percent of the payments were attributed
to existing conservation activities. NRCS believes this higher payment
for additional conservation performance will encourage producers to
apply additional activities and serve to maximize net additional
environmental benefits as much as possible beyond the current 63:37
ratio.
(4) Requiring the adoption of additional conservation activities to
earn annual payments. To earn annual payments for an eligible land use,
a participant must schedule, install, and adopt at least one additional
conservation activity on that land-use type. Eligible land-use types
that fail to have at least one additional conservation activity
scheduled, installed, and adopted will not receive annual payments.
(5) Implementing a State allocation process that considers the
extent and magnitude of conservation needs associated with agriculture
production. The State allocation process will consider natural resource
data from sources like the NRI related to the nation's major resources
concerns, including water quality and quantity, soil quality, air
quality, and wildlife habitat.
(6) Developing contract renewal criteria that require new
conservation activities. In order to renew a contract after the initial
contract period, participants will need to expand the degree, scope,
and comprehensiveness of conservation activities by meeting an expanded
stewardship threshold requirement and agreeing to adopt additional
activities during the renewal period.
In establishing the measures and methodologies NRCS will use to
monitor program performance, the agency believes the CMT will assist in
measuring outcomes. The conservation performance the CMT estimates is
measured in terms of relative physical effects; they are not true
environmental benefits. However, the CMT performance estimates are a
step forward from output measures, like acres of conservation
practices, used by former programs. NRCS acknowledges challenges, but
intends to pursue the use of CEAP results with CMT performance data to
help produce meaningful estimates of environmental effects accomplished
through CSP.
NRCS received numerous comments on CSP as it relates to organic
farming, including that the regulations and overall design of the
program should include specifically organic conservation activities, as
well as ensuring that all conservation activities rewarded under the
program include appropriate variations relevant to organic farms where
the standard conservation practice may be inappropriate for organic
systems; organic crop and livestock systems should be recognized for
their environmental benefits.
Since organic producers have adopted a number of conservation
measures that
[[Page 31618]]
have significant environmental benefits, CSP provides opportunities for
their participation. The NRCS document entitled ``The Conservation
Stewardship Program's Contribution to Organic Transitioning''
highlights how CSP can be used by organic producers. The questions in
the CMT are designed to assess conservation outcomes on the land. As
such, the questions do not specifically distinguish between organic and
non-organic producers. However, in most instances organic producers
should score very well in the CMT by the use of cover crops,
perennials, diverse rotations, and limited use of pesticides. In
addition, CSP offers a number of enhancements targeted specifically at
organic producers.
NRCS takes seriously its responsibilities related to providing
conservation opportunities to organic producers. The agency is working
to ensure its field office staffs have adequate training to work with
organic farmers. Individual States conducted numerous training sessions
on conservation planning with organic producers. A national
teleconference on organic certification has been conducted, and plans
are in place to work with several private organic groups to provide
training to NRCS State specialists on organic farming systems.
Summary of Initial Ranking Period
NRCS began accepting program applications for the initial ranking
period on August 10, 2009. The cut-off for the initial ranking period
was September 30, 2009.
Each application was evaluated f