[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24560-24567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
RIN 0578-AA36
Conservation Security Program
AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Commodity Credit
Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the process to be used in determining
priority watershed and the details of the enrollment categories that
will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up for the Conservation Security
Program.
DATES: The administrative actions announced in the notice are effective
on May 4, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Derickson, Conservation Security
Program Manager, Conservation Operations Division, NRCS, P.O. Box 2890,
Washington, DC 20013-2890, telephone: (202) 720-3524; fax: (202) 720-
4265. Submit e-mail to: [email protected], Attention:
Conservation Security Program.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 194), USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) proposed to establish the Conservation
Security Program (CSP). The CSP is a voluntary program administered by
NRCS using the authorities and funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation that provides financial and technical assistance to
producers who advance the conservation and improvement of soil, water,
air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on
Tribal and private working lands. Such lands include cropland,
grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and rangeland, as well as
forested land and other non-cropped areas that are an incidental part
of the agriculture operation.
NRCS proposed to establish eligibility requirements that included
determinations based, among other things, on priority watersheds and
enrollment categories that will be used for identifying, classifying,
and prioritizing contracts to be funded. While NRCS received and
reviewed thousands of thoughtful comments no alternative to the
watershed approach was found that was a fairer way to operate the
program under the constraints in place, since no final rule has yet
been adopted. This document announces the process to be used in
determining priority watershed and the details of the enrollment
categories that will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, (2004 Appropriations)
amended section 1241(a)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(3)) to remove the permanent program cap of $3.773 billion and
set the funding level of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) for
fiscal year 2004 at $41.4 million. As a result, the program will
operate as a capped entitlement in FY 2004 and is currently authorized
as an uncapped entitlement in future fiscal years. Further, by law,
NRCS cannot incur technical assistance costs for NRCS employees or
approved technical assistance providers in excess of 15 percent of the
program funds expended in a fiscal year. Therefore, as noted in the
proposed rule, ranking and prioritization must occur to insure that
stewardship is rewarded and national natural resource issues are
addressed.
Given capped spending authority in FY 2004 and as proposed in the
President's 2005 Budget, the Administration wants to focus CSP's
activities and benefits in high-priority regions that meet the
environmental and philosophical goals of the program. Using watersheds
allows for improved watershed-scale planning, program execution, and
monitoring and evaluation of results, creating a first-of-its-kind
conservation program.
Watersheds form discrete natural spatial units. Using watersheds to
allocate funding and assistance will enhance the evaluation of
producers' stewardship efforts. Watersheds will reflect the
environmental progress we expect from CSP in ways we couldn't expect
from working along county or State lines. NRCS expects that the
selection of different watersheds for each sign-up will result in every
farmer and rancher being potentially eligible for CSP over the next 8
years. No qualifying producer will be left out. A watershed rotation
reduces the administrative burden on applicants while it reduces the
technical assistance (TA) costs associated with NRCS and its technical
service providers processing a large number of applications that cannot
be funded.
Rotating the watersheds allows producers to plan and prepare for
CSP participation in future sign-ups. Watersheds allow NRCS to focus
finite resources on areas with both a documented need for resource
enhancement and a strong stewardship tradition. For producers in a
selected watershed, this approach means better service when applying,
and a higher chance of getting selected. For producers not yet in a
selected watershed it means time to improve conservation performance
through access to other Farm Bill programs and access to technical
service from agency personnel unencumbered by CSP responsibilities. The
CSP self-assessment exercise will allow producers to assess their
conservation performance for the CSP sign-up and allow for management
concerns to be addressed.
The staged implementation will allow agency personnel to refine,
streamline, and perfect application procedures as well as self-
assessment and self-screening processes.
While the selected process for determining the priority watersheds
and the establishment of the enrollment categories will be set out in
the CSP final rule, NRCS needs to immediately make those determinations
for use in FY 2004, in order to have a sign-up and enrollment of
participants in this fiscal year. NRCS will therefore begin using the
watershed priority process and will establish enrollment categories
immediately upon publication of this notice. This provides a practical
means of implementing the program in FY 2004 and staying within the
statutory funding and technical assistance constraints. Without moving
expeditiously to establish the processes for utilizing priority
watersheds and enrollment categories, the CSP will not be implemented
in the current fiscal year. The final rule will provide notice
[[Page 24561]]
and opportunity for comment on the processes for establishment of
priority watersheds and the enrollment categories for use in
administering CSP for FY 2005.
Process for Selecting Watersheds
The Department published a proposed rule and sought public comment
on the preferred CSP alternative, which included a watershed approach
(7 CFR 1469.5(e)). The watershed approach may be used with or without
an expenditure cap. This would allow NRCS the flexibility to implement
the program to reflect changing statutory language.
Three key considerations provide the basis for identifying priority
watersheds for the CSP program: (1) To ensure that CSP's limited
resources are focused first on the most achievable environmental
performance areas; and (2) to address management constraints based on
the statutory limit on technical assistance (15 percent); and (3) to
provide maximum flexibility for program implementation (i.e., if there
are no funding restrictions all watersheds could be eligible). Based on
the number of potential applicants, NRCS projects that the technical
assistance necessary to operate a nationwide sign-up would exceed the
15 percent statutory limit. While the agency is currently working on
many options for streamlining the application process, such as self
assessment tools and self screening processes, considerable time and
assistance is still required to provide quality service to the
applicant and assure quality products for the funds expended. The
Agency must have the flexibility to adjust to future potential
statutory funding changes within the program by increasing or
decreasing the number of watersheds where CSP is offered for sign-up.
NRCS will provide additional discussion on this issue in the final
rule.
Focusing participation on high-priority watersheds will reduce the
administrative burden on applicants and the costs of processing a large
number of applications that would not be funded. For example, the
economic analysis conducted by NRCS as required for rule development
estimates that as many as 500,000 producers might apply for enrollment
in each CSP sign-up and that current funding would only support about
3,000 contracts. Therefore, the majority of applicants would have
completed an extensive application process only to be denied
participation due to the limitation on funding. Additionally, NRCS
would have incurred technical assistance costs in program eligibility
determinations for up to 497,000 producers who would not be able to
participate in CSP. NRCS believes that focusing the program's resources
on applications that have a high probability of getting funded would
maximize environmental benefits because a higher portion of the TA
would be used to support actual conservation practices and activities.
Watershed Ranking
Three broad options were considered for ranking watersheds. Each
option contains certain common attributes: quantifiable, objective data
that can be aggregated at the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) scale;
support the philosophy and intent of CSP to support on-going
conservation stewardship of working agricultural lands; and improve the
Agency's ability to measure program performance (determining benefits
and effects).
Option 1--Using National Resources Inventory (NRI) Data
Option 1 was suggested in the proposed CSP rule as one method of
ranking watersheds. The rule proposes that NRCS ``* * * identify
watersheds (using eight-digit hydrologic unit codes developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey) around the Nation based on objective
information from natural resource, environmental quality, and
agricultural activity data. The watershed prioritization process will
consider several factors, including the vulnerability of surface and
groundwater quality, the potential for excessive soil quality
degradation, and the condition of grazing land in the watershed.'' (69
FR 198, January 2, 2004)
The NRCS's NRI data representing the factors cited in the rule were
aggregated by 8-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) delineations to test this
Option. Option 1 has the advantage of NRCS experience with this
approach, since it was used as a basis for developing State level
allocations for initial EQIP implementation. Additionally, NRCS
collects and analyzes the NRI data and, therefore, the Agency has a
high degree of understanding about how the data can be used. This
familiarity also lends itself to quicker, more efficient problem
solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the NRI was not
designed for estimate reliability at the 8-digit HUC level, thus
estimates may be inadequate in some watersheds.
Option 2--Using Stewardship Activities
Option 2 is almost exclusively focused on identifying and rewarding
those farmers and ranchers meeting the very highest standards of
conservation and environmental management on their operations. At the
first level, allowable land uses are analyzed (cropland, pasture,
grazing lands, orchards/vineyards) for possible eligibility. In the
next level each land use is defined by predominant management
categories such as: managing fertilizers and nutrients; managing pests;
managing crops and soil; and managing grazing land. Each category is
further represented by a selection of conservation practices as
surrogates to represent prevalence of practice adoption within
watersheds.
A map would be generated from the NRCS performance measurement
system data showing areas of concentrated practice adoptions. This map
would then be used alone or in combination with other surrogate factors
to overlay 8-digit HUC maps. The resulting composite map would show
which watersheds have some of the best conservation stewards working
with NRCS. A similar process would be used for all management
categories and, ultimately, a comprehensive watershed ranking map could
be produced. Option 2 has the advantages of supporting the philosophy
and intent of CSP to recognize ongoing conservation stewardship of
working agricultural lands; the performance data is collected and
analyzed by the Agency, which has a high degree of understanding about
how the data can be used resulting in quicker, more efficient problem
solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the option does not
account for stewardship activities that occur without NRCS assistance,
captures only recent conservation activities, and gives no recognition
to stewards who have been practicing conservation over the long-term.
Additionally, this option relies heavily on NRCS administrative data.
Analysis is limited to recognition of stewardship, and little or no
recognition is accorded natural resource vulnerability.
Option 3--Combination Approach
Option 3 is a combination watershed approach that uses quantifiable
datasets and a rigorous sorting procedure consisting of four phases: I.
Land use eligibility, II. Input intensities, III. Stewardship, and IV.
Development of a composite ranking.
The first phase, land use representation, is defined by the four
land uses eligible for CSP: cropland, rangeland, pastureland, and
orchards/vineyards. The 1997 NASS National Agriculture Census (1997
Census) data on land in farms were used to examine the spatial
distribution of these eligible lands across the country. The 1997
Census data also reflect incidental land
[[Page 24562]]
uses on farms, such as woodlots, that might not be represented by other
data sources but are included for the CSP. The eligible acres were
aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally based on the
concentration of eligible lands within the watershed.
Phase II of the approach was designed to represent input
intensities, defined as additions to the land that have a potential to
cause soil and water quality degradation. Input intensities data drawn
from the 1997 Census included acreage where pesticides, fertilizers,
and manure were applied. These data were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and
ranked nationally. The input intensity maps identify watersheds with
the greatest concentration of acreage receiving inputs, as a
representation of potential soil and water quality deterioration.
Phase III of the combination approach was stewardship activity,
defined as prevalence of historic and recent application of
conservation practices. NRI data were used to show the distribution of
watersheds having the greatest extent of applied conservation practices
for the period 1982 to 1997. The 2002 NRCS performance data were used
to show the distribution of watersheds having the greatest acreages of
more recently applied conservation practices selected to reflect an
operator's stewardship. These data--historic and current conservation--
were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally to identify
watersheds with the greatest ``presence'' of historic and on-going
conservation practice adoption.
In the final phase, the watershed rankings from phases I-III were
combined to reflect a summation watershed rank reflecting all three
criteria areas. Then the watersheds were re-ranked to reflect overall
national status in regards to land use eligibility, input intensities,
and stewardship. Watersheds were then ranked against each other within
their respective Economic Research Service Farm Production Regions to
allow more balanced comparisons among States, to produce a national
perspective of potential priority watersheds, and to represent the
broadest range of operation types and sizes.
This regional context was selected to distribute limited funds and
numbers of contracts as widely across the landscape as possible in the
first sign-up. Although not used for the FY 2004 selection, the data
can also be extracted at the State boundary level with a process which
would take interstate watersheds into consideration. This process will
be described in the final rule.
Option 3 has the advantages of accounting for concentration of
eligible land, input intensity, and stewardship information in
combination; the Agency has experience with the components of this
approach; and there is a high degree of understanding about how the
data can be properly used on a national scale.
Watershed Prioritization
Introduction
The ranking process outlined above would array watersheds based on
an analysis of quantitative data relative to watershed condition and
stewardship activities. A need remains however, to take into account
economic, political, institutional, and public acceptance
considerations.
To account for these, watersheds may be prioritized and targeted
for attention and action according to a number of criteria and
weighting factors. Applying weighting factors to the ranked watersheds
may be appropriate to achieve the intent of the program. There are
several ways that weighting might occur.
Option 1--Selecting the ``Worst'' Watersheds
Typically, public dollars and restoration efforts have been
directed to those watersheds with the most severe conditions, the most
sensitive to change, or those that are at risk of impairment. This is
particularly true with water quality concerns. The approach tries to
ensure that those landscapes that are the most damaged, sensitive, or
at risk receive additional consideration in the prioritization process
by assigning a higher weighting factor for degree of degradation or
vulnerability (input intensities).
Option 2--Selecting the ``Best'' Watersheds
The CSP is a voluntary program that provides financial and
technical assistance to producers who advance conservation and
improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and
other conservation purposes on eligible Tribal and private working
lands. The approach: (a) Identifies and rewards farmers and ranchers
meeting the high standards of conservation and environmental management
on their operations; (b) creates incentives for other producers to meet
those same standards; and (c) provides public benefits for future
generations. In short, the philosophy and intent of the CSP is to
``reward the best and motivate the rest.'' This option could apply high
weighting factors for stewardship activities in the prioritization
process.
Option 3--Selecting ``Improving'' Watersheds--Recommended Approach
Another way to prioritize watersheds for CSP implementation is to
focus on those watersheds that have a balance of natural resource
problems and on-going stewardship activities. This approach focuses on
those watersheds where input intensity is not the highest and
stewardship could be increased measurably--that is, watersheds where
there is a good chance to improve baseline conditions. They have some
resource vulnerabilities, but not the most severe. They also have some
stewardship activities, but not necessarily the highest participation.
This scenario might use higher yet equal weighting factors for input
intensities and stewardship, so that it is their combination that is
represented in the final analysis.
Management Options
After watersheds have been ranked and prioritized, additional
management overlays were considered to enhance the efficiency of
program delivery and to align more closely with State priorities.
Option 1--Management Overlays
This option focuses on administrative efficiencies primarily to
reduce the costs of program administration, ensure the eligible
contracts can be processed in a timely manner, reduce the participant's
time in preparing application data, and, ultimately, to assist in
performance appraisal of the program's effectiveness. It is intended
that this option be used as one of several final checks in combination
with the ranked/prioritized watersheds. Option 1 has the advantages of
providing more predictable successes during the first year of a new and
innovative conservation program, and further refines the pool of
resource-priority watersheds to those that also had the capacity for
effective implementation.
Option 2--Comparative Overlays for State Alignment
States and Tribes may view the proposed watershed ranking and
prioritization as redundant to their own efforts at prioritization,
especially with efforts such as the Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA)
process instituted by the States during the mid-1990's. The UWAs
continue to be widely used by some States as a basis for much of their
water quality and watershed restoration work accomplished under Clean
Water Act section 319 programs and other Federally-funded efforts.
This option acknowledges the important contributions of existing
State analyses, and provides a mechanism for
[[Page 24563]]
the inclusion of State data to address unique circumstances and
conditions that might not be recognized in the watershed ranking and
prioritization system. The State level data layers would be combined
into a seamless national layer for use in a nationwide analysis. This
could include, but not be limited to, spatial information on species of
concern or of pollution control planning elements such as Total Maximum
Daily Loads.
Summary
There are a variety of options to consider when applying ranking
and prioritization to 8-digit watersheds for purposes of program
delivery. The proposed strategy centers on a combination of three
distinct analysis levels.
1. Rank watersheds using a composite approach that integrates
distribution of eligible land uses, input intensities, and stewardship.
2. Apply weighting factors to the ranking criteria to select
watersheds that best represent the philosophical foundation of CSP--
treating resource issues and rewarding conservation stewards.
3. Using the set of prioritized watersheds, apply considerations of
administrative capacity and opportunity for State-based considerations,
as well as testing the watershed concept.
Enrollment Categories
In managing the CSP, the NRCS will establish and operate a system
of enrollment categories whenever necessary to conduct the program in
an orderly fashion and remain within any statutory budget and technical
assistance caps as described in the proposed rule (7 CFR part 1469.6).
In addition to the statutorily mandated contract requirements, the
categories will consider the applicants' current stewardship (soil
condition, tillage intensity, existing practices and activities) and
will sort producers based on these factors. Categories will also
examine producers' willingness to perform additional conservation
activities during their CSP contract.
All applications which meet the sign-up criteria will be placed in
an enrollment category regardless of available funding. An application
will be placed in the highest enrollment category level for which the
application qualifies. For example, on cropland, a farmer must meet the
minimum requirements for soil quality and water quality within a
watershed designated for a particular sign-up to be eligible for CSP.
Upon entry, the NRCS will determine the appropriate enrollment category
placement for the application. Using the category descriptions below,
if the cultivated cropland: (1) Meets a Soil Conditioning Index at
least 0.1 and a Soil Tillage Intensity Rating less than 30; (2) has at
least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; (3) has at least three
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; and (4) the applicant agrees to: (a) Move to the
next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or
Activities from the list included in this document; and (b) conduct an
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity, then the
application will be placed in the highest category, Category A.
Applications that meet minimum program eligibility requirements as
defined in 7 CFR part 1469, but do not include additional conservation
treatment, will be placed in the lowest category, Category H.
Within all eligible watersheds, funding would be distributed to
applications beginning with the highest enrollment category; Category
A. Criteria are designed to assure that funding will be directed first
to those producers with the highest commitment to conservation. Once
the highest enrollment category applications are funded within eligible
watersheds, the next category would be funded, etc. Funding would be
distributed to each succeeding category nationally until funding is
exhausted. Situations will arise where applications have multiple lands
uses that fall into different enrollment categories. The final rule
will describe how the agency will sort such applications.
This notice will serve as the public notice of the construction of
the enrollment categories. Tables illustrating the enrollment category
described are available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/.
Description of criteria for enrollment categories for cropland and
orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent hayland. The
first four criteria, Soil Conditioning Index (SCI), Soil Tillage
Intensity Rating (STIR) and the number of stewardship practices and
activities that are in place at sign-up, are intended to indicate
historical conservation stewardship.
The SCI is a numerical rating tool used to identify the trend of
soil carbon for given conservation management systems, which are key
indicators of the status of soil quality. A positive SCI indicates the
trend is upward; a negative SCI indicates the trend is downward. The
STIR model was selected in order to give a numerical rating to identify
operations in which soil disturbance is kept to a minimum. The rating
allows for flexibility in tillage methods and crop rotations as well as
removes any confusion with regard to semantics or local terminology for
tillage system descriptions. The category limits for the STIR ratings
on cultivated cropland approximate the differentiations made in the
Residue Management Standard 329. Tillage practices commonly referred to
as no-till, direct seed, or zero tillage under practice 329A would be
those with the lowest STIR. Mulch tillage (329B) and operations that
rotate tillage between no-till and other more intense forms would be
described in the next categories. Tillage systems with STIR ratings
greater than 100 are typically considered conventionally tilled
systems.
STIR was selected as a criteria tool because it adds value to the
SCI criteria and does not give bias toward any specific landscape,
soil, or cropping region. The SCI provides trends in soil carbon which
leads to a host of benefits, but positive SCIs associated with very
low-erosive landscapes may still allow for significant tillage and
favor operators with these conditions rather than their conservation
stewardship. STIR limits disturbance and provides for increased
improvement in soil physical properties. The limits on soil disturbance
also provide an energy benefit from the reduction in field operations.
Stewardship Practices and Stewardship Activities are intended to
identify the long-term steward that has applied conservation over the
years as the need or new technology has arisen. The more practices, the
more likely it is that the operator has continually addressed
conservation and resource needs. However, there may be instances where
conservation measures may have been applied in order to bring or
maintain marginally suitable lands into production or into compliance
with the farm legislation. For this reason, Stewardship Activities
address the actions taken to reduce or eliminate negative environmental
impacts in and outside the boundaries of the field. Stewardship
Practices and Activities must be in place two years prior to sign-up to
qualify.
Enhancement Activities are designed to identify those who are
willing to increase their level of stewardship, since remaining static
in one's conservation efforts is not a top priority of CSP. Efforts to
increase environmental stewardship by moving to the next tier or
intensifying current management take top priority in the
[[Page 24564]]
assignment of categories. In addition, willingness to add to the state
of knowledge regarding conservation practices or educate others through
assessment, evaluation, on-farm demonstrations, etc., is required of
the top categories. Those not willing to increase their stewardship,
but willing to contribute to the above activities, are identified as
the next priority and those unwilling to do either fall to lower
categories.
Cropland (row crops, closely grown crops, hay or pasture in
rotation with row or closely grown crops, orchards, vineyards,
horticultural crops, and permanent hayland). Category A must: (1) Meet
a SCI of at least 0.1 and STIR less than 30; (2) have at least three
Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; (3) have at least three Stewardship Activities
from the list included in this document in place for two or more years;
and (4) agree to (a) move to the next CSP Tier or complete two
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this
document and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and
evaluation activity.
Category B must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than
30; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to (a) move to
the next CSP Tier or complete two additional Stewardship Practices or
Activities from the lists in this document and (b) conduct an on-farm
project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category C must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least 0.1 and a STIR less
than 60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in
this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and
evaluation activity.
Category D must: (1) Meet a SCI at least zero and a STIR less than
60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document;
and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation
activity.
Category E must: (1) Meet a SCI at least 0.1 and STIR less than 60;
(2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in
this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least one
Stewardship Activity currently applied from the list included in this
document; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship
Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b)
conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category F must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than
100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document;
and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation
activity.
Category G must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than
100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included
in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have any number of
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional
Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists included in this
document.
Category H must: meet the minimum program eligibility requirements
as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have
an NRCS practice standard in the Field Office Technical Guide. The
stewardship practices eligible to determine enrollment categories above
for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent
hayland with their corresponding identification number include:
Alley Cropping (311)
Atmospheric Resources Quality Management (370)
Conservation Crop Rotation (328)
Constructed Wetland (656)
Contour Buffer Strips (332)
Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (331)
Cover Crop (340)
Cross Wind Ridges (589A)
Cross Wind Trap Strips (589C)
Drainage Water Management (554)
Field Border (386), Filter Strip (393)
Forage Harvest Management (511)
Hedgerow Planting (422)
Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603)
Hillside Ditch (423)
Irrigation System-Micro-irrigation (441)
Irrigation Water Management (449)
Lined Waterway or Outlet (468)
Low Disturbance Cropping (No-till/Strip-till/
Direct Seed) (329d1)
Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
Residue Management--No Till (to reseed permanent
hayland or No Till of 5 years or more in cultivated crop land) (329A)
Riparian Forest Buffer (391)
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
Sediment Basin (350)
Soil Salinity Management-Nonirrigated (571)
Stripcropping (585)
Structure for Water Control (587)
Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
Well Decommissioning (351)
Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380)
Stewardship activities are those key conservation actions that do
not have a specific practice standard in the FOTG but have defined
local actions necessary that, when applied to a field, mitigate off-
site resource damage or improve soil and/or water quality.
The stewardship activities eligible to determine enrollment
categories above for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural
crops, and permanent hayland:
Addition of soil amendments such as
polyacrylamide (PAM) and gypsum
Collection of yield data
Conduct spraying activities and other control of
noxious/invasive weeds on a spot basis
Harvest crops from center of field outward
Increase amount of sod or perennial crops in
rotation for a minimum of 2 years
Irrigation system efficiency evaluations and
adjustment
Low energy precision application sprinklers
Minimize the use of pesticides by using pest
resistant plant varieties
Precise application of nutrients, such as
banding, side dressing, injection, fertigation
Split nitrogen application to meet crop needs
Surge irrigation
Test soil and/or plant tissue on annual basis
Use a risk assessment tool such as WINPST to
select the least toxic product to minimize harmful effects on human
health and environmental resources
Use established local integrated pest management
guidelines to set economic thresholds for pests to
[[Page 24565]]
minimize use of pesticides and herbicides
Use of beneficial insects
Use of on-farm weather station data
Use of tensiometers or other techniques to
assess and improve irrigation water management
Use of yield monitoring data.
Weather stations installation and/or data
collection
Description of criteria for enrollment categories for Pasture and
Range. Pasture and range use the Pasture Condition Score and Rangeland
Health Assessment, respectively, to identify the condition of the
resource. The intent of pasture condition scoring is to provide pasture
producers with a standard method to identify shortfalls in pasture care
and pinpoint what can be done to improve pasture condition. Pasture
condition scoring is done in the field using score sheet criteria and
some basic data gathering. Ten easily observed indicators are used to
assess pasture condition. Each indicator's condition is estimated and
scored separately on a score sheet using a range of 1 (lowest) to 5
(highest). These scores may be combined into an overall score for the
pasture unit or left as an individual score and compared with the other
nine indicators. Indicators receiving the lowest scores can be focused
upon for corrective action as warranted. The ten indicators are percent
desirable plants, plant cover, plant diversity, plant residue, plant
vigor, percent legume, uniformity of use, livestock concentration
areas, soil compaction, and erosion (sheet & rill, gully, streambank
and shoreline, and wind). If scoring the pasture for the first time or
when plant vigor is rated 3 or lower thereafter, six nationally
important causative factors should also be rated. They are: Soil
fertility, soil reaction (pH), severity of use, site adaptation of
forage species, climatic stresses, and insect/disease pressure. Where
soil levels of salt, sodium, and toxic elements, such as aluminum,
commonly affect pasture condition regionally, regionally established
rating criteria are used to measure and rate them. By using pasture
condition scoring to rate pastures over a period of time, trends in
decline or improvement can be detected and adjustments made as needed
or desired.
Pasture condition scoring was chosen for assessing CSP enrollment
categories for the pasture lands use because the condition of the
pasture plant community and soil surface directly impact and reflect
upon soil and water quality. The highest pasture condition will yield
the highest soil quality and the most sustained discharge of the
highest quality water.
The key publication assessing rangeland health ``Interpreting
Indicators for Rangeland--Technical Reference 1734-6 and two
publications about pasture condition scoring, ``Guide to Pasture
Condition Scoring'' and ``Pasture Condition Score Sheet'' can found at
the USDA-NRCS Web site: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/index.html. The range health booklet was developed through
interagency coordination between the BLM, NRCS, ARS, and USGS. It
provides land specialists with the tools to do a preliminary evaluation
of soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and integrity of the
biotic community on rangelands. The Pasture Guide describes each of
these indicators and its importance coupled to maintaining a well-
functioning pasture. The Score Sheet is used to record the current
conditions and identify areas of pasture management that may need
improvement.
Rangeland health is the status of the soil, water, and biological
resources in rangeland ecosystems. The Rangeland Health Assessment
evaluates the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation,
water, and air, as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland
ecosystem, is balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as
maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic
of a particular locale, including normal variability.
The key publication assessing rangeland health, ``Guide to Pasture
Condition Scoring'' and ``Pasture Condition Score Sheet'' can found at
the USDA-NRCS Web site: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/index.html. The Guide describes each of these indicators
and its importance coupled to maintaining a well-functioning pasture.
The Score Sheet is used to record the current conditions and identify
areas of pasture management that may need improvement.
Pasture
Category A must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 45; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to
the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or
Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and
evaluation activity.
Category B must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 35; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to
the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or
Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and
evaluation activity.
Category C must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 45; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category D must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an
on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category E must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at
least one activity from the list included in this document in place for
two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional Stewardship
Practices or Activities, or an on-farm project or assessment and
evaluation activity.
Category F must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) and
at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this
document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities, or conduct an on-farm
project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category G must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at
least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list
included in this
[[Page 24566]]
document in place for two or more years; (3) have any number of
Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place
for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional
Stewardship Practices or activities from the list included in this
document.
Category H must: Meet the minimum program eligibility requirements
as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have
an NRCS practice standard in the FOTG. The stewardship practices
eligible to determine enrollment categories above for pasture with
their corresponding identification number include:
Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
Brush Management (314)
Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
Grassed Waterway (412)
Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (516)
Irrigation Water Management (449)
Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
Pipeline (516), Pond (378)
Prescribed Burning (338)
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
Soil Salinity Management--Nonirrigated (571)
Spring Development (574)
Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
Stream Crossing (578)
Watering Facility (614)
Waste Utilization (pathogen and organic runoff
control) (633)
Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
Water Well (642)
The stewardship activities on pasture include:
Added functional group pastures
Confinement animal wastes, if applied, are
injected
Grazing distribution facilitated by watering
locations, based on locally identified distances between water
locations and water available in each sub-divided pasture
Improved laneways.
Increased plant diversity--forbs and legumes
greater than 40%
Integrated pest management activities for weeds,
brush, insects, or diseases
Interseeding
Livestock ponds and watering areas have
controlled access point or outfitted with watering facility
Pastured bottomland or riparian area treated as
a separate grazing treatment unit and alternative watering facilities
in place
Rotate feeding and salting areas
Rotational grazing
Test soil and/or plant tissue test every 3 years
on pastures not receiving confinement wastes
Use of decision support tools in developing
grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool
(GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP), etc.
Where confinement wastes are applied, test soil
and/or plant tissue on annual basis prior to next application
Where fertilizer nitrogen is applied, split
applications to meet current crop needs.
Rangeland
Category A must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus
have three or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years, including
brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed;
and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category B must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus
have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years, including
brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed;
and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two
additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category C must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2)
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have three or more Stewardship
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in
place for two or more years, including brush management or range
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a)
complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b)
conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from
the list included in this document by the end of the third contract
year.
Category D must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2)
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in
place for two or more years, including brush management or range
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a)
complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b)
conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from
the list included in this document by the end of the third contract
year.
Category E must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2)
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in
place for two or more years, including brush management or range
seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to complete
two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-
farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list
included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category F must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to
slight for one attribute and slight to moderate for two attributes; (2)
practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship
Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in
place for two or more years; and (3) agree to complete two additional
Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-farm project or
assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this
document by the end of the third contract year.
Category G must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of slight
to moderate for two attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus
have one or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list
included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) agree
to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the
list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category H must: Meet the minimum sign-up requirements.
Stewardship Practices eligible to determine enrollment categories
above for rangeland with their corresponding identification number
include:
Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
Brush Management (314)
Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
Channel Stabilization (584)
[[Page 24567]]
Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (548)
Pipeline (516)
Pond (378)
Range Planting (550)
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
Spring Development (574)
Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
Stream Crossing (578)
Watering Facility (614)
Water and Sediment Control Basin (638)
Wetland Enhancement (659)
Wetland Restoration (657)
Stewardship Activities eligible to determine enrollment categories
above for rangeland include:
Application of monitoring protocols
Brush and weed management utilizing integrated
techniques that include follow-up treatment
Management that provides for upland wildlife
habitat improvement
Management that provides for wetland wildlife
habitat improvement
Management that provides for wetland shallow
water wildlife habitat improvement
Managing vegetative fuels to reduce wildfire
hazards
Modify brush management design to create a
mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
Participating in grassbanking
Prescribed burn prescriptions designed to create
a mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
Use of decision support tools in developing
grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool
(GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP), etc.
Vegetation manipulation to reduce sediment and
other pollutants in surface runoff.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2004.
Bruce I. Knight,
Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 04-10031 Filed 5-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P