Department of Agriculture - US Government Publishing Office
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Vol. 79 Wednesday,
No. 214 November 5, 2014
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1470
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) Interim Rule; Interim Rule
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR465836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Regulatory Certifications • Would more, but shorter, sections
Executive Order 12866 and 13563 be better? Are there specific sections
Natural Resources Conservation that are too long or confusing?
Service Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory • What else could we do to make the
Planning and Review,’’ and Executive rule easier to understand?
Commodity Credit Corporation Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review,’’ directs Regulatory Flexibility Act
7 CFR Part 1470 agencies to assess all costs and benefits The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
of available regulatory alternatives and, U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA) generally
RIN 0578–AA63 if regulation is necessary, to select requires an agency to prepare a
[Docket No. NRCS–2014–0008] regulatory approaches that maximize regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
net benefits (including potential subject to notice and comment
Conservation Stewardship Program economic, environmental, public health rulemaking requirements under the
(CSP) Interim Rule and safety effects, distributive impacts, Administrative Procedure Act or any
and equity). Executive Order 13563 other statute. NRCS did not prepare a
AGENCY: Natural Resources
emphasizes the importance of regulatory flexibility analysis for this
Conservation Service and the
quantifying both costs and benefits, of rule because NRCS is not required by 5
Commodity Credit Corporation, United
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, U.S.C. 553, or any other provision of
States Department of Agriculture.
and of promoting flexibility. Upon law, to publish a notice of proposed
ACTION: Interim rule with request for rulemaking with respect to the subject
implementation of this rule the Natural
comment. matter of this rule. Even so, NRCS has
Resources Conservation Service intends
SUMMARY: This interim rule with request to conduct a retrospective review of this determined that this action, while
for comment amends the existing rule with the purpose of improving mostly affecting small entities, will not
Natural Resources Conservation Service program performance, emphasizing have a significant economic impact on
(NRCS) regulation for the Conservation priority enhancements, and better a substantial number of these small
Stewardship Program (CSP) to understanding the longevity of entities. NRCS made this determination
incorporate programmatic changes as conservation implementation. based on the fact that this regulation
authorized by amendments in the The Office of Management and Budget only impacts those who choose to
Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act). (OMB) designated this interim rule with participate in the program. Small entity
request for comment a significant applicants will not be affected to a
DATES: Effective date: This rule is
regulatory action. The administrative greater extent than large entity
effective November 5, 2014. applicants.
Comment date: Submit comments on record is available for public inspection
or before January 5, 2015. in Room 5831 South Building, USDA, Environmental Analysis
14th and Independence Avenue SW.,
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments NRCS has determined that changes
Washington, DC. Pursuant to Executive
using one of the following methods: made by this rule fall within a category
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Order 12866, NRCS conducted a cost-
effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the of actions that are excluded from the
www.regulations.gov. Follow the requirement to prepare either an
instructions for submitting comments potential impacts associated with this
program. A summary of the Environmental Assessment (EA) or
for Docket No. NRCS–2014–0008. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public effectiveness analysis can be found at
the end of this preamble and a copy of The changes made by the rule are
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. primarily those mandated by the 2014
NRCS–2014–0008, Regulatory and the analysis is available upon request
from the Director, Financial Assistance Act, though there are additional
Agency Policy Team, Strategic Planning administrative changes made to improve
and Accountability, U.S. Department of Programs Division, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, consistency with other NRCS programs
Agriculture, Natural Resources and make other clarifications. NRCS has
Conservation Service, 5601 Sunnyside Washington, DC 20250–2890 or
electronically at: http:// no discretion with respect to changes
Avenue, Building 1–1112D, Beltsville, mandated by the 2014 Act; therefore the
MD 20705. www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
under the CSP Rules and Notices with National Environmental Policy Act
NRCS will post all comments on (NEPA) does not apply. Administrative
http://www.regulations.gov. If your Supporting Documents title.
Executive Order 12866, as changes made in this rule fall within a
comment includes your address, phone categorical exclusion for policy
number, email address, or other supplemented by Executive Order
13563, requires each agency to write all development relating to routine
personal identifying information, please activities and similar administrative
be aware that your entire comment, rules in plain language. In addition to
your substantive comments on this functions (7 CFR 1b.3(a)(1)) and NRCS
including this personal information, has identified no extraordinary
will be made publicly available. Do not interim rule, we invite your comments
on how to make the provisions easier to circumstances that would otherwise
include personal information with your require preparation of an EA or EIS.
comment submission if you do not wish understand. For example:
• Are the requirements in the rule To further its site-specific compliance
for it to be made public. with NEPA, NRCS reviewed the 2009
clearly stated? Are the scope and intent
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CSP Programmatic EA, and found this
of the rule clear?
Director, Financial Assistance Programs • Does the rule contain technical rule makes no substantial changes that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Division, U.S. Department of language or jargon that is not clear? are relevant to environmental concerns
Agriculture, Natural Resources • Is the material logically organized? as compared to the EA proposed action.
Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, • Would changing the grouping or Furthermore, NRCS has not found any
Washington, DC 20013–2890. order of sections or adding headings significant new circumstances or
Telephone: (202) 720–1845. Fax: (202) make the rule easier to understand? information relevant to environmental
720–4265. • Could we improve clarity by adding concerns. As a result, NRCS will
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: tables, lists, or diagrams? continue to tier to the 2009 CSP
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR4Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65837
Programmatic EA as appropriate to meet paperwork burden associated with this assess the effects of their regulatory
NEPA requirements related to site- interim rule. actions on State, local, and Tribal
specific activities. Governments or the private sector of
Government Paperwork Elimination
Public comment on the environmental $100 million or more in any one year.
Act
analysis only may be submitted by any When such a statement is needed for a
of the following means: (1) Email NRCS is committed to compliance rule, section 205 of the UMRA requires
comments to andree.duvarney@ with the Government Paperwork NRCS to prepare a written statement,
wdc.usda.gov, (2) go to http:// Elimination Act and the Freedom to including a cost-benefit assessment, for
www.regulations.gov and follow the E-File Act, which require government proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal
instructions for submitting comments agencies, in general, to provide the mandates’’ that may result in such
for Docket No. NRCS–2014–0008, or (3) public the option of submitting expenditures for State, local, or Tribal
mail written comments to: National information or transacting business Governments, in the aggregate, or to the
Environmental Coordinator, Natural electronically to the maximum extent private sector. UMRA generally requires
Resources Conservation Service, possible. To better accommodate public agencies to consider alternatives and
Ecological Sciences Division, Room access, NRCS has developed an online adopt the more cost effective or least
6159–S, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC application and information system for burdensome alternative that achieves
20013–2890. public use. the objectives of the rule.
Executive Order 13175 This rule contains no Federal
Civil Rights Impact Analysis mandates, as defined under Title II of
This interim rule has been reviewed the UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal
NRCS has determined through a Civil in accordance with the requirements of
Rights Impact Analysis that the interim Governments or the private sector.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation Thus, this rule is not subject to the
rule discloses no disproportionately and Coordination with Indian Tribal
adverse impacts for minorities, women, requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
Governments. Executive Order 13175 UMRA.
or persons with disabilities. The requires Federal agencies to consult and
national target of setting aside 5 percent coordinate with Tribes on a Executive Order 13132
of CSP acres for socially disadvantaged government-to-government basis on NRCS has considered this interim rule
farmers and ranchers and an additional policies that have Tribal implications, in accordance with Executive Order
5 percent of CSP acres for beginning including regulations, legislative 13132, issued August 4, 1999. NRCS has
farmers and ranchers; and prioritizing comments or proposed legislation, and determined that the interim rule
veterans applications that are competing other policy statements or actions that conforms with the Federalism
in these subaccounts for socially have substantial direct effects on one or principles set out in this Executive
disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and more Indian Tribes, on the relationship Order; would not impose any
beginning farmer or ranchers is between the Federal Government and compliance costs on the States; and
expected to increase participation Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of would not have substantial direct effects
among these groups. power and responsibilities between the on the States, on the relationship
The data presented in the analysis Federal Government and Indian Tribes. between the National Government and
indicates producers who are members of NRCS has assessed the impact of this the States, nor on the distribution of
the protected groups have participated interim rule on Indian Tribes and power and responsibilities among the
in NRCS conservation programs at determined that this rule does not have various levels of government. Therefore,
parity with other producers. Tribal implications that require Tribal NRCS concludes that this interim rule
Extrapolating from historical consultation under E.O. 13175. The rule does not have Federalism implications.
participation data, it is reasonable to neither imposes substantial direct
conclude that CSP will continue to be Economic Analysis—Executive
compliance costs on Tribal
administered in a nondiscriminatory Summary
Governments nor preempts Tribal law.
manner. Outreach and communication The agency has developed an outreach/ The Conservation Stewardship
strategies are in place to ensure all collaboration plan that it will Program (CSP) is authorized under the
producers will be provided the same implement as it develops its Farm Bill provisions of Chapter 2, Subtitle D of
information to allow them to make policy. If a Tribe requests consultation, Title XII of the Food Security Act of
informed decisions regarding the use of NRCS will work with the Office of 1985 (1985 Act), as amended by Title II,
their lands that will affect their Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful Subtitle D of the Food, Conservation,
participation in USDA programs. NRCS consultation is provided where changes, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Act) and
conservation programs apply to all additions, and modifications identified by Title II, Subtitle B of the Agriculture
persons equally regardless of their race, herein are not expressly mandated by Act of 2014 (2014 Act). The Secretary of
color, national origin, gender, sex, or Congress. Agriculture, acting through the Chief of
disability status. Therefore, this interim The 2014 Act changes to CSP that the Natural Resources Conservation
rule portends no adverse civil rights address participation by Indian Tribes Service (NRCS), administers the
implications for women, minorities and are limited to special funding program.
persons with disabilities. arrangements from the CSP-specific As part of the 2014 Act, Congress
provisions of Section 1241 of the 1985 reauthorized CSP and capped
Paperwork Reduction Act
Act, and streamlining the use of the enrollment at 10 million acres for each
Section 1246 of the Food Security Act definition of Indian Tribes. These fiscal year (FY) during the period
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
of 1985 (the 1985 Act) provides that changes are discussed more fully herein. February 7, 2014, through September
implementation of programs authorized 30, 2022; however, the 2014 Act only
by Title XII of the 1985 Act be made Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of provided funding through FY 2018. CSP
without regard to the Paperwork 1995 contracts run for 5 years and include the
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates potential for a one-time renewal for an
et seq.). Therefore, NRCS is not Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public additional 5 years, thus creating
reporting recordkeeping or estimated Law 104–4, requires Federal agencies to financial obligations through FY 2027
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR465838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
for commitments made during FY 2014 Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 Total projected government program
to FY 2018. Nationally, program costs and OMB Circular A–4 that provides obligations for CSP are shown in table
cannot exceed an annual average rate of guidance in conducting regulatory 1. Obligations include only costs to the
$18 per acre. For each of the five FY analyses, NRCS conducted an government between FY 2014 and FY
signups (FY 2014 to FY 2018) including assessment of CSP consistent with this 2027 (five signups with one-time, 5-year
a one-time contract renewal for an rule’s designation as a significant contract renewals). Projected maximum
additional 5 years, Congress committed regulatory action. Most of this rule’s program obligations in nominal dollars
a maximum of $1.8 billion. Total impacts consist of transfers from the equal $9 billion. Given a 3 percent
authorized funding equals $9 billion for Federal Government to producers. discount rate, projected cumulative
the five signups (FY 2014 to FY 2018).
Although these transfers create program obligations equal $6,405 billion
Participation in CSP is voluntary.
Agricultural and forestry producers incentives that very likely cause in constant 2014 dollars. At a 7 percent
decide whether or not CSP participation changes in the way society uses its discount rate, maximum program
helps them achieve their conservation resources, we lack data to estimate the obligations equal $4,942 billion in
objectives. Hence, CSP participation is resulting social costs or benefits. This constant 2014 dollars. Average
not expected to negatively impact analysis therefore, includes a summary annualized obligations at the 3 percent
program participants and of program costs and qualitative and 7 percent discount rates equal $567
nonparticipants. assessment of program impacts. million and $565 million, respectively.
TABLE 1—TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS FOR CSP, FY 2014 THROUGH FY 2027 a
Obligation Present Present
GDP price Discount Discount
Obligation b constant value of value of
Fiscal year deflator c factors factors for
(million $) dollars obligation—3% obligation—7%
(2014=100) for 3% 7%
(million $) (million $) (million $)
FY14 ............................. 180 100.0000 180 0.9709 175 0.9346 168
FY15 ............................. 360 102.1000 353 0.9426 332 0.8734 308
FY16 ............................. 540 104.2441 518 0.9151 474 0.8163 423
FY17 ............................. 720 106.4332 676 0.8885 601 0.7629 516
FY18 ............................. 900 108.6683 828 0.8626 714 0.7130 591
FY19 ............................. 900 110.9504 811 0.8375 679 0.6663 541
FY20 ............................. 900 113.0584 796 0.8131 647 0.6227 496
FY21 ............................. 900 115.2065 781 0.7894 617 0.5820 455
FY22 ............................. 900 117.3954 767 0.7664 588 0.5439 417
FY23 ............................. 900 119.6260 752 0.7441 560 0.5083 382
FY24 ............................. 720 121.8989 591 0.7224 427 0.4751 281
FY25 ............................. 540 124.2149 435 0.7014 305 0.4440 193
FY26 ............................. 360 126.5750 284 0.6810 194 0.4150 118
FY27 ............................. 180 128.9799 140 0.6611 92 0.3878 54
Total ...................... 9,000 ........................ 7,912 ........................ 6,405 ........................ 4,942
Annualized Obligations ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 567 ........................ 565
a Table 1 in the main document.
b Congress set a maximum of 10 million acres per signup and a national payment rate of $18 per acre. With a one-time contract renewal op-
tion, each signup equals $1.8 billion in projected program obligations over its 10-year period. Congress authorized five signups.
c For years 1 to 5, the GDP adjustment is 2.10 percent (OMB); for years 6 to 14, the GDP adjustment factor is 1.90 percent (average growth
since 1993).
Compared to CSP as authorized under and cost-effectiveness. Program funds, additional unit of conservation effect,
the 2008 Act, Congress significantly which include financial and technical will improve slightly because lower
reduced its size but left much of CSP’s assistance, decrease by $2.492 billion ranked eligible applications are the first
underlying structure intact. In addition, (nominal dollars) compared to CSP ones cut from every State’s ranking
the Secretary of Agriculture proposed a under the 2008 Act. With fewer acres pools. That is, obligations per unit of
number of discretionary administrative and fewer dollars, fewer contracts will conservation effect will be lower under
changes as a means of improving be funded under the 2014 Act. The new the 2014 Act. Properly implemented, a
program implementation. conservation activities that would have smaller sized CSP will be neutral in its
As shown in table 2, the downsizing been applied to enhance the existing impacts across all producer types,
of CSP from an annual 12.769 million activities on the lost 2.769 million acres including beginning and socially
acre program to an annual 10 million will not be applied to the Nation’s disadvantaged groups.
acre program has the greatest impact on working lands. However, cost-
program funds, conservation activities, effectiveness, defined as dollars per
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR4Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65839
TABLE 2—PROGRAM IMPACTS OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS a
Based on 2008 CSP Farm Bill Provisions: 12.769 Millions Acres vs. 10 Million Acres
Statutory Program Funds Impacts of Cost-Effectiveness Participant Diversity
Conservation Activities
Acreage Enrollment Limitations ..................... ¥$2.492 billion in pro- Significantly large de- Slight improvement .... No impact.
gram funds. crease.
2008 CSP at 10 Million Acres vs. 2014 CSP at 10 Million Acres
Statutory Program Funds Impacts of Cost-Effectiveness Participant Diversity
Conservation Activities
Conditions for Contract Renewal ................... Small/Moderate de- Increase ..................... Improvement .............. No Impact.
crease.
Discretionary Program Funds Impacts of Cost-Effectiveness Participant Diversity
Conservation Activities
Contract Renewal: To renew contracts, shift Moderate decrease .... Marginal Increase ...... Marginal Improvement No Impact.
eligibility determinations to applicable pri-
ority resource concerns.
a Shortened version of table 10 in the accompanying regulatory impact analysis.
One additional legislated change in watershed or portion of a State that Discussion of Conservation
the 2014 Act, additional contract NRCS is targeting for improvement. Stewardship Program (7 CFR Part 1470)
renewal requirements is also expected ‘‘Other priority resource concerns’’ are The Food, Conservation, and Energy
to generate smaller, yet important resource concerns that are currently not Act of 2008 Act (2008 Act) amended the
program impacts. The legislated 2014 being targeted for improvement. These Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) to
contract renewal requirements— definitions allow NRCS to better establish the Conservation Stewardship
producer agrees to meet the stewardship describe how it is targeting resources to Program (CSP) and authorize the
thresholds for at least two additional meet statutory objectives. program in FY 2009 through FY 2013.
priority resource concerns by the end of The Agriculture Act of 2014 (the 2014
In summary, differences in program
the renewed contract period or to Act) reauthorizes and revises CSP.
impacts between the 2008 CSP and the
exceed the stewardship thresholds of at The purpose of CSP is to encourage
least two existing priority resource 2014 CSP can be attributed primarily to
the program’s smaller acre cap of 10 producers to address priority resource
concerns specified in the original concerns and improve and conserve the
contract—will likely result in a slightly million acres. Statutory requirements
related to contract renewals and quality and condition of the natural
larger portion of CSP participants not resources in a comprehensive manner
renewing their contracts compared to a proposed discretionary actions will
by: (1) Undertaking additional
comparably sized 2008 CSP and renewal result in a more focused approach to
conservation activities; and (2)
rate. The 2008 Act only requires the meeting conservation objectives.
improving, maintaining, and managing
addition of one or more new Comments Invited existing conservation activities. The
conservation activities for contract Secretary of Agriculture delegated
renewal. However, CSP participants NRCS invites interested persons to authority to the Chief, NRCS, to
under the 2014 Act are required to add participate in this rulemaking by administer CSP.
activities to meet or exceed stewardship submitting written comments or views Through CSP, NRCS provides
thresholds for at least two priority about the changes made by this interim financial and technical assistance to
resource concerns, thus likely rule. The most helpful comments eligible producers to conserve and
increasing the number of additional reference a specific portion of the enhance soil, water, air, and related
activities applied during the second 5- regulation, explain the reason for any natural resources on their land. Eligible
year period. With yearly payments recommended changes, and include lands include private or tribal cropland,
extended and more activities being supporting data and references to grassland, pastureland, rangeland,
applied under 2014 Act renewals, a nonindustrial private forest lands and
statutory language. All comments
small improvement in cost-effectiveness other land in agricultural areas
received on or before the closing date
is expected. Overall no differential (including cropped woodland, marshes,
impacts are expected between general for comments will be considered. This
regulation may be changed because of and agricultural land or capable of being
agricultural and general forest producers used for the production of livestock) on
and beginning and socially the comments received. All comments
received, as well as a report which resource concerns related to
disadvantaged producers, including agricultural production could be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
veteran status. summarizing each substantive public
comment received concerning this addressed. Participation in the program
An important discretionary change is is voluntary.
interim rule will be filed in the docket
clearly defining the terms ‘‘applicable CSP encourages land stewards to
(No. NRCS–2014–0008). The docket,
priority resource concerns’’ and ‘‘other improve their conservation performance
priority resource concerns.’’ including any personal information by installing and adopting additional
‘‘Applicable priority resource concerns’’ provided, will be made available for activities, and improving, maintaining,
represent resource issues within a public inspection. and managing existing activities on
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR465840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
eligible land. NRCS makes funding for effective control of the applicant that is requirements of CSP. In paragraph (a),
CSP available nationwide on a operated substantially separate from NRCS clarifies that contracts entered
continuous application basis. other operations for the term of the into prior to the 2014 Act are
NRCS coordinates its implementation contract; administered according to the CSP
of CSP with the other premier Farm Bill • Allows enrollment of lands that are regulation in effect prior to enactment,
working lands program, the protected by an agricultural land and that contracts entered into after
Environmental Quality Incentives easement under the newly authorized enactment of the 2014 Act will be
Program (EQIP). CSP and EQIP work in Agricultural Conservation Easement administered under these regulations.
a complementary manner to address Program (ACEP) (the 2008 Act did not Paragraph (b) updates CSP purposes
conservation issues associated with include ACEP); consistent with the changes made to
agricultural operations. In particular, • Allows enrollment of lands that are CSP purposes by the 2014 Act.
EQIP emphasizes assistance upon the in the last year of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) (the 2008 Act Section 1470.2 Administration
magnitude of the expected conservation
benefit and thus address those natural did not contain a similar provision). The Section 1470.2, ‘‘Administration,’’
resource concerns that are creating CRP contract must expire at the end of describes the roles of NRCS at the
significant environmental impact, while the fiscal year in which the land is to National and State levels. Paragraph (b)
CSP emphasizes assistance to producers be enrolled in CSP, and the CRP is revised to clarify the scope of the
who are already addressing some of payment for enrolled land must cease authority of the Chief to change
these potential environmental impacts before the first CSP payment is made; delegations within the agency or to
by meeting a priority resource concern’s • Allows contract to be renewed if the modify or waive certain discretionary
stewardship level of treatment and threshold for two additional priority provisions of this regulation. As revised
encourages these producers to achieve resource concerns will be met or the by the 2014 Act, NRCS replaced
greater stewardship performance in a stewardship threshold will be exceeded reference in paragraph (c) to
comprehensive manner. Thus, a for two existing priority resource ‘‘conservation measurement tools’’ with
producer can receive assistance to concerns (the 2008 Act did not contain the establishment of ‘‘science-based
install conservation practices under a similar provision); stewardship thresholds for each priority
EQIP that enables the producer to meet • Requires that at least five priority resource concern.’’ NRCS revised
the stewardship threshold for a priority resource concerns be identified for each paragraph (d) to identify that between
resource concern, which in turn enables area or watershed (the 2008 Act FY 2014 and FY 2022, NRCS will enroll
the producer to be eligible for CSP. In required three to five priority resource an additional 10,000,000 acres in each
this way, CSP builds upon the concerns); fiscal year and continue operating the
conservation efforts initiated under • Requires NRCS to establish a program to achieve a national average
EQIP and expands upon them to a new science-based stewardship threshold for rate of $18 per acre, which includes the
level of conservation performance. each priority resource concern (the 2008 costs to the Federal Government for all
Act did not contain a similar provision); financial and technical assistance, and
Summary of CSP Provisions • Authorizes NRCS to prorate any other expenses associated with
The CSP regulation is organized into conservation performance so that a program enrollment and participation.
three subparts: Subpart A—General participant may receive equal annual NRCS modified paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to
Provisions; Subpart B—Contracts; and payments to the greatest extent require that NRCS will identify not less
Subpart C—General Administration. practicable; than five applicable priority resource
Below is a summary of the changes • Emphasizes conservation activities concerns in particular watersheds,
made to each subpart based upon the to be implemented across the geographic areas, or other appropriate
changes made to CSP by the 2014 Act. agricultural operation; regions within a State, as required by
The 2014 Act made the following • Authorizes a supplemental payment statute. Applicable priority resource
changes to CSP implementation: for improving resource conserving crop concerns are selected by the State from
• Establishes implementation for FY rotations (the 2008 Act did not contain a defined list of priority resource
2014 through FY 2018 (the 2008 Act a similar provision); concerns identified at the national level
was for FY 2008 through FY 2014); • Removed the 10 percent cap on and have the most important
• Limits eligible land to land in nonindustrial private forest land environmental challenges associated
production for at least four of the 6 enrollment; with agricultural production in the State
years preceding February 7, 2014, the • Included a preference for veterans or region. The current suite of priority
date of enactment of the Agricultural (the 2008 Act did not contain a similar resource concerns is comprised of the
Act of 2014 (previous date was June 18, provision); following: air quality, animal, energy,
2008); • Reduces the annual enrollment plants, soil erosion, soil quality, water
• Requires contract offers to meet or limit from 12,769,000 to 10,000,000 quality, and water quantity. NRCS
exceed the stewardship threshold for at acres; and retains the authority to modify this suite
least two priority resource concerns (the • Establishes CSP as a covered of priority resource concerns. For
2008 Act only required one resource program authorized to be used to example, the Chief may want to target
concern) and meet or exceed the accomplish the purposes of the Regional a geographic area where expanding
stewardship threshold for one Conservation Partnership Program wildlife concerns are deemed more
additional priority resource concern by (RCPP) (Subtitle I of Title XII of the significant as compared to energy
the end of the contract (the 2008 Act Food Security Act of 1985, as amended concerns. This requirement is now
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
required one priority resource concern); by the 2014 Act) (the 2008 Act did not captured in (e)(2). NRCS removed
• Strikes the definition and references contain a similar provision). paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) and (v) consistent
to ‘‘conservation measurement tools’’ Subpart A—General Provisions with the 2014 Act changes to remove
(the 2008 Act did not contain a similar on-farm research and demonstration and
provision); Section 1470.1 Applicability pilot projects under CSP, and to reflect
• Requires that the contract must Section 1470.1, ‘‘Applicability,’’ sets the repeal of the Cooperative
include all eligible land under the forth the policies, procedures, and Conservation Partnership Initiative.
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR4Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65841
Section 1470.3 Definitions The definition of ‘‘National Organic Inventory (NRI) land use data, NRI soil
Section 1470.3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ sets Program’’ was modified to include the erosion estimates, NRI Rangeland
forth definitions for terms used reference to the Organic Foods Resource Assessment rangeland health
throughout this regulation. The Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 data, NRI CEAP soil organic carbon
following definitions have been et seq.). data, and various attributes from the
modified to reflect changes made by the The definition of ‘‘operation and Soil Survey Geographic database. These
2014 Act: ‘‘agricultural operation,’’ maintenance’’ was modified to be and other data layers maybe used to
‘‘conservation activities,’’ and ‘‘priority consistent with the definition in the calculate critical acres by State and
resource concern.’’ The terms EQIP regulation. resource concern. The considerations
‘‘conservation measurement tool’’ and The definition of ‘‘priority resource listed in paragraph (a)(2) have been
‘‘resource concern’’ have been removed concern’’ was amended to conform to modified to follow statutory allocation
to conform to changes made by the 2014 the statute which defines the term as a criteria provided in section 1238G(b)(2)
Act. natural resource concern or problem of the Food Security Act. The 2014 Act
The term ‘‘animal waste storage or that is identified at the national, State, amended section 1241(h) of the Food
treatment facility’’ was also removed. or local level and to explain the terms Security Act of 1985 to extend the
This avoids unnecessarily narrowing the ‘‘applicable’’ priority resource concerns assistance available to ‘‘certain farmers
application of the term. and ‘‘other’’ priority resource concerns or ranchers for conservation access’’ for
The term ‘‘conservation planning’’ in the context of the base term. FY 2014 through FY 2018. Therefore,
was removed because its terms are The definition of ‘‘producer’’ was NRCS modified paragraph (c) to reflect
covered in § 1470.22, Conservation modified to correct a citation. that 5 percent of the CSP acres in each
Stewardship Plan. The definition of The definition of ‘‘socially of FY 2014 through FY 2018 will be
‘‘conservation practice’’ was modified to disadvantaged producer’’ was amended available to assist socially
be more consistent with the definition to conform to the statutory definition of disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and 5
used in the Environmental Quality the term. percent of the CSP acres in each of FY
Incentives Program (EQIP). The The term ‘‘state conservationist’’ was 2014 through FY 2018 will be available
definition of ‘‘conservation stewardship removed and replaced throughout with to assist beginning farmers or ranchers.
plan’’ was modified to be consistent the term ‘‘NRCS’’ to allow more Additionally, the 2014 Act added a
with § 1470.22, Conservation flexibility in internal agency delegation priority within the conservation access
Stewardship Plan. of authority. acreage set-aside for veteran farmer or
The term ‘‘designated The definition of ‘‘stewardship ranchers. This priority has been added
conservationist’’ was removed since it is threshold’’ was modified to remove to paragraph (d).
no longer used in the regulation. reference to the conservation The original language in paragraph (e)
Throughout, the term ‘‘agricultural measurement tool (CMT) consistent has been removed from the regulation,
land’’ was removed and replaced with with its removal by the 2014 Act. consistent with the repeal of the
‘‘eligible land,’’ which describes those Additionally, NRCS removed the clause Cooperative Conservation Partnership
areas identified by CSP’s authorizing ‘‘natural resource conservation and Initiative. NRCS identifies in the revised
legislation—working agricultural land environment.’’ The stewardship paragraph (e) that certain adjustments,
being actively managed for agricultural threshold is used to determine if an based on resource assessments, may
production purposes upon which CSP applicant meets the minimum treatment need to be made to the allocation of
will be focused. The definition for requirements to be eligible for CSP, and acres to States to ensure equitable and
eligible land is consistent with that term is also used as part of the ranking effective implementation to meet the
added by the 2014 Act to section process. NRCS guides its efforts to set purposes of the program and ensure
1238D(4) of the Food Security Act of stewardship thresholds at sustainable National enrollment. In particular,
1985. levels for natural resource treatment. NRCS may know at the time of
The term ‘‘enhancement’’ was The definition of ‘‘technical service determining a fiscal year’s allocation of
modified to link an enhancement’s providers’’ was modified to be acres that while the allocation is based
management intensity with the Field consistent with 7 CFR part 652. primarily on each State’s proportion of
Office Technical Guide quality criteria, The definition of ‘‘veteran farmer or eligible land to the total acreage of
Section III, for each resource concern. rancher’’ was added to address the new eligible land in all States, resource
Quality criteria specifics are located at: provision in the 2014 Act to prioritize assessment adjustments are needed to
http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. individuals under this category. ensure that each State’s allocation does
The term ‘‘enrollment’’ was removed. Several other definitions in this rule not exceed its ability to enroll land into
Since this definition was unique to the were amended for clarity and to be the program. Additionally, once
FY 2009 enrollment, it is no longer consistent with definitions adopted for allocations have been made, a
needed. other conservation programs. reallocation of acres may be necessary
The term ‘‘historically underserved because one State is unable to meet its
Section 1470.4 Allocation and
producer’’ was added to simplify enrollment targets while demand of
Management
references to several statutorily-defined high priority projects is available in
categories of producers who are Section 1470.4, ‘‘Allocation and another State.
frequently referred to collectively. management,’’ addresses national
The definition of ‘‘legal entity’’ was allocations and how the proportion of Section 1470.5 Outreach Activities
modified to be consistent with the eligible land will be used as the primary NRCS removed paragraph (d) to align
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
definition used in EQIP. means to distribute CSP acres and the CSP rule with the EQIP rule.
The definition of ‘‘limited resource associated funds among States. The
farmer or rancher,’’ was modified by agency plans to use a nationally Section 1470.6 Eligibility requirements
removing the reference to ‘‘$142,000’’ consistent method to document resource Section 1470.6, ‘‘Eligibility
that applied in 2010 only, and clarifying needs and provide a foundation for requirements,’’ sets forth the criteria for
how the term is applied to legal entities establishing priorities within States. determining applicant and land
or joint operations. Inputs may include National Resources eligibility. NRCS adjusted the regulatory
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR465842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
language slightly to address ‘‘other NRCS removed reference to the CMT modified paragraph (b)(4)(i) to clarify
producers’’ who are not identified as the that had previously been identified in that the participant must implement the
operator in the Farm Service Agency the ranking factors. However, the conservation stewardship plan. NRCS
farm records system but otherwise meet removal of the statutory and regulatory also clarified at paragraph (b)(4)(vi) that
program eligibility criteria. NRCS reference does not prohibit NRCS from a participant is required to ‘‘maintain
modified the rule to reflect several utilizing the CMT or equivalent and supply information’’ as requested
changes made in the Food Security Act methodology, but simply removes the by NRCS to determine ‘‘compliance
of 1985 by the 2014 Act. Paragraph (b) requirement that it be used. with the conservation stewardship plan
was modified to use the new term Paragraph (d) on weighting of ranking and any other requirements of the
‘‘eligible land,’’ that reflects the new factors was modified to clarify the program.’’ Similarly, NRCS clarified at
statutory definition. authority of the Chief to adjust these paragraph (b)(4)(vii) that a participant
factors as required to address any must not conduct any activities on the
Subpart B—Contracts and Payments program objective, including placing agricultural operation that would tend
Section 1470.20 Application for emphasis on increasing net conservation to defeat the purposes of the program.
Contracts and Selecting Offers From benefits. Previously, the regulation These participant requirements are
Applicants simply identified the Chief could adjust included in the 2014 Act revisions to
the weighting of ranking factors to the participant’s responsibilities under
Section 1470.20, ‘‘Application for increase net conservation benefit.
contracts and selecting offers from CSP.
During the first years of program
applicants,’’ identifies procedures implementation, NRCS ranked every Section 1470.22 Conservation
associated with contract application application within a pool according to Stewardship Plan
requirements, the application evaluation equally weighted ranking factors. NRCS
process, and application acceptance. Section 1470.22, ‘‘Conservation
selected applications for enrollment stewardship plan,’’ describes that NRCS
NRCS amended paragraph (a) to clarify beginning with the highest ranked one
that applicants may submit an will use the conservation planning
and worked down the ranked list until process to encourage producers to
application for the agricultural a pool’s funding limit or acreage limit
operation. Paragraph (b) defines contract address priority resource concerns in a
was reached. This translated into an comprehensive manner. The
application requirements. Consistent effective weighting scheme that shifted
with the 2014 Act revision to conservation stewardship plan contains
the program towards enrollment based a record of the participant’s decisions
enrollment eligibility, NRCS modified upon additionality.
paragraph (b)(1) to specify that an on the schedule of conservation
For the 2014 Act, the Chief will apply activities to be implemented, managed,
applicant must meet a stewardship weights to the ranking factors to address
threshold for at least two priority and improved under CSP.
evolving resource issues and priority
resource concerns at the time of contract NRCS added language at paragraph (c)
adjustments. As reflected by the
offer. The 2008 Act had only required that the conservation stewardship plan
statutory ranking factors, NRCS will
an applicant to meet one resource describes ‘‘conservation activities to be
maintain weightings of ranking factors
concern at the time of application. implemented, managed, or improved.’’
that continue to emphasize greatly the
NRCS also amended paragraph (b)(2) to Additionally, NRCS removed the
extent to which additional activities
clarify that an applicant must meet or references to the CMT, revised the term
will be adopted. For example, the NRCS
exceed the stewardship threshold for at ‘‘resource concerns’’ to be ‘‘priority
Chief may decide to place increased
least one additional priority resource resource concerns, and removed the
weights to those factors that relate to
concern by the end of the conservation reference to on-farm research and
additional activities in order to increase
stewardship contract. An applicant demonstration or pilot testing,
the net new conservation benefit.
accomplishes this by installing and consistent with such changes made by
Further, the NRCS Chief may make
adopting additional conservation the 2014 Act.
adjustments to ensure that the
activities and by improving, consideration of the enrollment of Section 1470.24 Payments
maintaining, and managing existing transitioning CRP lands as a ranking
conservation activities across the entire Section 1470.24, ‘‘Payments,’’
factor are fully assimilated with the
agricultural operation in a manner that describes the types of payments issued
other ranking factors so that such
increases or extends the conservation under CSP, how payments will be
applications are equitably evaluated.
benefits in place at the time the contract NRCS is seeking specific comment on derived, and payment limitations. The
application is accepted by NRCS. how the factor for CRP land should be 2014 Act revisions to CSP require NRCS
NRCS removed paragraph (b)(4) as it weighted in proportion to other ranking to make several changes to the
addressed on-farm research and factors giving consideration for other provisions at § 1470.24. Section 1470.24
demonstration activities or pilot testing, lands being offered for enrollment. was modified to remove all references to
which are activities removed from NRCS removed from paragraph (f) the the CMT. NRCS also modified
stewardship contracts by the 2014 Act. reference to NIPF enrollment limitation paragraph (a) by adding the payment
The 2014 Act specified application that had been removed by the 2014 Act. factors required by the 2014 Act.
ranking factors and paragraph (c) was Under paragraph (b), a participant
modified to conform to the amended Section 1470.21 Contract may receive supplemental payments
statutory ranking factors. The 2014 Act Requirements when he or she adopts a resource-
slightly modified the phraseology used Section 1470.21, ‘‘Contract conserving crop rotation. NRCS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
to describe the ranking factors that had requirements,’’ identifies elements modified paragraph (b), consistent with
originally been identified in the 2008 contained within a contract and the 2014 Act, to identify that a participant
Act and added a new factor related to responsibilities of a CSP participant. A is eligible for a supplemental payment
the extent to which priority resource participant must enter into a CSP if the participant agrees to adopt or
concerns will be addressed when contract, including a conservation improve beneficial crop rotations as
transitioning from CRP to agricultural stewardship plan, to enroll their eligible appropriate for the eligible land of the
production. land and to receive payment. NRCS participant.
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR4Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65843
NRCS removed the provision related receive up to $400,000 over the term of Section 1470.26 Contract Renewal
to on-farm research and demonstration the initial contract period. This same Under § 1470.26, ‘‘Contract renewal,’’
or pilot testing at paragraph (c), and re- limitation remains in this interim rule. NRCS may allow a participant to renew
designated the remaining paragraphs as With regard to the payment limitation the contract for one additional 5-year
appropriate. as it applies to contracts with Indians period if they meet specific criteria.
As re-designated, paragraph (f) represented by the Bureau of Indian These criteria were modified by the
addresses payment limitations Affairs (BIA) or an Indian Tribe, 2014 Act, and therefore, paragraph (b)
applicable to a person or legal entity. updates the criteria. NRCS is specifying
payments exceeding the payment
Consistent with the 2014 Act revision, that ‘‘applicable’’ priority resource
limitation may be made to the Tribal
NRCS replaced the rolling 5-year period concerns be addressed at the time of
participant if the BIA or Tribal official
with the time period FY 2014 through renewal given that the original contract
certifies in writing that no individual
FY 2018. NRCS also simplified the addressed at least one or more priority
will receive more than the payment
references to ‘‘federally-recognized’’ resource concerns identified by the
limitation. The BIA or Tribe must also
Indian Tribes, consistent with the State and the test for renewal is whether
provide, annually, a listing of
definition of Indian Tribe at section existing or additional priority resource
individuals and payments made, by tax
1201(14) of the Food Security Act of concerns identified by the State will be
identification number or other unique
1985 and corresponding to the addressed during the renewed contract
streamlining of terminology at section identification number, during the
previous year for calculation of overall period. Previously, the requirement was
1238G(f) made by the 2014 Act. that a participant only had to meet or
The 2008 Act required that a person payment limitations. The BIA or Indian
Tribe must also produce, at the request exceed the stewardship threshold for
or legal entity may not receive, directly
of NRCS, proof of payments made to the one additional priority resource concern
or indirectly, payments that, in the
person or legal entity that incurred costs identified by the State.
aggregate, exceed $200,000 for all In addition to incorporating the
contracts entered into during any 5-year or had income foregone related to
conservation practice implementation. changes made by the 2014 Act, NRCS is
period. The 2014 Act replaced this taking this opportunity to clarify a few
‘‘rolling’’ 5-year payment limitation NRCS also removed paragraph (l) administrative provisions. Additionally,
with a $200,000 limitation for all related to payment data as the NRCS is simplifying the administrative
contracts entered into between FY 2014 requirement to detail and segment CSP complexity of the CSP rule by
and FY 2018. The regulation continues data has been removed from the CSP streamlining the regulation to focus
to include an annual payment limit of statute. upon only those provisions that relate to
$40,000 during any fiscal year to a conservation program participants’
person or legal entity. This annual limit Section 1470.25 Contract
Modifications and Transfers of Land rights and responsibilities under the
was originally added to reduce the program. In multiple places NRCS
chance that participants would reach Changes made to section 1470.25, removed references to duties of specific
their $200,000 5-year limit early in their ‘‘Contract modifications and transfers of NRCS positions, including the State
contract term and have diminished land,’’ clarify agency policy regarding Conservationist, and purely internal
incentive to meet their obligations over voluntary contract modifications, NRCS processes.
the 5-year life of the contract. NRCS consistent with the 2014 Act. NRCS
clarified that participants that in the Subpart C—General Administration
modified paragraph (b) to authorize the
aggregate exceed $200,000 for all removal of acres from CSP to enroll in Section 1470.37 Environmental Credits
contracts entered into prior to the end the Conservation Reserve Program for Conservation Improvements
of the applicable period are expected to (CRP), in a wetland easement through
fulfill their contract obligation during Changes made to section 1470.37
the Agricultural Conservation Easement clarify that environmental benefits
the full term of the contract. NRCS Program (ACEP–WRE), other Federal or
monitors person or legal entity payment achieved through participation in the
State program that offers greater natural CSP program may qualify for
limitations through direct attribution to
resource protection. NRCS may also environmental credits under an
real persons.
The absence of a contract payment approve modifications related to environmental credit-trading program,
limitation in the 2008 Act caused voluntary land use changes to another and that NRCS asserts no direct or
concern because of the potential for land use, eligible or ineligible, that the indirect interest in these credits.
excessively large contracts. Since each participant wishes to make within Further, any requirements or standards
member of a joint operation is treated as particular parameters to ensure program of such environmental market program
a separate person or legal entity with purposes can be met. Prior to approving to receive credits must be compatible
payments directly attributed to them, any modification, NRCS must determine with the purposes of the CSP contract.
contracts with a joint operation could be that the modification is consistent with
CSP purposes. Regulatory Changes
very large. For example, a contract with
a joint operation with five members who Paragraph (c) states that NRCS will List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1470
each reach their $200,000 per person or not modify a contract to increase the Agricultural operation, Conservation
legal entity limit could have contract contract obligation beyond the amount activities, Natural resources, Priority
payments of $1 million. This created the of the initial contract, except to resource concern, Stewardship
potential for a high percentage of implement an appeal determination or threshold, Resource-conserving crop
allocated acres and funds to be utilized correct an administrative error as rotation, Soil and water conservation,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
in contracts with large joint operations approved by NRCS. Modifications to Soil quality, Water quality and water
to the detriment of smaller operations. transfer the contract to a successor in conservation, Wildlife and forest
To prevent large contracts of this nature, interest and changes made to the management.
the 2010 final rule included a contract structure of an operation are not For the reasons stated in the
limit of $200,000 over the term of the excluded from this provision. NRCS preamble, part 1470 of title 7 of the
initial contract period with the also has clarified policy with respect to Code of Federal Regulations is revised
exception of joint operations that could transfer of land. to read as follows:
VerDate Sep2014 19:58 Nov 04, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR4.SGM 05NOR4You can also read
