This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

65995 

Vol. 75, No. 207 

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1450 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation 

and Farm Service Agency, USDA. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: This document presents the 

Record of Decision (ROD) regarding FSA 

implementation of the Biomass Crop 

Assistance Program (BCAP) as provided 

for in the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

prepared a Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

for BCAP. A Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of that PEIS was published in the 

Federal Register on June 25, 2010. This 

decision record summarizes the reasons 

FSA has selected the Proposed Action 

Alternatives taking into account the 

program’s expected environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts and benefits as 

documented in the PEIS, all of which 

were considered in this decision. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Decision 

Having undertaken a thorough 

evaluation of the resource areas affected 

by BCAP, a detailed analysis of the 

alternatives, a comprehensive review of 

public comments on the Draft PEIS, 

comments received on the Notice of 

Fund Availability (NOFA) to the 

Matching Payment component of BCAP, 

experience from administering the 

Matching Payments component of 

BCAP, and public comments received 

on the proposed rule, FSA has decided 

to implement Alternative 2, the Selected 

Alternative, identified for BCAP. This 

decision was made after comparing 

overall environmental impacts and 

other relevant information with regard 

to the reasonable alternatives 

considered in the BCAP PEIS and 

through the additional public input on 

the BCAP following the guidance of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (Pub. L. 

79–404) and agency rules, opinions, 

orders, records, and proceedings. 

Alternative 2 was selected as the 

alternative that was most consistent 

with the intent and language of the 2008 

Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110–246), while being 

environmentally responsible and 

reasonable to implement, and that 

would not have significant negative 

impacts. The following briefly describes 

the purpose and need for the proposed 

action and the alternatives considered. 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action 

The purpose of the Proposed Action 

is to establish and administer BCAP, as 

specified the 2008 Farm Bill. The need 

for the Proposed Action is to implement 

BCAP for the purposes specified in the 

2008 Farm Bill, specifically to promote 

the establishment and production of 

eligible dedicated energy crops. 

The purpose of the PEIS was to 

identify and assess the broad 

implications to the human and natural 

environments of the national 

implementation of those components of 

the BCAP that were discretionary in 

nature as provided by the 2008 Farm 

Bill. It was determined that BCAP 

provided incentives and assistance in 

the production of dedicated energy 

crops similar to the incentives for 

production of traditional agricultural 

row crops, which was the reasoning 

behind limiting the analysis to 

establishment and production of 

dedicated energy crops. Dedicated 

energy crops currently under 

consideration as economically viable 

were determined to use similar 

cultivation techniques, grown in areas 

with current traditional crop 

production, and have similar 

transportation methods and 

mechanisms, and as such, would have 

similar off-farm effects for delivery to 

markets, with these effects being site 

specific. The range of final products that 

could be produced from dedicated 

energy crops grown as part of BCAP is 

wide and changing with new technology 

on a rapid basis. Cumulatively, the 

conversion of dedicated energy crops 

into a final product was qualitatively 

analyzed since the location, type, and 

technology to reach a final product from 

a dedicated energy crop could not be 

quantifiably determined as part of this 

program. 

Overview of BCAP 

BCAP is a new program provided for 

in Title IX of the 2008 Farm Bill. BCAP 

is intended to assist agricultural and 

forest land owners and operators with 

the collection, harvest, storage, and 

transportation of eligible materials for 

use in a biomass conversion facility 

(BCF) and to support the establishment 

and production of eligible crops for 

conversion to bioenergy in selected 

project areas. BCAP will be 

administered by the Deputy 

Administrator for Farm Programs of the 

FSA on behalf of the Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC) with the support of 

other Federal and local agencies. BCAP 

is composed of two components: (1) The 

Matching Payments component for the 

collection harvest, storage, and 

transportation (CHST) of eligible 

materials, and (2) the Establishment and 

Annual Payments component associated 

with BCAP project areas. 

BCAP Matching Payments Component 

CCC and FSA published a NOFA for 

the Matching Payments component of 

BCAP for eligible renewable biomass 

material on June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27767– 

27772). The NOFA announced the 

availability of funds beginning in 2009 

for matching payments to eligible 

material owners for CHST of eligible 

material delivered to qualified BCFs in 

advance of full implementation of 

BCAP. FSA invited comments on the 

NOFA from all interested individuals 

and organizations over a 60-day 

comment period. On February 8, 2010, 

the proposed rule for full 

implementation of BCAP was published 

(75 FR 6264–6288) which terminated 

the NOFA effective February 3, 2010. 

With the publication of the proposed 

rule, the CCC and FSA requested 

comments on the proposed rule, which 

included both components of the BCAP. 

The NOFA was published in response 

to the Presidential Directive issued to 

the Secretary of Agriculture directing an 

aggressive acceleration of investment in 

and production of biofuels. The 

Presidential directive requested that the 

Secretary of Agriculture take steps to the 

extent permitted by law to expedite and 

increase production of and investment 

in biofuel development by making the 

renewable energy financing available in 

the 2008 Farm Bill available within 30 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
65996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

days. The NOFA was the first step in a 

multi-step process to provide guidance 

and funding for CHST in response to the 

Presidential Directive consistent with 

the 2008 Farm Bill. The NOFA provided 

a general summary of the provisions 

that would be used to administer 

payments for CHST in advance of the 

rule on BCAP. Specifically, the NOFA 

(1) provided policies and processes for 

providing matching payments for the 

CHST of eligible material, to qualified 

BCFs, and (2) described the process for 

qualifying CHST BCFs. The Matching 

Payments component was implemented 

under the guidance of the Deputy 

Administrator for Farm Programs, FSA 

(Deputy Administrator), who is also the 

Executive Vice President of CCC. The 

USDA determined that making these 

funds available as soon as possible was 

in the public interest, and that 

withholding funds for CHST to provide 

for public notice and comment would 

unduly delay the provisions of the 

benefits associated with the program. 

The Matching Payments component 

was determined not to be a major 

Federal action per the NEPA definition 

since (1) the program was understood to 

be a mandatory program subject to a 

final construction and implementation 

of the statutory terms and the interim 

allocation of funds while the final 

determinations were being made and 

(2) the materials collected during the 

Matching Payments component were 

currently being utilized in the 

marketplace for a similar, if not the 

same, purpose. The Matching Payments 

component incentivized an existing 

activity, which was fully seen from the 

data collected during the NOFA 

authority, to continue production 

during current economic conditions. 

The data from the NOFA indicated that 

approximately 80 percent of the BCFs 

qualified were collecting renewable 

biomass materials prior to the NOFA, 

indicating only a small number of 

qualified BCFs either were new 

facilities, facilities newly brought online, but were in the construction 

phases prior to the NOFA, or were 

facilities that restarted production from 

an off-line state due to the incentive 

created by the Matching Payments 

component encouraging delivery of the 

energy feedstock. There is an indication 

from the data that there was a 

redirection of some existing materials 

from pulp and paper manufacturers to 

wood pellet mills. 

The Matching Payments component 

of BCAP was analyzed in the PEIS as a 

mandatory implementation of the 2008 

Farm Bill for either alternative in the 

economic modeling as a payment to 

producers within project areas; it was 

not analyzed as a payment to others 

outside the contract acreage producers. 

It was assumed for both alternatives that 

producers would receive the $45 per ton 

as the maximum matching payment for 

delivery of biomass to a qualified 

facility for two years from the first 

delivery. Using this assumption would 

anticipate, per the model limitations, 

the potential for maximum adoption of 

dedicated energy crops by producers 

within project areas and therefore, 

estimated land use conversion given the 

highest potential value, in total (annual 

payment, delivery payment, and 

matching payment combination), for 

delivered biomass. The maximum 

payment scenario was used to depict a 

maximum adoption under limited 

funding and a scenario with unlimited 

funding that would assist in meeting the 

goals of other legislation (such as the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2)), 

which would indicate the broad 

potential impacts to the human and 

natural environments from the 

establishment and growth of dedicated 

bioenergy crops. The timing within the 

model was estimated as five years from 

acreage contracted during the last 

authorized fiscal year for herbaceous 

perennial crops with a delivery estimate 

of two to three years from 

establishment. For woody species, the 

contract period is 15 years with at least 

one delivery; therefore, the model 

results were assumed for a period 15 

years from acreage contracted during the 

last authorized fiscal year with at least 

one delivery for some woody species 

and two deliveries for other woody 

species. 

BCAP Establishment and Annual 

Payments Component 

BCAP is intended to support the 

establishment and production of eligible 

crops on eligible land for conversion at 

a biomass conversion facility (BCF) in 

selected BCAP project areas and to 

provide financial assistance to 

producers of eligible crops in BCAP 

project areas. Under the Establishment 

and Annual Payments component, the 

CCC would accept BCAP project area 

proposals on a continuous basis. To be 

considered for selection as a BCAP 

project area, a project sponsor consisting 

of a group of producers or a BCF must 

submit to the Secretary a proposal that 

includes (at a minimum): (1) A 

description of the eligible land and 

eligible crops to be enrolled in the 

proposed BCAP project area; (2) a letter 

of commitment from a BCF that the BCF 

would use eligible crops intended to be 

produced in the BCAP project area; 

(3) evidence that the BCF has sufficient 

equity available if the BCF is not 

operational at the time the project area 

proposal is submitted; and (4) other 

information that gives the Secretary a 

reasonable assurance that the BCF 

would be in operation by the time that 

the eligible crops are ready for harvest. 

BCAP project area proposals would be 

evaluated on selection criteria that take 

into account: 

• The dry tons of eligible crops and 

the probability those crops would be 

used for BCAP purposes; 

• The dry tons of renewable biomass 

potentially available from other sources; 

• The anticipated economic impact 

within the project area; 

• The opportunity for producers and 

local investors to participate in 

ownership of BCF; 

• The participation by beginning or 

socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers; 

• The impact on soil, water, and 

related resources; 

• The variety in biomass production 

approaches within a project area; 

• The range of eligible crops among 

the project areas; 

• The ability to promote cultivation 

of perennial bioenergy crops and annual 

bioenergy crops that show exceptional 

promise, and not primarily grown for 

food or animal feed; and 

• Any additional criteria, as 

determined by the Secretary. 

BCAP project areas would be subject 

to approval based on the above selection 

criteria and the successful completion of 

a finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI) for a NEPA Environmental 

Assessment (EA), which would 

determine that there would be no 

significant effects to the natural or 

human environment within the 

proposed project area. This project area 

level NEPA document would identify 

regionally and locally significant 

features and/or resources and the 

potential for effects to those resources 

from the proposed project area 

implementation. If certain mitigation 

measures could be undertaken to avoid 

significant effects, those measures 

would be detailed in the project area 

EA. 

Additional requirements at the 

producer level include conservation 

planning in the form of a BCAP 

conservation plan or forest stewardship 

plan (or an equivalent plan). In addition 

to an approved conservation plan or 

forest stewardship plan (or the 

equivalent), a site-specific BCAP 

environmental screening form would be 

completed to determine the appropriate 

level of further environmental review 

necessary prior to completion of the 

BCAP contract with the producer. That 

environmental review and conservation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 65997 

planning would provide site-specific 

mitigation measures, as necessary, to 

conserve physical and biological 

resources at the contract level. Those 

mitigation measures and practices 

approved through conservation 

planning would be periodically 

monitored by USDA to determine the 

success and compliance with those 

measures. 

A producer within the project area 

may enter into a contract with CCC to 

commit eligible land, which would then 

be called contract acreage, to establish 

and/or produce eligible crops. Contract 

durations may be up to five years for 

annual and non-woody perennial crops 

and up to 15 years for woody perennial 

crops. The 2008 Farm Bill defined 

eligible land for project areas as 

agricultural land and non-industrial 

private forest land (NIPF), subject to 

certain exclusions. Eligible agricultural 

land for BCAP includes cropland, 

grassland, pastureland, rangeland, 

hayland, and other lands on which food, 

fiber, or other agricultural products are 

produced or are capable of being 

produced for which a valid conservation 

plan exists or is implemented. Eligible 

NIPF land for BCAP includes rural 

lands with existing tree cover, or that 

are suitable for growing trees, which are 

owned by any private individual, group, 

association, corporation, Indian tribe, or 

other private legal entity as provided by 

section 5(c) of the Cooperative Forestry 

Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 2103a). Agricultural and NIPF 

lands with already established energy 

crops or already contracted for energy 

crops or planned energy crops would be 

eligible lands for contract acreage. 

USDA FSA may consider waste lands, 

brownfields, abandoned mine land, and 

environmental clean-up sites as eligible 

land, if they meet the definition of 

agricultural land or NIPF, as described 

above and in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Producers in project areas may be 

eligible for both BCAP establishment 

payments and annual payments. 

Producers would be eligible for 

establishment payments for not more 

than 75 percent of the cost of 

establishing a perennial crop, which 

could include woody perennial crops. 

Establishment payments were not 

authorized for annual crops and would 

only be made for new perennial, eligible 

crops with a projected initial harvest 

time occurring within the length of the 

contract period. Existing eligible crops 

on agricultural lands and NIPF would 

not be eligible for establishment 

payments; however, they could be 

eligible for annual payments. Annual 

payments would be calculated on: (1) A 

weighted average soil rental rate for 

cropland; (2) the applicable marginal 

pastureland rental rate for all other land 

except for NIPF; (3) for NIPF, the 

average county rental rate for cropland 

as adjusted for forestland productivity; 

and (4) any incentive as determined by 

the Deputy Administrator. The 

payments are intended to support 

production of eligible crops. 

Alternatives Analyzed 

The following list contains action 

alternatives determined to be 

reasonable, which were evaluated in 

detail in the BCAP PEIS as developed 

during internal and public scoping 

processes, as described in the following 

section. These alternatives were 

developed to provide overall flexibility 

in the program with one alternative 

being restrictive and with limited 

funding, while the other was broader 

and could provide a greater level of 

funding. The No Action Alternative, 

used as a baseline for comparison of the 

Proposed Action, assumed no Federal 

program for the Establishment and 

Annual Payments Program component 

of BCAP. Alternative 1 was determined 

to be the Preferred Alternative in the 

Final PEIS. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1: Targeted implementation of BCAP Alternative 2: Broad implementation of BCAP 

BCFs supported by BCAP project areas are limited to producing energy. All bio-based products produced by a BCF in BCAP project areas can 

be supported. 

No new non-agricultural lands allowed for BCAP project area crop production. New non-agricultural lands allowed for BCAP project area crop production. 

Cropland acres enrolled in the program would be capped at 25 percent 

of cropland acres within a given county. 

Cropland acres enrolled in the program would not be capped. 

Advanced biofuels produced by BCAP project area BCFs must meet 

the greenhouse gas test. 

Advanced biofuels produced by BCAP project area BCFs do not need 

to meet the greenhouse gas test. 

Only new BCFs are allowed to be part of BCAP project areas and only 

newly established crops on BCAP contract acres are eligible crops. 

Existing BCFs that meet BCAP eligibility requirements are supported. 

Only large commercial BCFs would be allowed in BCAP project areas. Small and Pilot BCFs would qualify for BCAP project areas. 

Payments would be limited to provide some risk mitigation. Payments would completely replace lost potential income from nonBCAP crops. 

Public Involvement 

Responses to the Final SEIS public 

comments and FSA’s analyses 

supporting this Record of Decision are 

presented in the following discussion. 

Public Scoping 

CCC first provided notice of its intent 

(NOI) to prepare the proposed BCAP 

PEIS in the Federal Register on October 

1, 2008 (73 FR 57047–57048). CCC 

provided an amended NOI to prepare 

the proposed BCAP PEIS on May 13, 

2009 (74 FR 22510–22511), and 

solicited public comment on the 

proposed PEIS for BCAP. Six public 

scoping meetings were held in May and 

June 2009 to solicit comments for the 

development of alternatives and to 

identify environmental concerns. FSA 

performed a density analysis of likely 

BCAP participation to determine those 

areas that would utilize the program and 

meetings were planned for these six 

locations. Public meetings were held in 

Washington, Texas, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Georgia, and New York in the cities and 

dates as presented in the table below. 

The PEIS has taken into consideration 

comments gathered in the scoping 

process initiated with the October 1, 

2008, NOI to develop the alternatives 

proposed for the administration and 

implementation of BCAP. 

Announcements of the scoping meetings 

were posted in the FR (74 FR 22510– 

22511), State and county FSA offices, 

and the FSA Web site prior to the 

meetings. A public website was created 

that provided program information, 

scoping meeting locations and times, 

and an electronic form for submitting 

comments via the internet. A 

presentation was given at each meeting 

followed by a comment period for 

attendees. Printed program information 

and comment forms were made 

available at the meetings, along with 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
65998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

cards providing the public comment 

Web site address. Meetings were 

attended by the FSA National 

Environmental Compliance Manager or 

FSA Federal Preservation Officer, and 

were recorded by a court reporter. 

LIST OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Date of meeting City, state Meeting location 

May 28, 2009 .................................. Olympia WA ................................... Red Lion Hotel, 2300 Evergreen Park Drive, Olympia, WA 98502. 

June 2, 2009 ................................... Amarillo, TX ................................... Hilton Garden Inn, 9000 I–40 West, Amarillo, TX 79124. 

June 4, 2009 ................................... Alexandria, LA ............................... Alexander Fulton Hotel, 701 4th Street, Alexandria, LA 71301. 

June 8, 2009 ................................... Des Moines, IA .............................. Renaissance Savery Hotel, 401 Locust Street, Des Moines, IA 

50309. 

June 10, 2009 ................................. Albany, GA .................................... Hilton Garden Inn, 101 S. Front Street, Albany, GA 31701. 

June 11, 2009 ................................. Syracuse, NY ................................. Hilton Garden Inn, 6004 Fair Lakes, East Syracuse, NY 13057. 

All comments received during the 

scoping process were recorded and 

categorized, as applicable, to the stated 

purpose and need for the Proposed 

Action, the Proposed Action itself, 

preliminary alternatives, and 

environmental resource areas. The 

comments were evaluated by FSA to 

determine the scope and significance of 

each issue and the depth at which it 

would be analyzed in the PEIS. 

Draft PEIS 

The availability of the Draft PEIS was 

announced on August 10, 2009 (74 FR 

39915). This Notice of Availability 

(NOA) marked the beginning of a 45-day 

public comment period soliciting 

comments from interested persons and 

agencies. Comments were received 

through October 9, 2009. Copies of the 

Draft PEIS were provided to the 

headquarters and all the regional offices 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). Comments 

were received from State and Federal 

agencies, non-government 

organizations, and individuals. FSA 

responded to all substantive comments 

received and either expanded the PEIS 

to address the comment or explained 

why the PEIS was not expanded or 

clarified in accordance with the 

comment. 

The Draft PEIS received comments 

from five Federal agencies, three private 

individuals, 25 organizations or 

corporations, and the Government of 

Canada. These 35 commenters generated 

191 comments. The individual 

comments addressed Air Quality (22), 

Biological Resources (41), Cumulative 

Effects (9), Mitigation (4), Additional 

Language or Further Clarification (14), 

Other (39), Proposed Action and 

Alternatives (24), Purpose and Need 

(10), Recreation (1), Resources 

Eliminated from Detailed Study (3), 

Socioeconomics and Land Use (21), Soil 

Resources and Quality (11), and Water 

Quantity and Quality (10). 

Comments concerning Air Quality 

included greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions from biomass burning, carbon 

sequestration, soil carbon, carbon sinks, 

primary/criteria air pollutants, and 

wind erosion. Biological resources 

comments included effects to protected 

species, primary nesting season (PNS) 

considerations, conversion of forest 

lands, conversion of grasslands, 

genetically engineered (GE) organisms, 

cumulative effects to vegetation and 

wildlife, types of crops planted, 

grassland birds, and invasive and 

noxious species. Cumulative effects 

comments included effects to highervalue product feedstocks, effects from 

forest land conversion, and associated 

and related programs at the state level. 

Mitigation comments included new 

tools to assess the values of biomass 

production at the site-specific level to 

generate the BCAP conservation plan 

and a request for greater details. Other 

comments received included 

mechanisms associated with CHST, 

monitoring programs, conversion of 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

acres, the inclusion of crop residues, 

greater description of forestry resources, 

agricultural plastics, more precise 

definitions of eligible crops and lands, 

and the use of only one crop type as an 

example of eligible crops. Several 

comments were received on the number 

of alternatives presented and analyzed. 

Comments on Socioeconomics and Land 

Use included the effects on existing 

BCF, the use of residues, and the 

inclusion of short rotation woody crops 

(SRWC) into the models. Soil-related 

comments included increased erosion 

potential, soil carbon sequestration, and 

the role of agricultural residues in soil 

formation. Water-related comments 

included water quantity for BCF use, 

erosion and pesticide transport, 

irrigation use, and Gulf of Mexico 

hypoxia. 

Final PEIS 

Public notices announcing the 

availability of the Final PEIS were 

published on June 25, 2010 (75 FR 

36386). The Final PEIS was available for 

public review and comment for 30 days, 

and to ensure that all potential 

comments from interested stakeholders 

were received and reviewed, an extra 30 

days was provided for FSA receipt of 

comments. FSA received comments 

from two Federal agencies, 38 

organizations or corporations, one local 

government representative, and seven 

private citizens. Approximately 54 

percent of the commenters specifically 

favored one alternative over the others, 

with 15 commenters favoring 

Alternative 1, 10 commenters favoring 

Alternative 2, and one commentor 

favoring the No Action Alternative. 

Final PEIS commenters supported 

Alternative 2, the Selected Alternative, 

for many of the following reasons: 

Provides the greatest incentive for forest 

landowners to continue managing NIPF 

to produce valuable ecosystem goods 

and services; discourages NIPF owners 

from converting forest land to other land 

uses; provides more renewable biomass 

than Alternative 1 or the No Action 

Alternative; creates the greatest 

reduction in fossil fuel consumption; 

increases energy security by increasing 

domestic energy production; 

socioeconomic benefits; environmental 

benefits; allows the all qualified BCF to 

participate regardless of size; 

Alternative 1 is too restrictive; more 

closely supports State renewable 

portfolio standards (RPS) goals; creates 

green jobs; and provides greater 

incentives to high potential bioenergy 

crops. 

Impacts Summary 

The Final PEIS outlines and compares 

all of the alternatives’ potential impacts. 

Based upon the analyses and 

conclusions presented in the Draft PEIS, 

FSA identified the Preferred Alternative 

as Alternative 1; however, with 

comments received on the NOFA, 

experience with the Matching Payments 

component of BCAP, comments 

received on the proposed rule, and from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 65999 

the Final PEIS comment period, FSA 

has chosen Alternative 2 to be the 

selected and implemented alternative. 

Within the context of the Proposed 

Action’s purpose and need, this 

alternative is both environmentally 

responsible and reasonable to 

implement, would not have significant 

negative impacts, and more closely 

matches the intent and guidance of the 

2008 Farm Bill. Both beneficial and 

potential adverse effects of the 

alternatives analyzed for implementing 

BCAP are identified and discussed 

below. 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 1, the BCAP 

Establishment and Annual Payments 

component would be implemented on a 

more restrictive or targeted basis. Project 

areas would be authorized for those that 

support only large, new commercial 

BCFs that are limited to producing 

energy in part from only newly 

established crops on BCAP contract 

acres. No new non-agricultural lands 

(for example, NIPF converted to 

herbaceous crop lands) would be 

allowed to enroll for BCAP crop 

production. 

Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects 

Modeling indicates that at the 

national level, direct impacts to realized 

Net Farm Income are expected to remain 

unchanged from that of the No Action 

Alternative due to limited funding. 

However, net returns are likely to 

improve for those producers selected to 

participate in a BCAP project area. Total 

net returns for most potential project 

locations are positive, ranging between 

$2.7 and 7.3 million in Year 1 of the 

program. Modeling shows that positive 

Net Returns would still be expected 

over the long term (Year 3), indicating 

that the BCAP project areas remain 

capable of supplying a BCF with 

required feedstock. 

Alternative 1 would cause land use 

changes only at the local level (that is, 

county or multi-county region). Land 

use changes range between 22,000 to 

44,000 acres of crop (for example, corn, 

wheat, soy, etc.) and hay land being 

converted to dedicated energy crops 

(switchgrass) from that of the No Action 

Alternative. 

Overall, scientific literature and the 

modeling for the BCAP PEIS indicated 

that the vast majority of cropland for 

dedicated energy crops would come 

from cropland currently in production 

for traditional row crops and from 

pastureland. Additionally, recent 

literature indicates that potentially nine 

million to 15 million expiring CRP acres 

could return to crop production by 

2025, with an estimated one million 

acres potentially being planted in 

dedicated energy crops. This was based 

on the probable higher value of 

traditional row crops without the 

incentives provided by BCAP for 

dedicated energy crop production. The 

impact of expiring CRP acres on total 

CRP enrollment would be offset through 

re-enrollments into CRP and new acres 

being enrolled in CRP to reach the 32 

million acre CRP cap as specified in the 

2008 Farm Bill. 

The PEIS found that Alternative 1 

would cause only minor conversion of 

natural landscapes, including native 

habitats and forests, due to (1) the 

economic costs associated with 

supplying infrastructure (for example, 

roads, temporary irrigation for 

establishment) to those lands and (2) the 

restrictions inherent in the 2008 Farm 

Bill that limit and protect unique native 

habitats such as native sod, which 

would include rangelands that have 

never been in crop production. 

Economic indirect impacts under this 

alternative vary by project location. 

The analysis method used in the PEIS 

did not address international indirect 

land-use change. This can be done, for 

example, by coupling output from the 

Policy Analysis System (POLYSYS) 

economic simulation model to an 

international economic sector model, 

such as the Global Change Assessment 

Model (GCAM) at the Joint Global 

Change Research Institute. Associating 

carbon coefficients to the economic 

sectors (for example, forest, croplands, 

fossil fuels, etc), allow for estimates of 

indirect land-use change associated 

with the changes in land-use occurring 

nationally. However, it is important to 

recognize that the ratio of land-use 

change (for example, one acre of 

soybeans taken out of production in the 

United States equals one acre of tropical 

deforestation) has not been adequately 

established through scientific literature. 

The social drivers of indirect land-use 

change are not clear, not substantiated, 

and cannot be modeled in a fact-based 

analysis at this time. 

Growing dedicated energy crops, and 

subsequent land use changes for those 

crops in a region, would impact the 

agricultural sector by the creation of a 

new market. The exact amount of land 

that may be converted is limited to 25 

percent of the acreage within each 

county being eligible for BCAP 

payments. This equates to a relatively 

small amount of vegetation being 

converted from traditional crops or 

pastureland to approved dedicated 

energy crop species. It is estimated that 

producing a dedicated energy crop 

would require $60 per dry ton 

(approximately $10 million) to establish 

the crop. To receive payments to 

establish a dedicated energy crop, 

producers must first convert their land 

from traditional crops. This would 

result in negative impacts within the 

community as inputs from the 

traditional crops are not purchased. 

Costs vary based on the community and 

the amount of land use changes required 

and range between $1.5 million to $5 

million. 

Total economic impacts range 

between $19 million and $28 million. 

Net positive impacts for the top five 

projects are between $21 million and 

$25 million for their region. However, 

land use changes would create negative 

impacts, through reduced purchases of 

inputs for traditional farming, within a 

region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 

million depending on location. 

Biological Resources 

Due to the small scope of this 

alternative, and provided established 

provisions, standards, and guidelines 

are followed, and provided the BCAP 

conservation plan, forest stewardship 

plan (or the equivalent) are adapted to 

resource conditions, Alternative 1 

would have no significant negative 

impacts on vegetation or wildlife. 

It is unlikely there would be 

significant negative impacts to wildlife 

populations from the conversion to 

dedicated energy crops at a regional 

scale. However, the potential always 

exists for site-specific fluctuations in 

wildlife populations without the proper 

adaptive management techniques being 

applied during the establishment and 

harvesting stages of crop production. 

The proper use of adaptive management 

and appropriate mitigation techniques 

related to agricultural processes can 

help minimize any potential negative 

direct effects. There are not expected to 

be large scale impacts to regional 

wildlife populations because of the 

limited scope of land use change under 

this alternative. Indirect impacts to 

wildlife are related to habitat change. 

Some degree of wildlife mortality from 

collisions or nest destruction from farm 

equipment is unavoidable. Provided 

establishment and harvest of feedstock 

does not occur during the primary 

nesting season (PNS), these impacts 

should be minimized. 

Reptiles and amphibians could 

experience negative and positive 

responses to the conversion to dedicated 

energy crops. The increase of native 

vegetation may increase the abundance 

of invertebrates, a source of food for 

many reptiles and amphibians. There 

may be short-term reductions in 

population sizes the year that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

conversion occurs from agricultural 

activity to biomass establishment from 

collisions or crushing by farm 

equipment. The techniques described 

above, if properly planned and applied, 

are designed to minimize the impacts to 

wildlife of these activities. Likewise, 

because of the limited implementation 

under this alternative, these impacts 

would not be regional nor are they 

anticipated to affect regional wildlife 

population levels. 

Impacts to invertebrates are related to 

habitat, and would vary based on 

specific lifestyle and habitat preference. 

Direct impacts to invertebrates are 

dependent on the degree of exposure 

and the mobility of a given species. 

Impacts from the establishment include 

destruction of nest sites, crushing, and 

the removal of food sources. These 

impacts can be reduced if activities are 

not conducted during periods of highest 

florescence or when flowers are in 

bloom. 

Impacts to aquatic wildlife are 

associated with the dangers of 

sedimentation, and nutrient and 

agricultural chemical deposition into 

water bodies. However, provided 

established procedures for erosion and 

runoff control are followed, these 

potential impacts are not expected to be 

significant. 

Air Quality 

The analysis of potential air quality 

impacts was intended to estimate 

changes in land management associated 

with the adoption of dedicated biomass 

energy cropping practices and to 

estimate changes in greenhouse gases 

(GHG) and carbon stocks associated 

with those changes in land 

management. The analysis considered 

the range of potential effects associated 

with the establishment of the dedicated 

energy crop including crop production 

inputs through the harvesting of the 

dedicated energy crop to the farm gate. 

The air quality analysis was 

developed through the output from the 

economic forecasting model associated 

with predicted changes in land 

management. This model (POLYSYS) is 

based on over 3,500 unique cropping 

practices that capture greater than 90 

percent of all cropland production in 

the United States, using an annual time 

step and at a county level. When 

considering changes in land-use and 

soil carbon stocks, the model works at 

a sub-county level. The annual time step 

allows for near-term estimates of 

dedicated energy crop adoption and 

potential changes in GHG emissions. 

Changes in GHG emissions included 

upstream emissions from the production 

of agricultural inputs (for example, 

fertilizers, pesticides, energy for 

irrigation), on-site fossil fuel emissions, 

on-site soil carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions from organic carbon (soil 

organic matter and plant residue) and 

inorganic carbon (agricultural lime), and 

soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. 

This method was chosen, because the 

economic modeling components within 

the POLYSYS model are of a spatial 

resolution (county) and temporal 

resolution (annual) needed to address 

dedicated energy crop adoption rates 

both locally and nationally. This 

information was used to assess the 

impact of annual adoption rates on GHG 

emissions. Fossil-fuel offsets from the 

use of cellulosic ethanol occur outside 

the farm gate; therefore, they were not 

included in this analysis. Inclusion of 

fossil-fuel offsets would likely 

contribute to larger carbon savings and 

less net CO2 emissions to the 

atmosphere, than is accounted for in the 

current analysis. 

Positive changes to air quality are 

expected under Alternative 1. However, 

since the scope of this alternative is 

limited, these changes would not be 

significant. Direct impacts relate to the 

energy and/or emissions from 

agricultural production activities. Under 

this alternative, energy consumption 

within the top five regions would be 

reduced by 3,664 gigajoules (GJ) through 

the conversion to switchgrass when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

This energy change is minor, in most 

cases less than 0.1 percent. Carbon 

emissions were less than those of the No 

Action Alternative, yet small, usually 

less than 0.1 percent reduction. Due to 

the limited scale of conversion under 

this alternative, the amount of fugitive 

dust emissions would be minor, 

temporary, local, and nearly equal to 

that of the No Action Alternative. Yet, 

over the long term, given the conversion 

to perennial dedicated energy crops and 

reduction tillage, there would be a 

reduction in fugitive dust emissions. 

These effects would be positive, but 

minor. 

Limited indirect impacts would occur 

from emissions from equipment exhaust 

or other mobile sources necessary for 

the establishment of dedicated energy 

crops. However, since machinery is 

already utilized on these fields, these 

impacts are similar to those of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Site-specific mitigation measures 

would be determined based on the local 

or regional Air Quality Control Region, 

as prescribed in the conservation plan 

or through local or State regulations 

concerning air emissions of criteria 

pollutants. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) to reduce mobile sources 

include proper maintenance of 

equipment and dust suppression 

activities. 

Soil Resources 

Under Alternative 1, a reduction in 

erosion from all sources is expected. 

Conversion of croplands from 

traditional crops to switchgrass is 

estimated to reduce topsoil loss from 

these acres by 0.4 inches per year; 

which equates to four inches over a ten 

year period. Soil carbon would increase 

between 0.2 and 10.1 percent over that 

of the No Action Alternative. Indirect 

impacts under Alternative 1 would be 

increased biodiversity of soil biota as a 

result of increased soil organic matter 

and the presence of perennial 

vegetation. The use of BMPs would 

further reduce the potential for soil loss. 

Provided established conservation 

standards, provisions and guidelines are 

implemented, Alternative 1 would have 

no significant negative impact on soil 

resources. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Under Alternative 1, direct impacts to 

water quality are expected from the 

changes to the use of nutrients and 

agricultural chemicals for the 

establishment and production of 

switchgrass in the potential BCAP 

project locations. Decreases in the use of 

potassium (3.1 percent), lime (4.0 

percent), herbicides (5.5 percent), 

insecticides (11.2 percent), and other 

agricultural chemicals (3.6 percent) are 

expected; while the use of nitrogen (2.1 

percent) and phosphorus (2.9 percent) 

within the top five project areas are 

expected to increase over that of the No 

Action Alternative. The overall 

reduction in nutrients and agricultural 

chemical, erosion, total suspended 

solids (TSS), and sedimentation would 

provide positive impacts on water 

quality from implementation of this 

alternative. However, due to the limited 

amount of acreage under this 

alternative, these benefits would be 

local. 

The change in the quantity of water 

required under this alternative would be 

minimal. The amount of water used for 

irrigation in the top five regions would 

only decrease approximately 0.25 

percent over that of the No Action 

Alternative, saving an estimated 1.2 

million gallons of water per day. When 

compared across all project area States, 

23.6 million gallons of water per day 

would be conserved. Switchgrass has a 

higher water use efficiency (WUE) than 

other traditional crops, and is highly 

tolerant of various water regimes and is 

more drought tolerant than traditional 

crops. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66001 

Indirect impacts under Alternative 1 

result from the reduction in 

sedimentation and nutrient and 

agricultural chemical deposition into 

surface water bodies that move 

downstream, benefiting larger water 

stream courses and regional water 

quality. 

To further reduce impacts to water 

quality, buffer strips comprised of 

mixed native species between biofuel 

crop fields and surface water bodies 

should be established for sediment and 

nutrient retention. Adherence to 

established conservation standards, 

provisions, and guidelines ensures 

Alternative 1 would have no significant 

negative impact on water quality. 

Recreation 

Under Alternative 1 there could be 

localized positive or negative impacts 

on wildlife habitat, but they are 

expected to be small due to the 

relatively small amount of land 

converted to energy crops. The impacts 

to recreation involving wildlife are 

expected to be small locally and also not 

significant at the regional or national 

level. 

Alternative 2 (Selected Alternative) 

Alternative 2 expands the BCAP 

Establishment and Annual Payments 

component, allowing anyone who meets 

basic eligibility requirements of the 

BCAP provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill 

to participate. In addition, existing BCFs 

and crops would be supported, 

including small and pilot BCFs, and all 

bio-based products derived from eligible 

materials would qualify under this 

alternative. New non-agricultural lands 

(for example, NIPF converted into 

herbaceous cropland) would be allowed 

to enroll and the number of cropland 

acres would not be capped. 

Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects 

Significant changes are expected in 

net revenues as total revenue values 

increase more than the feedstock 

production costs and as feedstock 

production reduces the supply of other 

crops and subsequently increases their 

prices. Price increases are most 

significant for wheat, corn, and 

soybeans, with price changes expected 

to increase by 15 to 20 percent during 

the period 2009 to 2023. The addition 

of more forestry resources as feedstock 

would reduce pressures on crop prices 

somewhat, as would any future increase 

in crop yields. It is expected that 

government commodity payments 

would increase due to the price impacts 

triggered by the increased demand for 

cropland. 

Overall, scientific literature and the 

modeling for the BCAP PEIS indicated 

that the vast majority of cropland for 

dedicated energy crops would come 

from cropland currently in production 

for traditional row crops and from 

pastureland. Additionally, recent 

literature indicates that potentially nine 

to 15 million expiring acres of CRP 

could return to crop production by 

2025, with an estimated one million 

acres potentially being planted in 

dedicated energy crops. This was based 

on the probable higher value of 

traditional row crops without the 

incentives provided by BCAP for 

dedicated energy crop production. The 

impact of expiring CRP acres on total 

CRP enrollment would be offset through 

re-enrollments into CRP and new acres 

being enrolled in CRP to reach the 32 

million acre cap as specified in the 2008 

Farm Bill. 

Land use shifts, especially among the 

major crops, are expected under this 

alternative. The amount and type of 

land, both traditional cropland and noncropland, converted to dedicated energy 

crop production would depend on 

which areas are designated as project 

areas. Modeling indicates that by 2023, 

planting of dedicated energy crops 

would increase production cropland by 

over 50 million acres, while resulting in 

a reduction in traditional cropland 

acreage by approximately 17 million 

acres, with corn acreage estimate to 

increase by less than one million acres. 

Of the estimated 350 million acres in 

current use as pastureland, 

approximately 34 million acres would 

shift to the production of dedicated 

energy crops while 15 million acres 

would shift to hay production. Overall, 

scientific literature and the modeling for 

the BCAP PEIS indicated that the vast 

majority of cropland for dedicated 

energy crops would come from cropland 

currently in production for traditional 

row crops and from cropland 

pastureland. Natural landscapes and 

native habitats and forests would be 

anticipated to have only minor 

conversion due to (1) the economic 

costs associated with supplying 

infrastructure (for example, roads, 

temporary irrigation for establishment) 

to those lands and (2) the restrictions 

inherent in the 2008 Farm Bill that limit 

and protect unique native habitats such 

as native sod, which would include 

rangelands that have never been in crop 

production. 

There would be both positive and 

negative indirect impacts from the 

establishment of dedicated energy crops 

which would flow through the rest of 

the economy. While payments for the 

establishment of dedicated crops is 

estimated to be $11 billion and the 

matching payments component of BCAP 

is expected to create an estimated 

280,000 jobs, the costs associated with 

land use changes required to meet the 

demand for dedicated energy crops and 

crop residues may bring a decline of 

$3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. 

Overall, the total economic impact from 

implementation of Alternative 2 is 

anticipated to be positive with an 

estimated $88.5 billion in economic 

activity throughout and the creation of 

nearly 700,000 jobs. 

Biological Resources 

As with Alternative 1, provided 

established provisions, standards, and 

guidelines (that is, BMPs similar to 

those used in CRP conservation plan) 

are followed and the BCAP conservation 

plans, forest stewardship plans, or 

equivalent plans, are adapted to 

resource conditions, Alternative 2 

would have no significant negative 

impacts on vegetation or wildlife. 

Conversion may have both negative and 

positive impacts. The loss of forest land 

(for example, NIPF converted to 

herbaceous cropland) or native 

grasslands, not native sod (for example, 

CRP acres planted to native grass that 

have expired and gone back into 

production) would decrease the habitat 

quality for several wildlife species; 

however the effects would be limited 

given the minor amount of conversion 

anticipated from these land types. Yet, 

as described in Alternative 1, many of 

the dedicated energy crop options have 

a higher habitat quality than traditional 

crops. The types of impacts to wildlife 

during the establishment of dedicated 

energy crops would be similar to those 

described in Alternative 1; yet, with the 

potential to occur at a much broader 

scale. Again, the scale of this impact is 

dependent on the types and amount of 

land converted to dedicated energy 

crops. Negative impacts to large 

mammals, small mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians, and invertebrates are not 

expected to be significant. Similarly, 

impacts to birds are not expected to 

impact population densities. However, 

the largest potential negative impact to 

grassland birds would occur during 

conversion or harvesting activities. 

Provided these activities do not occur 

during the PNS, and the small portion 

of grasslands in potential BCAP project 

area locations, impacts to grassland 

birds are minimal. 

Air Quality 

Implementing Alternative 2 on a 

broader scale would reduce overall 

direct carbon equivalent emissions 

during perennial dedicated energy crop 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

growth. Total energy use was 

approximately one to two percent 

higher in most years due to the indirect 

energy requirement for increased 

equipment manufacturing. Direct energy 

usage was either neutral or decreased 

over time. The effects of fugitive dust 

emissions during the establishment 

phase would be similar to those of 

Alternative 1. After establishment, 

fugitive dust emissions would decrease 

due to the alteration of cropping 

systems to perennial species. In the long 

term, these effects would be on a 

regional scale and would be positive. 

Indirect impacts are similar to those of 

Alternative 1. Site-specific mitigation 

measures and BMPs as described in 

Alternative 1 would reduce potential 

impacts to Air Quality under 

Alternative 2. 

Soil Resources 

Alternative 2 would result in 

reductions at both the local and regional 

level of soil erosion due to the transition 

from traditional crops to perennial 

vegetation used for dedicated energy 

crops. As indicated in the modeling 

results, dedicated energy crop 

production would increase production 

cropland by approximately 50 million 

acres under Alternative 2, with that 

acreage being shift from traditional row 

crops and cropland pasture, rather than 

natural landscapes, native habitats and 

forests. Overall, the shift toward more 

perennial vegetation on production 

croplands from traditional annual row 

crops would provide benefits to soil 

quality and soil carbon sequestration. 

Perennial crops, and the use of corn 

stover and wheat straw, would shift 

away from conventional tillage to no 

tillage practices. This shifting of tillage 

practices on an estimated 11 million 

acres would conserve approximately 40 

million tons of soil each year over that 

of the No Action Alternative. As with 

Alternative 1, the biological diversity of 

the soil would also increase. As with 

Alternative 1, the use of BMPs would 

further reduce the potential for soil loss. 

Provided established conservation 

standards, provisions and guidelines are 

implemented, Alternative 2 would have 

no significant negative impact on soil 

resources. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

The direct and indirect impacts to 

water quality under Alternative 2 would 

be similar to those described in 

Alternative 1. However, as the amount 

of acreage converted from traditional 

crops to perennial crops increases, the 

benefits to both water quality and 

quantity increase. The same mitigation 

methods described in Alternative 1 

would reduce potential impacts to water 

quality. Adherence to established 

conservation standards, provisions, and 

guidelines ensures Alternative 2 would 

have no significant negative impact on 

water quality. 

Recreation 

Under Alternative 2 there could be 

localized positive or negative impacts 

on wildlife habitat, but they are 

expected to be small due to the 

relatively small amount of land 

converted to energy crops. The impacts 

to recreation involving wildlife are 

expected to be small locally and also not 

significant at the regional or national 

level. 

Mitigation Measures and Best 

Management Practices 

In addition to the required BCAP 

conservation and/or forest stewardship 

plan (or the equivalent), all project 

sponsors and producers must follow all 

environmental rules and regulations as 

required through participation in other 

USDA programs. Each project proposal 

will be subject to NEPA analysis prior 

to approval. A BCAP Environmental 

Screening worksheet must be completed 

for each contract offer. This worksheet 

would provide the necessary 

environmental information to FSA so 

they can accurately and expeditiously 

complete an environmental evaluation, 

consistent with FSA’s regulations on 

environmental quality found at 7 CFR 

part 799, for enrollment of a particular 

site in BCAP. This worksheet can also 

be used in conjunction with the BCAP 

conservation and/or forest stewardship 

plan (or the equivalent) to develop 

methods/activities that could mitigate 

any potential minor site specific 

environmental effects for individual 

producers applying to the program 

while still meeting the overarching goal 

of BCAP and NEPA. Prior to execution 

of the BCAP Project Area contract, 

NRCS or an authorized technical service 

provider (TSP) would complete a sitespecific environmental evaluation that 

would reveal any protected resources on 

or adjacent to the proposed program 

lands. When sensitive resources, such as 

nesting birds, wetlands or cultural 

resources are present or in the vicinity 

of the proposed lands, consultation with 

the appropriate regulatory agency would 

occur. Specific mitigation measures 

necessary to reduce or eliminate the 

potential localized negative impacts to 

those sensitive resources would be 

identified. If the environmental 

evaluation concludes that species or 

critical habitat protected under ESA are 

potentially present, and the proposed 

conservation activity on the land is 

determined to have negative impacts 

and no alternatives exist, it is not likely 

the land would be eligible for that 

activity. Any mitigation measures and 

practices approved through 

conservation planning would be 

periodically monitored by USDA to 

determine the success and compliance 

with those measures. 

If through completion of the 

environmental evaluation, it is 

determined that there is no potential for 

the proposed BCAP activity to 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment, the environmental 

evaluation serves as FSA’s documented 

compliance with NEPA as well as the 

requirements of other environmental 

laws, regulations, and Executive Orders 

(EOs). 

However, if after completion of the 

environmental evaluation it is 

determined that protected resources 

could potentially be adversely 

impacted, consistent with FSA’s 

internal guidance, then no further action 

can occur until the BCAP applicant 

completes an EA. EAs would be 

required when the results of the 

environmental evaluation are unclear as 

to whether the proposed activities 

would significantly impact the quality 

of the human environment. 

If the EA determines that there could 

be a significant effect on the quality of 

the human environment then a 

proposed BCAP project area or site 

specific EIS could be necessary. These 

EISs and all EAs would be tiered to this 

PEIS consistent with 40 CFR 1508.28. 

Socioeconomics and Land Use Effects 

To mitigate the socioeconomic effects 

of BCAP, the final rule provides that the 

eligibility for payment of vegetative 

wastes, such as wood wastes and wood 

residues, collected or harvested from 

both public and private lands will be 

limited to only those that would not 

otherwise be used for a higher-value 

product. This specifically excludes 

wood wastes and residues derived from 

mill residues or other production 

processes that create residual byproducts that are typically used as 

inputs for higher value-added 

production. Additionally, industrial or 

other process wastes or by-products, 

such as black liquor or pulp liquor that 

is a waste by-product of the pulp and 

kraft paper manufacturing process, 

would not be included in the definition 

of biobased products because they are 

not significantly composed of organic or 

biological products collected or 

harvested from land. The final rule also 

continues the exclusion of 

commercially-produced timber, lumber, 

wood, or other finished products that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66003 

otherwise would be used for higher 

value products. Also, urban wood 

wastes have been excluded as specified 

in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Biological Resources 

As specified in the 2008 Farm Bill, a 

conservation plan or forestry 

stewardship plan (or equivalent plan) is 

a fundamental component for ensuring 

appropriate and sustainable agricultural 

practices for specific programs. 

Consistent with accepted BMPs (for 

example, for CRP and associated 

programs), a BCAP conservation plan or 

forest stewardship plan (or the 

equivalent) that includes appropriate 

conservation practice standards and 

sustainable agriculture practices must 

be developed before implementation to 

reduce the negative impacts to 

biological resources. Dedicated energy 

crops should be chosen based on local 

ecosystem characteristics to minimize 

potential disturbance to native wildlife 

species and vegetation by providing 

habitats comparable to those found in 

natural habitats. Sustainable agricultural 

techniques should be used, if possible, 

to reduce negative impacts to biological 

resources. Specific county Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

conservation practice standards, as well 

as State or county specific technical 

notes and specific guidance on 

mitigation measures, should be 

incorporated in the conservation plan 

and forest stewardship plan or 

equivalent. Applicable NRCS 

conservation practice standards should 

be followed on lands where conserving 

wildlife species is an objective of the 

landowner or forest stewardship plan. 

Site-specific environmental evaluation 

on the project site in conjunction with 

either informal or formal consultation 

with the appropriate USFWS office 

would protect species included on the 

endangered species list. Use of BMPs 

such as washing vehicles upon leaving 

and entering a work area would 

minimize the potential to spread 

invasive or noxious plant species. 

Other eligible crops, such as animal 

wastes, food and yard wastes, and algae, 

have site-specific requirements in 

regards to potential for environmental 

effects. To lessen potential effects 

associated with animal wastes, 

appropriate guidance from State and 

Federal regulatory agencies concerning 

confined animal feeding operation 

practices and standard industry 

practices associated with animal 

production should be followed to 

ensure that collection of materials does 

not adversely impact localized 

vegetation and wildlife resources 

through secondary effects associated 

with water and air quality. 

Air Quality 

BMPs associated with dedicated 

energy crop production include the use 

of limited and no tillage components, 

which decrease the potential for fugitive 

dust emissions associated with exposed 

ground cover. Also, all producers would 

follow local air quality regulations, 

which may define other BMPs 

associated with agricultural activities, 

including transportation and chemical 

usage. 

Soil Resources 

BMPs associated with dedicated 

energy crop production include the use 

of limited and no tillage components 

which decreases exposed ground cover 

and allows for greater retention of 

topsoil through perennial root systems. 

Other eligible crops, such as animal 

wastes, food and yard wastes, and algae, 

have site specific requirements in 

regards to potential for environmental 

effects. To lessen potential effects 

associated with animal wastes, 

appropriate guidance from State and 

Federal regulatory agencies concerning 

confined animal feeding operation 

practices and standard industry 

practices associated with animal 

production should be followed to 

ensure that collection of materials does 

not adversely impact soil resources 

through secondary effects associated 

with water and air quality. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Algae production, due to the 

specialized nature of the demonstration 

practices currently in effect, should 

move to minimize the use of potable 

water supplies, where feasible, to 

reduce effects on water consumption. 

BMPs for dedicated energy crop 

production that reduce the amount of 

agricultural chemicals used for 

production would benefit water quality 

through reduced transport in runoff. 

Also, the use of limited or no tillage 

cropping systems reduces the potential 

transported sediments by leaving 

ground cover on site and through the 

stability associated with perennial root 

systems. Agricultural irrigation systems 

are generally becoming more efficient, 

allowing for an overall reduction in 

irrigated water uses, and the inclusion 

of more dedicated energy crops with 

lower water demands and higher water 

use efficiencies would benefit water 

quantity by reducing the levels 

necessary for production. 

Recreation 

Given the site specific nature of the 

BCAP project areas and the practices 

best suited to those conditions, effects to 

the abundance of wildlife for both 

consumptive and non-consumptive uses 

would vary. Practices that encourage 

more foraging habitat for game species 

could induce changes in relation to 

decreased traditional row crop fields; 

however, changes to pasture of hayland 

could indicate small adverse effects. As 

such, operators should be encouraged to 

comply with the goals for wildlife 

habitat enhancements associated with 

the conservation plans and forest 

stewardship plans, at the 

recommendation of the technical 

advisors (that is, NRCS and U.S. Forest 

Service). 

Cumulative Effects—Socioeconomics 

and Land Use Effects 

Cumulative effects to socioeconomic 

conditions and land use would be 

highly dependent upon the location of 

the BCAP project areas and level of 

funding; however, overall the benefits 

associated with the establishment and 

production of dedicated energy crops 

should outweigh the losses associated 

with the land use shifts from traditional 

row crops. With limited funding, BCAP 

projects areas would be few and would 

be anticipated to provide local positive 

effects to the socioeconomic conditions 

from the conversion to dedicated energy 

crops; however, the effects would be 

balanced through the losses associated 

with input suppliers for traditional 

crops under Alternative 1. The limited 

funding assumption and the county 

acreage limitation would not induce 

national level changes in agricultural 

prices. 

Under Alternative 2, the greater 

funding for BCAP could create 

numerous BCAP project areas with the 

potential to affect national crop prices. 

Alternative 2 would encourage greater 

regionalization, which could encourage 

more land use changes to dedicated 

energy crops, where traditional row 

crops only produced marginally positive 

income streams. 

Also, the Matching Payments 

component has encouraged the use of 

woody biomass as a feedstock for many 

of the BCFs qualified during the NOFA 

period. More than 3.1 million tons of 

biomass was from woody resources 

during the NOFA period (85.6 percent 

of total biomass collected). Only 4.3 

percent of woody resources were 

derived from Federal lands, with the 

remainder from non-Federal lands. 

During the short term, these resources 

could be an important source of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

feedstock, until the sustainable harvest 

of dedicated energy crops would be 

available. 

Biological Resources 

Changes to vegetation structure and 

type could cause potential negative 

cumulative effects on native fish and 

wildlife through fragmented, degraded, 

or destroyed habitats. Cumulative 

effects to wildlife would be localized 

and site-specific as not all species are 

harmed by conversion of land to more 

intensive uses. While the footprints of 

the areas considered under conversion 

are relatively small (less than one 

percent of the area inside the 50-mile 

buffer), potential impacts may occur if 

land configuration and relative location 

of converted areas combined with 

existing habitat fragmentation patterns 

has a multiplicative effect on the overall 

regional habitat fragmentation values. 

The establishment of new crops in areas 

previously fallow or cropped with a 

different style of agriculture may cause 

direct mortality and range shifting at the 

local scale of wildlife. The use of BMPs 

and environmental assessments would 

prevent and minimize significant 

impacts; however, fragmentation is 

unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to 

vegetation would occur from the 

conversion of native pastureland or 

native vegetation to dedicated energy 

crops. The cap on the amount of acreage 

that may be used for dedicated energy 

crops under Alternative 1 (that is 25 

percent in any single county within the 

50-mile radius) also is designed to 

reduce these impacts. Similarly, because 

of the limited funding that would only 

provide for a limited number of BCFs, 

the amount of land that potentially 

would be converted is negligible. 

Direct impacts to wildlife would 

occur by conflicts with haying 

machinery that may result in mortality. 

Under Alternative 1, direct impacts are 

expected to occur during the 

establishment and harvest stages of 

BCAP crops; yet, these impacts are 

expected to be short-term and localized. 

These habitat changes would impact 

such aspects as food availability, type 

and quantity of cover for escape and 

breeding, and the availability of 

adequate nesting sites. Wildlife in lands 

adjacent to the dedicated energy 

cropland may either be positively or 

negatively impacted depending on the 

habitat quality provided by the biofuel 

crops. 

Cumulative effects through 

implementation of Alternative 2 would 

lead to direct and indirect impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife at a regional 

scale. As with Alternative 1, direct 

impacts are not expected to impact 

wildlife at a population level; however, 

the significance of indirect impacts are 

dependent on potential land use 

changes. The quantity and habitat 

quality of any land converted from 

native grasses, forest land or 

pastureland for dedicated energy crops 

would determine the level of 

cumulative impacts. Under Alternative 

2, depending upon the level of land use 

changes, the cumulative impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife could be 

significant. 

No cumulative impacts under the No 

Action Alternative would occur as the 

program would not convert land from 

one use to a dedicated energy crop. 

Air Quality 

In general, the maturation of the 

biofuels and bioenergy industries 

should result in significantly positive 

energy balance in relation to first 

generation biofuels and bioenergy 

supported by grain feedstocks and fossil 

fuels. With a limited level of BCAP 

funding that would only provide for two 

commercial-scale facilities, the range of 

potential cumulative effects would be 

broad depending upon the location of 

the facilities. However, it was estimated 

that the BCAP program would generate 

net energy savings and greater soil 

carbon sequestration as lands are 

converted to dedicated energy crops. 

The effects were estimated to only be 

locally or regionally significant and not 

nationally significant. 

Cumulatively, under Alternative 2, 

the unlimited funding of the BCAP to 

support all scales of BCFs could lead to 

national level effects, such as a decline 

in soil carbon sequestration due to an 

increased use of crop residues to meet 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA) volume 

requirements. It could be surmised that 

under Alternative 1, to meet EISA 

requirements there would be a greater 

use of first generation biomass (that is, 

corn) and second generation biomass 

(that is, agricultural crop residues) than 

from Alternative 2, given the potential 

funding difference between the two 

alternatives. This would indicate that 

the greater use of crop residues for 

biofuels feedstock could reduce soil 

carbon levels below currently seen in 

traditional row crops where the crop 

residues remain. However, in the 

analysis it was assumed that EISA 

targets could not be met under 

Alternative 1 as indicated by the 

anticipated waivers for production 

under the base scenario. 

Overall, it was indicated that soil 

carbon would increase under 

Alternative 2, as traditional row crops 

were replaced with perennial dedicated 

energy crops; however, in combination 

with EISA requirements for advanced 

biofuels percentages, traditional sources 

(for example, corn and crop residues) 

would be required in combination with 

BCAP project areas to meet the overall 

demand. It was estimated that there 

would be benefits from the conversion 

of lands associated with total carbon 

flux and overall energy use, but there 

would also be negative effects from the 

greater use of residues, which would 

generate additional GHG emissions and 

reduce soil carbon sequestration. In the 

longer term, as more acreage is planted 

to dedicated energy crops and regionally 

competitive crops (that is, SRWC), there 

would be some off-set from the 

anticipated soil carbon losses associated 

with residue removal and use. 

Overall, the discussion of the EISA 

RFS2 program within the BCAP PEIS, 

including the characterization of 

indirect land-use impacts and GHG 

emissions, is appropriate given the 

limited overlap between the two 

programs. While both programs 

generally support the Administration’s 

goals to expand domestic bioenergy 

production and consumption and 

decrease reliance on fossil fuels, BCAP 

supports a broader range of bioenergy 

conversion technologies as well as 

biobased products, which the RFS2 does 

not incentivize. 

Soil Resources 

The implementation of BCAP would 

generate positive effects from a 

reduction in soil erosion and increased 

soil carbon sequestration from the 

conversion of Title I crops to perennial 

dedicated energy crops. The conversion 

to a perennial dedicated energy crop 

provide greater soil retention due to 

anticipated cropping practices and the 

plant structure holding soil in place. 

Under Alternative 1, with the limited 

BCAP funding, the benefits associated 

with reduced soil erosion would be only 

locally significant and would provide 

for positive changes to water quality, 

soil organisms biodiversity and overall 

biological diversity. 

Under Alternative 2, depending upon 

the level of agricultural crop residue use 

to meet EISA requirements, the effects 

could be either insignificant or 

significant, cumulatively. When 

combined with the U.S. Forest Service 

measures to increase woody biomass 

utilization for bioenergy, there may be 

short term increases in soil erosion from 

forest lands in some regions; however, 

these should be minimal if harvest and 

management BMPs are implemented per 

the forest stewardship plan or the 

equivalent, and all applicable Federal, 

State, and local harvest regulations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66005 

Also, in some regions, soil erosion on 

forest lands would be insignificant due 

to the species and understory cover 

provided. The increased use of crop 

residues is anticipated to lead to 

changes in cropping practices, which 

should provide greater soil cover by 

standing crop residues and reduced 

tillage practices to promote residues 

use. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

The conversion to a perennial 

dedicated energy crop provides greater 

water use efficiency than traditional row 

crops such as corn. This conversion 

would be anticipated to limit runoff 

from agricultural fields and potential 

need for irrigation past the initial 

establishment period. Under Alternative 

1, with the limited BCAP funding, the 

benefits associated with increased water 

quality and decreased water quantity 

would be only locally significant and 

would provide for positive changes. 

Under Alternative 2, depending upon 

the level of crop residue use, the effects 

could be either insignificant or 

significant, cumulatively. The 

implementation of BCAP would 

generate positive effects from (1) a 

potential reduction of irrigated cropland 

acres, (2) greater water use efficiency on 

non-irrigated and irrigated acreage, and 

(3) a general reduction in agricultural 

chemical use from the conversion of 

Title I crops to perennial dedicated 

energy crops. 

The majority of water consumption 

associated with corn-based ethanol is 

from irrigation to grow the crop. A 

potential reduction in the amount of 

irrigated acres would reduce the total 

water consumption to produce ethanol. 

Also, studies have indicated that 

conversion of biomass at co-generation 

or combined heat and power (CHP) 

power plants for electricity is more 

efficient in the reduction than 

conversion into transportation fuels. 

However, water consumption for this 

use should also be considered. Other 

studies indicate that traditional liquid 

biofuels used as a fuel source for power 

generation are the most water inefficient 

when compared to traditional fuels, 

such as natural gas, which was the most 

water efficient. 

Recreation 

Impacts to recreation could be 

positive or negative based on the 

locality for BCAP project regions. 

However, they would be small 

regionally and nationally under either 

alternative and would not substantively 

or cumulatively change the recreational 

aspects of participation in wildlife 

activities. 

Basis for the Decision 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 is selected as the 

alternative to implement the Proposed 

Action. Alternative 2, the Selected 

Alternative, complies with the 2008 

Farm Bill, provides FSA flexibility in 

terms of program implementation and 

development of a sustainable industry, 

and is the most balanced approach to 

achieving long-term program goals, 

while being consistent with the intent 

and language of the 2008 Farm Bill. The 

No Action Alternative was used as an 

analytical baseline. Alternative 1 

provided for a targeted application of 

the BCAP; however, this alternative was 

restrictive in the types of potential sized 

facilities that could participate in the 

program, thus limiting the overall scope. 

The broader scope of implementation, 

as analyzed under Alternative 2, would 

have the potential to open new nonagricultural lands (that is, NIPF) into 

dedicated energy crop production, 

which, if the effects were unmitigated 

could create losses of biodiversity at a 

regional scale. However, conversion 

from non-agricultural lands should be 

minor, since modeling results indicated 

that the majority of the cropland for 

dedicated energy crops would be 

converted from traditional row crops 

and pastureland. Also, the use of the 

BCAP conversation plan and forest 

stewardship plan (or the equivalent) 

would avoid and mitigate those effects 

through appropriate BMPs and 

sustainable practice approaches. No 

significant impacts would occur from 

implementation of the Proposed Action 

and no adverse cumulative impacts are 

expected. Potential negative impacts 

would be minimized by employment of 

site-specific environmental evaluations 

prior to contract approval, BMPs, 

incorporation of practical mitigation 

measures in the BCAP conservation 

plan or forest stewardship plan (or the 

equivalent), and, if indicated, EAs 

would be tiered to the Final PEIS for 

those areas requiring further NEPA 

analysis prior to contract approvals, 

consistent with 40 CFR 1508.28. 

BCAP Components 

BCAP is divided into two distinct 

components as specified in the 2008 

Farm Bill. The Matching Payment 

component was determined to be largely 

mandatory and non-discretionary in 

nature. Implementation of the 

Establishment and Annual Payment 

component required an exercise of 

discretion by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. The separation of the two 

components in the 2008 Farm Bill and 

the mandatory nature of the Matching 

Payments allowed for the NOFA to be 

used to initiate that component before 

final rule-making on the entire BCAP. 

An appropriate comment period and 

inclusion of the reference to the BCAP 

Establishment and Annual Payments 

components PEIS, which included the 

Matching Payments component in the 

cumulative effects analysis, made 

inclusion of the Matching Payments 

component as part of the alternatives 

analysis for BCAP PEIS unnecessary per 

standard, as such with the publication 

of the Final BCAP PEIS, this analysis 

including the cumulative effects would 

be complete. The range of reasonable 

alternatives, given the geographic scope 

of the analysis, provided valid 

consideration of the scale of the 

program with unlimited funding 

authorized for both the Matching 

Payments component and the 

Establishment and Annual Payments 

component of BCAP in the 2008 Farm 

Bill. 

Geographic Scale and Approach to the 

Analysis 

The geographic scale of potential 

BCAP project area sites encompasses the 

entire United States and its territories 

and as a result land use changes, 

farming practices, weather conditions, 

soil types, water resources, natural 

ecosystems, and economies vary widely 

at the site-specific level. Therefore, the 

PEIS assessed the potential impacts of 

implementing the Establishment and 

Annual Payments component of BCAP 

on a broad scale that required that 

certain assumptions be made to assess 

the impacts of the program. 

Since the BCAP supports the 

production of dedicated energy crops, 

the analysis focused only on the 

potential impacts associated with crop 

production and not the impacts 

associated with conversion of biomass 

into various types of energy (that is 

ethanol, electricity, burning for 

combined power and heat, etc.) since 

the intent of the program was for the 

successful establishment of dedicated 

energy crop production throughout the 

United States, which could be used in 

a myriad of end product components 

based on the facilities available to the 

producers. The PEIS evaluated the 

impacts of establishing a bioenergy crop 

(on BCAP eligible lands) and managing, 

and transporting to a BCF a specific 

crop from each of the three broad 

classes of cellulosic energy crops 

(woody crops, perennial herbaceous, 

and annual herbaceous). Hybrid poplar 

and willow (woody species), 

switchgrass (perennial herbaceous 

species), and forage sorghum (annual 

herbaceous species) were chosen 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

because they have the most widely 

available data; it is feasible that they can 

be established within the time frame of 

the program, and represent likely energy 

crops that would be grown for biofuels/ 

bioenergy across varied regions of the 

United States. These representative 

dedicated energy crops in no way 

represent the entire range of possible 

bioenergy crops that could qualify as an 

eligible crop under the BCAP. The 

production of switchgrass, forage 

sorghum, hybrid poplar, and willow 

utilize agricultural practices that are 

similar to those used in traditional crop 

agriculture with some variations in 

equipment and techniques. Production 

operations and multi-year 

characteristics for each selected 

bioenergy crop would vary. 

Although algae is an eligible crop 

under the Establishment and Annual 

Payments Program component of BCAP, 

it currently is not considered likely to 

be commercially feasible and suitable 

for inclusion in a BCAP project area by 

the end of fiscal year (FY) 2012, the 

expiration of the authority for BCAP. As 

such, algae as an eligible crop is briefly 

discussed, but is not included in the 

detailed analysis within this document. 

Additionally, existing forestry 

resources on NIPF would be eligible for 

the Annual Payments. These resources 

are identified by approximate locations 

throughout the United States through 

association with private forest lands as 

detailed within the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis data publicly provided by the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Model Development and Approach 

To determine the potential locations 

for BCAP projects based on prevailing 

economics of dedicated energy crop 

production, a model-based approach 

was used, which contained information 

on prevailing cropland uses, factors of 

production for an herbaceous energy 

crop (that is, switchgrass), factors for the 

use of crop residues as a bioenergy 

feedstock, and transportation costs. The 

model currently incorporates 

switchgrass and residues (crop and 

forestry) as feedstock for BCF. However, 

it is important to note that switchgrass 

can be seen as a generic dedicated 

energy crop which would represent the 

land use requirements implicit in the 

use of other energy crops for which data 

is not readily available. The use of 

switchgrass as a model crop 

representing other dedicated energy 

crops, could underestimate the 

production potential of feedstock that 

has a yield that could be significantly 

larger than switchgrass, and 

consequently underestimate the 

potential of specific regions of the 

country as candidate locations for 

potential BCAP projects locations. In an 

effort to address those shortcomings, the 

model was complemented with 

preliminary data in an effort to include 

poplars, willows, and forage sorghum as 

eligible crops. 

The analysis included prices for 

switchgrass ranging from $35 to $80 per 

dry ton. The $60 per dry ton analysis 

provided a good regional coverage of 

feedstock potential supply for 

herbaceous perennial and annual crops, 

and consequently was selected to 

perform the GIS analysis to locate the 

potential BCAP projects; while $70 per 

ton was needed for poplars and $90 per 

ton for willows. The analysis assumed 

that farmers or land owners would 

receive $45 per ton in payment through 

BCAP plus a match from the plant 

demanding the cellulosic feedstock. 

This assumption was made based on the 

information provided in the 2008 Farm 

Bill and the Matching Payments 

component of the BCAP NOFA. It was 

assumed that producers would receive 

this matching payment for two years 

from the first date of delivery of 

feedstock to a BCF. 

The model was developed to first 

determine approximate project locations 

based on the regional availability of 

feedstock and price levels. Then 

through the use of Geographic 

Information System (GIS) program and 

land use data at the county level, areas 

were identified that had the potential 

for higher feedstock concentrations. The 

analysis incorporated projected land use 

and proprietor income changes, 

government payment changes, along 

with an increase in transportation and 

the development of a dedicated energy 

crop. The approximate predicated 

project locations were developed for 

each of the proxy feedstocks analyzed. 

These predicted project locations were 

then used for each of the resource areas 

to determine potential impacts, both 

positive and negative, from the 

alternatives. 

Under Alternative 2, funding for 

BCAP was assumed to be unlimited and 

a driving factor was to produce enough 

biomass feedstock to meet the demands 

of EISA (that is, approximately 15 

billion gallons of advanced biofuels). 

The analysis for Alternative 2 was 

conducted at both a regional and the 

national level. The analysis focused on 

the impacts to net farm income; farm 

prices; government payments; land use 

shifts; and direct, indirect, and induced 

economic impacts as a result of changes 

in the aforementioned variables. To 

model this, POLYSYS was used to 

estimate the quantity and price of 

feedstock necessary to achieve the EISA 

targets through 2023. To meet the 

Department of Energy (DOE) goals of 

$1.76 per gallon of ethanol and $51 per 

dry ton of herbaceous feedstock by 

2012, the role, size, and funding of a 

potential expanded BCAP was 

estimated, based on the estimated prices 

of feedstock. The analysis assumed that 

farmers or land owners would receive 

$45 per ton in matching payments 

through BCAP in addition to payment 

from the plant demanding the cellulosic 

feedstock. This assumption was made 

based on the initial matching payments 

distribution as described in the 2008 

Farm Bill and implemented in the 

NOFA. This analysis for Alternative 2, 

built on the models developed for 

Alternative 1, which analyzed a suite of 

specific potential project areas. 

Resource Specific Attributes 

Based on the model results, assuming 

unlimited funding for the Establishment 

and Annual Payments component, the 

Proposed Action would create a balance 

of the objectives and goals of the 

program (that is, create the framework 

for a dedicated energy crop production 

industry in the United States) with 

overall natural and human-built 

environmental benefits, while 

minimizing potential negative effects 

through a comprehensive project area 

proposal process and site-specific 

environmental evaluation of each 

contract holding. 

Overall, air quality; soil resources; 

and water quality and quantity; would 

have benefits from either alternative 

with Alternative 2 providing for greater 

effects given the overall potential size of 

the program. It was estimated that there 

would initially be greater adverse 

effects, though not significant, during 

the establishment phases; however, after 

initial establishment there would be 

greater amassed benefits from a greater 

reduction in soil erosion, more soil 

carbon sequestration, and reduced 

irrigation demand for perennial 

dedicated energy crops, including 

SRWC over more land areas. 

Socioeconomic effects and land use 

changes would initially have a decline 

in economic activity within certain 

sectors (that is, services for traditional 

row crops) as a shift occurs into 

dedicated energy crops; however, a new 

equilibrium would be reached as those 

traditional row crop sectors convert into 

supporting dedicated energy crops. 

Through the analyzed period (2009 to 

2023) the overall balance for 

socioeconomics and land use would be 

positive economic activity in excess of 

$88 billion with the potential for an 

increase in crop prices over the period 

by greater than 15 percent. There would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66007 

be the potential for regional effects to 

biological resources, however, it would 

be limited by the anticipated minor 

amount of conversion of nonagricultural lands (for example, NIPF 

converted to herbaceous cropland) and 

native grasslands, not native sod (for 

example, expired CRP acres that had 

been planted to native grass) to 

dedicated energy crops; however, those 

effects could be avoided and minimized 

through the use of accepted BMPs and 

BCAP environmental screening. On 

balance the Proposed Action, with the 

BMPs and practical mitigation measures 

associated in the BCAP conservation 

plan or forest stewardship plan (or the 

equivalent) in conjunction with project 

level NEPA analysis and the sitespecific environmental evaluations prior 

to accepting contact holdings, would 

create a beneficial environment for the 

establishment of long-term dedicated 

energy crop industry in local and 

regional areas based on their unique 

dynamics, while growing those crops in 

a diverse and environmentally 

sustainable manner. 

The Decision 

FSA would implement the Selected 

Alternative as described in this ROD. 

This alternative provides overall 

benefits to the environment, allows for 

flexibility in implementation, and 

follows the intent and language of the 

statute when compared to the other 

alternatives analyzed. FSA would 

ensure impacts are minimized by 

employment of appropriate practice 

standards in conservation plans and 

forest stewardship plans (or equivalent), 

site-specific environmental evaluations 

prior to each approved contract, and 

supplemental EAs or EISs for those 

areas requiring further NEPA analyses. 

After the publication of the Final PEIS 

on June 25, 2010, the later enactment of 

the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations 

Act (Pub. L. 111–212) on July 29, 2010, 

provided a limitation of funding for 

BCAP of $552,000,000 in fiscal year 

2010 and $432,000,000 in fiscal year 

2011. FSA does not have the authority 

to limit the scope of BCAP to a smaller 

or more restrictive program than the 

2008 Farm Bill authorizes, except as 

may be needed to confine the program 

within these newly provided spending 

limits. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9, 

FSA has determined that a 

Supplemental PEIS may be required for 

changes to BCAP. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 19, 

2010. 

Carolyn B. Cooksie, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation and Administrator, Farm Service 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26872 Filed 10–22–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket Nos. PRM–50–93 and PRM–50–95; 

NRC–2009–0554] 

Mark Edward Leyse; Mark Edward 

Leyse and Raymond Shadis, on Behalf 

of the New England Coalition; Petitions 

for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of consolidation of 

petitions for rulemaking and re-opening 

of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing for 

public comment a notice of 

consolidation of petitions for 

rulemaking (PRM). The PRMs to be 

consolidated are PRM–50–93 filed by 

Mark Edward Leyse on November 17, 

2009, and PRM–50–95 filed on June 7, 

2010, by Mark Edward Leyse and 

Raymond Shadis, on behalf of the New 

England Coalition (the Petitioners). 

PRM–50–95 was docketed by the NRC 

on September 30, 2010. In PRM–50–95, 

the Petitioners request that the NRC 

order Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station (Vermont Yankee) to lower the 

licensing basis peak cladding 

temperature in order to provide a 

necessary margin of safety in the event 

of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). 

The NRC is considering PRM–50–95 in 

conjunction with existing PRM–50–93 

that the NRC is reviewing on the same 

issues, and is re-opening the public 

comment period to consider the matters 

raised by PRM–50–95. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

26, 2010. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0554 in the subject line of 

your comments. For instructions on 

submitting comments and accessing 

documents related to this action, see 

‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

You may submit comments by any one 

of the following methods. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0554. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668, e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays (telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, Telephone: 301–492– 

3667 or Toll Free: 800–368–5642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments and Requesting 

Information 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be posted on the 

NRC Web site and on the Federal 

Rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. The NRC requests that any 

party soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this action using 

the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents by the NRC’s PDR, Room 

O–1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS