|
| |
Conservation Security Program
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments
Federal Register: February 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 32) Notices Page
7720-7722
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
7 CFR Part 1470
Page 7720
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Security Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is authorized by Title
XII, Chapter 2, Subchapter A, of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers CSP. Under
CSP, NRCS is authorized to provide financial and technical assistance
to owners and operators of agricultural operations to promote
conservation and improvement of the quality of soil, water, air,
energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes. NRCS is
interested in obtaining public input before developing a proposed
regulation.
This advance notice is intended to give the public the opportunity
to comment on key issues that have been raised regarding the
implementation of the program. These comments will help NRCS in the
agency's development of a proposed rule. NRCS intends to publish the
proposed rule in 2003 and therefore has narrowed the comment period for
this advance notice to 30 days. The public will have another
opportunity to provide input during the comment period for the proposed
rule prior to NRCS publishing a final rule for the program.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 20, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send comments in writing, by mail, to Conservation
Operations Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, PO Box
2890, or by e-mail to FarmBillRules@usda.gov; Attn: Conservation
Security Program. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may also
be accessed via the Internet through the NRCS homepage, at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov
, and by selecting Farm Bill 2002. All comments,
including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record
and are available for public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark W. Berkland, Director,
Conservation Operations Division, NRCS, PO Box 2890, Washington, DC
20013-2890; telephone: (202) 720-1845; fax: (202) 720-4265; submit e-
mail to: mark.berkland@usda.gov, Attention: Conservation Security
Program.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Information about the Conservation Security Program
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (The 2002 Act)
(Pub. L. 107-171) amended the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize
the Conservation Security Program (CSP). CSP is administered by USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). CSP is a voluntary
program that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the
conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and
animal life, and other conservation purposes on Tribal and private
working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land,
improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an
incidental part of an agriculture operation.
In keeping with principles outlined in the USDA publication, ``Food
and Agriculture Policy--Taking Stock for the New Century'', the
Secretary's vision for CSP's unique role within USDA conservation
programs is:
(1) To identify and meaningfully reward those farmers and ranchers
meeting the very highest standards of conservation and environmental
management on their operations;
(2) To create powerful incentives for other producers to meet those
same standards of conservation performance on their operations; and
(3) To provide public benefits for generations to come.
In short, CSP should reward the best and motivate the rest.
The intent of CSP is to support ongoing conservation stewardship of
agricultural lands by providing assistance to producers to maintain and
enhance natural resources. The program is available in all 50 States,
the Caribbean Area and the Pacific Basin area. The program provides
equitable access to benefits to all producers, regardless of size of
operation, crops produced, or geographic location.
NRCS is seeking public comment to help the agency develop a
proposed rule. The public will have the opportunity to provide
additional input during the proposed rule's comment period prior to the
publication of a final rule.
Under the statute, CSP is available on cropland, grassland, prairie
land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as certain forested
land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation.
Background
According to statute, an inventory will be conducted to identify
resource concerns and determine the extent of conservation treatment
that is being applied and maintained on their land. Authorized payments
include a base payment determined by the treatment level, cost-share
for applying conservation practices, maintenance payments for applied
conservation practices, and enhanced payments for treatment that
exceeds the minimum criteria. A three-tiered approach is used when
offering payments.
If a producer desires to move to a higher tier, cost-share payments
for needed structural practices are available through the CSP at up to
75 percent of the cost of the new practice, or up to 90 percent in the
case of beginning farmers or ranchers. Participants may contribute to
the cost of the new practice through in-kind sources, such as personal
labor, use of personal equipment, donated labor or materials, and use
of on-hand or approved used materials. Cost-shared practices are to be
maintained for the life of the practice. All needed practices and
management must be in place and maintained before a producer can move
to the next tier. Similar to other United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs, the 2002 Act requires that
the Conservation Security Program (CSP) provide financial incentives to
agricultural producers that undertake new
[[Page 7721]]
conservation efforts that meet high environmental standards. However,
unlike other USDA conservation programs, the 2002 Act requires that CSP
provides financial assistance for maintaining conservation. A clear
intent of the program is to financially reward producers for
significant environmental goods and services they provide to the public
through their annual and ongoing conservation efforts. CSP, therefore,
raises new and important issues that have not been confronted
previously for traditional conservation programs.
NRCS undertook two projects to identify and better understand those
elements in the design of the program that would have the most
influence on its performance. In the first project, the firm, Plexus
Marketing Group, was retained to conduct nine focus groups to obtain
inputs from representative agricultural and stakeholder groups
regarding key elements of the CSP to assist NRCS in developing program
rules. In the second project, the Soil and Water Conservation Society
(SWCS) organized five workshops to obtain feedback on CSP and its
implementation from producers and NRCS field staff.
The Plexus focus groups were held as follows:
Three (3) were conducted in various states with a representative
cross section of groups:
November 12 Columbia, MO
November 13 Modesto, CA
November 14 Macon, GA
Six (6) were held in Washington, DC with specific groups:
November 19 Agricultural Media Group
November 19 Livestock Group
November 20 Fruits & Vegetables Group
November 20 Crops Group
November 21 Wildlife and Sportsman Groups
November 21 Environmental Groups
The composition of the groups were determined by the firm with
assistance from NRCS. The firm facilitated the participants through a
series of questions to solicit their feedback on key issues relevant to
rulemaking for the new program.
The five SWCS workshops were held in the following locations:
November 12 Billings, Montana (Montana, Wyoming)
November 14 Fort Morgan, Colorado (Colorado, Wyoming)
November 21 Defiance, Ohio (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana)
December 3 Greenville, Mississippi (Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana)
December 11 Fresno, California (California)
Four NRCS field staff and 12 producers participated in each
workshop. Producers were selected in an unbiased manner which assured
that they were not exclusively conservation-oriented or farm program
participants. Producers were interviewed to solicit their feedback on
key issues relevant to rulemaking for the new program.
Key Issues for Comment
The results of these two projects coupled with analyses conducted
by NRCS have identified several key issues in rulemaking that will have
profound effects on the performance and effectiveness with which CSP
can be used to meet the objectives of the statute. The SWCS workshops,
for example, identified important opportunities to simultaneously
streamline and enhance the conservation performance of CSP. The focus
groups, on the other hand, felt it important to do the program
``right'' at the onset even if it meant slowing initial implementation;
further the participants were concerned about flexibility and
accountability. Both groups identified concerns about the potential
budget implications of the program. One of the overarching issues
identified was the tension between the demand for the program and the
budget concerns.
NRCS is currently analyzing in detail the information gathered
through the workshops and focus groups to inform its rulemaking in
regard to the key issues raised in the workshops, focus groups, and
agency analyses of alternatives. Given the importance of these issues
to the performance and effectiveness of CSP, NRCS is seeking additional
public comment. NRCS is specifically interested in receiving public
input regarding how CSP can be used to meet the objectives of the
statute on the following issues:
1. The law specifies that conservation security plans address one
or more ``significant'' resource concerns. Resource concerns may be as
general as soil erosion or water quality or as specific as soil erosion
by water or ground water quality. Many concerns have no practical
direct measurement techniques or tools. What criteria should be used to
determine what is a resource concern and whether a resource concern is
significant?
2. The law requires that NRCS establish minimum requirements for
three tiers of conservation effort. The minimum could be as specific as
a list of minimum practices or as general as bundling of conservation
measures that achieve a desired resource outcome. What should be the
minimum requirements for each tier? Should NRCS establish minimum
requirements that apply to all contracts nationally? What could some of
these requirements be?
3. The law requires NRCS to describe the particular practices to be
implemented, maintained, or improved as part of the program. What
criteria should be used to determine which practices and activities are
eligible for payment under the program? Should specific practices or
activities receive priority for payment under the program? To what
extent should sets of practices and activities be accorded priority for
payment under the program?
4. The law restricts the maximum base payment to a percentage of
the total contract cap (i.e. 25 percent for Tier I and 30 percent for
Tiers II and III). What should be the balance of the base payment,
maintenance cost-share payment and enhancement payment to reward the
steward and attain additional conservation benefits?
5. The law uses the extent of the agricultural operation covered by
the contract as a primary distinction between Tiers I and II. Tier I
covers the ``enrolled portion of the agricultural operation'', while
Tiers II and III cover ``the entire agricultural operation.'' With the
variety of ownership and landowner-tenant relationships which change
over time across the country, how should ``agricultural operation'' be
defined?
6. The law specifies the eligible land for payment purposes as
cropland, grassland, prairie land, and rangeland as well as forestland
that is an incidental part of the agricultural operation. Should
noncropped areas, such as turn rows or riparian areas, that are part of
the agriculture operation be included for conservation treatment?
Should farmsteads, ranch sites, barnyards, feedlots, equipment storage,
material-handling facilities, and other such developed areas be
considered part of the ``agricultural operation''? What criteria should
be used to determine those areas of a farm or ranch that might
legitimately be excluded from the ``agricultural operation''?
7. The law specifies that NRCS make a base payment as part of a
conservation security plan using either the 2001 national rental rate
for a specific land use or another appropriate rate that assures
regional equity. How should NRCS determine the base payment? If an
alternative to the national rental rate is used, how should it be
constructed? Should the payments be determined at the national, state
or local levels?
8. The law provides for an enhanced payment if an owner or operator
does one or more of the following: (a)
[[Page 7722]]
Implements or maintains practices that exceed minimum requirements; (b)
addresses local conservation priorities; (c) participates in on-farm
research, demonstration, or pilot projects; (d) participates in a
watershed or regional resource conservation plan; or (e) carries out
assessment and evaluation activities relating to practices included in
a conservation security plan. Enhanced payments are meant to ensure and
optimize environmental benefits. How should enhanced payments be
determined and calculated?
9. The law does not limit the number of contracts held by a
producer. Should there be a limitation on the total number of contracts
a producer may have? If there is no limit on the number of contracts,
should USDA set an individual payment limitation for producers with
multiple contracts?
10. The law requires that the regulations provide for adequate
safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers,
including provisions for sharing payments, on a fair and equitable
basis. Concerns have been raised over the impact of CSP provisions on
owner/operator relationships including changes in rental rates or
changes in operators. How can NRCS ensure that payments are shared on a
fair and equitable basis?
11. The law requires a minimum contract length in CSP of five
years. Many landlord-tenant relationships are short-term in nature,
usually less than five years. Should the applicant be required to have
control of the land for the complete CSP contract period? How should
the program address the tension between the return to management versus
the return to capital?
12. The law does not prescribe a funding or acreage cap for CSP.
USDA estimates that there is a potential applicant pool of over two
million farms and ranches covering over 900 million potential eligible
acres. A primary implementation concern is the program scope. In order
for this program to accomplish the Administration's goal of maximizing
the conservation and improvement of natural resources, it is necessary
to prioritize CSP assistance. The Department is seeking public comments
on ways to focus and prioritize CSP assistance. For example, if the
program would only fund the highest-priority applications, should there
be an open application process with all applicants competing for a
limited number of contracts? Should applications be constrained by
resource concern, program funding, tier level, owner-operator
relationship, geography or other constraint?
13. The law includes energy as a resource concern for CSP program
purposes. The NRCS Field Office Technical Guide does not recognize
energy as a natural resource concern and therefore no quality criteria
or non-degradation standard exists to compare a conservation treatment
against. NRCS is seeking comments on how energy use should be
incorporated into the program requirements. How should the benefits be
assessed?
14. The law includes payment for conservation practices described
as requiring planning, implementation, management and maintenance. A
concern was raised as to whether the payment would be, in fact, a
return for equity in capital or for the engagement in intensive
management. What should the program be paying for?
15.The law provides little guidance for monitoring quality
assurance or specifics on identifying contract violations. The issue is
two-fold in nature encompassing both the measurement of outcomes from a
performance standpoint and assuring the Federal funds are spent wisely
and that contracts are appropriately carried out. How should USDA
ensure accountability?
NRCS will accept all other comments on general program implementation.
Regulatory Findings
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), USDA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a
``significant regulatory action'' in light of the provisions of
paragraph (4) above as it raises novel legal or policy issues. As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for review.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2003.
Bruce I. Knight,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Vice
President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 03-3782 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
| | |
About Us
Notices
Page 7720-7722
Back to Top