# B I O M A S S 

# C R O P 

# A S S I S T A N C E 

# P R O G R A M

Environmental Assessment

Proposed BCAP Giant Miscanthus ( Miscanthus X giganteus )

Establishment and Production in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania

Sponsored by Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass LLC

United States Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency

**April 2011**



# DRAFT**NOTICE OF AVAILABILI TY** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  

## NOTICE OF AVAILABILI TY



## DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed BCAP Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio and

Pennsylvania

Farm Service Agency

U.S. Department of Agriculture

This notice announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the

proposed establishment and production of giant miscanthus ( Miscanthus X giganteus ) as a

dedicated energy crop for energy production to be grown in the Aloterra Energy and MFA

Oil Biomass Company (Project Sponsors) proposed project areas in Arkansas, Missouri,

Ohio, and Pennsylvania under the Biom ass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). This EA is

being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public

Law [PL] 91

- 190, 42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); implementing regulations adopted by

the Council on Environmental Quali ty (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500

-

1508); and FSA implementing regulations, Environmental Quality and Related

Environmental Concerns

– Compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799). According to CEQ

guidance, an EA is a “concise document for which a F ederal agency is responsible that

serves to (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact

(FONSI) (40 CFR 1508.9).” Additionally, since this document falls under the guidance of the

BCAP Final Programmatic EIS (PEIS), which was a broad national

- level program document,

CEQ guidance allows for “tiering.” CEQ guidance defines tiering as, “the coverage of

general matters in broader EIS with subsequent narrower statements or environmental

analyses incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the

issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared (40 CFR 1508.28). The Draft EA

provides a means for the publ ic to voice any concerns they may have about the proposed

BCAP project area

.

The Farm Service Agency (FSA), on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),

invites comments on the Draft EA. We will consider comments that we receive by 09 May

2011 . C omments submitted after this date will be considered to the extent possible.**NOTICE OF AVAILABILI TY** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  To comment on this Draft EA , please use one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal : Go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online

instructions for submitti ng comments.

E

- Mail : GiantMiscanthusEAComments@intenvsol.com

.

Fax : 972

- 562

- 7673 ATTN: Giant Miscanthus EA Comments.

Mail : Giant Miscanthus EA Comments

Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC

2150 S Central Expy Ste 110

McKinney, TX 75070

Hand Delivery o r Courier : Deliver comments to the above address.

Comments may be inspected in the Office of the Director, CEPD, FSA, USDA, Room 4709

South Building, Washington, D.C., between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. A copy of thi s notice is available through the FSA home page at

http://www.fsa.usda.gov /.

For additional information, please contact:

USDA/FSA/CEPD

Matthew T. Ponish

National Environmental Compliance Manager

1400 Independence Ave. SW

Mail Stop 0513

Washington, D.C. 20250

(202) 720

- 6853

matthew.ponish@wdc.usda.gov**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 1** 

**-** 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1



### INTRODUCTION **AND BACKGROUND** 2

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 3

implement s the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) authorized by the Food, 4

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill)

. On October 27, 20 10, the CCC 5

published the Record of Decision (ROD) for the BCAP Final Programmatic Environmental 6

Impact Statement (PEIS) and the BCAP Final Rule (7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 7

Part 1450) in the Federal Register (FR 75:207, 65995

- 66007; 66202

- 66243). As part of the 8

mitigation measures detailed in the ROD, each project proposal is subject to a National 9

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public Law [PL] 91

- 190, 42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et 10

seq .) analysis prior to approval of the project area proposal. The initial environmental 11

evaluation of a project area proposal is developed through the completion of Forms BCAP

12

19, BCAP

- 20, BCAP

- 21, and BCAP

- 22 and supporting information. After this initial 13

evaluation FSA can conclude that no additional environmental ana lyses are applicable due 14

to no potential for the proposed BCAP activity to significantly impact the environment or that 15

additional environmental analyses in the form of an environmental assessment (EA) or 16

environmental impact statement (EIS) are necessary, depending upon the potential level of 17

significance. 18

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the proposed establishment of BCAP project 19

areas supporting the proposed establishment and production of giant miscanthus hybrid 20

( Miscanthus X giganteus) by the Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass Company LLC 21

(Project Sponsors) in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania , which is being completed 22

to meet the requirements of the NEPA environmental evaluation of the BCAP or to 23

determine if an EIS would be required. 24



### PURPOSE AND NEED 25

The primary purpose of BCAP is to promote the cultivation of perennial bioenergy crops and 26

annual bioenergy crops that show exceptional promise for producing bioenergy or biofuels 27

that preserve natural resources and that are not primarily grown for food or animal feed. 28

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the establishment and production of giant 29

miscanthus as a crop for energy production to be grown by BCAP participants in the project 30

areas proposed in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvani a. The need for the Proposed 31**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 2** 

**-** Action is to provide renewable biomass feedstock to a Biomass Conversion Facility ( BCF ) 1

for use in energy production with and potentially outside the immediate region(s)

. 2



### ALTERNATIVES 3

As part of the BCAP Project Area Selection Process, the Project Sponsors develop a 4

proposal application for submittal to FSA. Prior to this submittal, the Project Sponsors have 5

likely determined the economic feasibility of their proposal, including develo ping alternatives 6

for location and crop species. The Project Sponsors developed selection criteria to meet the 7

overall purpose and need for the Proposed Action, the establishment and production of giant 8

miscanthus as a dedicated energy crop for energy pro duction under the incentives of the 9

BCAP. As part of the alternatives development process the Project Sponsors analyzed both 10

alternative crops and alternative locations for the proposed project areas; however, each of 11

these was determined not to be feasib le. As such, this EA is analyzing the implementation 12

of the Proposed Action or the selection of the No Action Alternative, that FSA would not 13

establish the proposed project areas supporting the establishment and production of giant 14

miscanthus

. 15



### PROPOSED **ACTION** 16

Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass LLC (Project Sponsors) are proposing that FSA 17

establish BCAP project areas that support the establish ment and produc tion of giant 18

miscanthus on 50,000 acres per proposed project area (200,000 total acres) by 2 014, with 19

crop longevity of 20 to 30 years . The acreage projected to be enrolled within the proposed 20

project areas are marginal croplands and pastureland. The proposed project areas are 21

located in four states in four distinct proposed project areas. Mis souri contains two 22

proposed project areas; Columbia and Aurora. Arkansas contains one proposed project 23

area Paragould. Ohio and Pennsylvania contain the final proposed project area, Ashtabula. 24

Each proposed project area is named for the approximate loca tion of the BCF that will be 25

utilized to process the giant miscanthus biomass into pellets to be shipped to other facilities 26

or users for use in bioenergy products. Each proposed project area was developed as an 27

approximate 50

- mile radius from the approxi mate location of each BCF. The establishment 28

and production of giant miscanthus would begin with centralized propagation acres on each 29

farm, which would be distributed to plantation acres during the next growing season. During 30

this planting season (2011) , this initial establishment would require a centralized location 31

within each proposed project area with center

- pivot irrigation due to the timing of planting 32**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 3** 

**-** and current climatic conditions occurring during this growing season. This centralized 1

propagati on area for the entire proposed project area would only occur the 2011 planting 2

season; all other planting season would follow the on

- farm model with the initial 3

establishment of propagation acres, followed by plantation acres the following growing 4

season. Equipment to be used to establish giant miscanthus would be modified equipment 5

from existing perennial grass industries. Equipment used to harvest and bale giant 6

miscanthus would be similar to existing types of agricultural machinery used for hay crops; 7

however, they would need to be more heavy

- duty due to the increased biomass amounts 8

being harvested and baled. Table ES

- 1 lists the proposed propagation and planting 9

schedule within each of the proposed project areas, totaling 50,000 acres per proposed 10

p roject area by 2014, which is the maximum planting goal under this action. 11

Table ES

- 1

. Proposed Giant Miscanthus Acres Added by Growing Season 2011

- 2014 12

Project Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Acres

2011

- 2014 Propagation

Acres Range Total Giant Miscanthus Acres Added

Ashtabula 50

- 300 2,275 13,500 35,000 50,000

Aurora 100

- 400 7,950 13,500 31,000 50,000

Columbia 100

- 300 6,450 13,500 33,000 50,000

Paragould 100

- 600 10,850 13,500 28,400 50,000

NOTE: 2011 is the only year that will have only propagation acres planted, total additional acreage per year 13

includes both propagation acres and plantation acres (2012

- 2014) 14



### ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ **UENCES** 15

Table ES

- 2 provides a tabular summary of the potential effects from both the P roposed 16

Action and No Action Alternative. Implementing the Proposed Action would result in minor 17

positive and negative effects to the local and regional area; however, many of these effects 18

would be minimized through the use of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ( MMP )

. FSA has 19

a framework for defining the components of the MMP that will be required for this project, 20

but has not yet finalized the plan to consider all public input on the draft EA prior to making a 21

final plan recommendation. 22

The Prop osed Action would result in additional diversified income for a participating 23

producer s , as well as technical assistance from the Project Sponsors in the production and 24

harvesting of giant miscanthus. The Project Sponsors have proposed a BCF in each of th e 25

proposed project areas ensuring that producers will have a demand for their products. Also, 26

ancillary agricultural services should expect an increase due to the Project Sponsors goal of 27

primarily contracting idle acres and not active cropland. The Prop osed Action would result 28

in a changed local landscape with the addition of the giant miscanthus fields; however, most 29

30**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 4** 

**-** Table ES

- 2

. Comparison of the Alternatives 1

Resource Area Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Socioeconom ics + minor 0

Land Use

- minor 0

Biological Resources

Vegetation

- minor 0

Wildlife

- minor 0

Protected Species 0 0

Soil Resources + minor (primarily during

establishment) 0/

- minor

Water Quality/Quantity

Water Quality + minor 0

Water Quantity +/

- minor 0

Note: +=positive

- =negative 0=neutral 2

contract acreage would range in size between 38 to 100 acres. The MMP would be used to 3

ensure that adverse effects from this new crop are minimized or avoided. Similarly, minor 4

negative effects woul d be anticipated for biological diversity as pastureland is converted in to 5

giant miscanthus croplands. The MMP would be essential to provide mechanisms such as 6

reasonable and economically feasible buffers and field edges to provide for continued 7

wildlife and vegetative diversity in these areas. Recent research has indicated that giant 8

miscanthus is susceptible to some plant pests; the MMP monitoring and buffer efforts would 9

be essential to ensure that any occurrence is identified and treated early to avoi d 10

transmission to local croplands, such as corn. Giant miscanthus, which has an extensive 11

perennial root system, would be anticipated to have positive effects on soil retention, soil 12

organic matter, and soil carbon sequestration , as well as increased wate r quality related to 13

nutrient leaching and transported sediments. Also, due to its growth patterns, giant 14

miscanthus would be anticipated to require more water than annual crops, such as corn; 15

however, giant miscanthus has much higher water use efficiency , generating high amounts 16

of biomass per volume of water consumed. 17

The No Action Alternative would result in no adverse effects to the local and regional area 18

since there would be no giant miscanthus planted in any of the proposed project areas as 19

descri bed in this BCAP Project Proposal. However, the No Action Alternative would not 20

assist in meeting the overall goal of BCAP, which is to develop dedicated energy crops for 21

conversion to bioenergy. 22

23**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 5** 

**-** 

### DATA GAPS IN CURRENT **UNITED STATES ESTABL ISHMENT AND**  **PRODUCTION** 1

Giant miscanthus is a new agronomic crop species in the United States, and also still 2

relatively new in Europe, where the oldest cultivation areas are approximately 30 years old 3

or less. The Miscanthus genus was introduced to the United States over 100 years ago in 4

ornamental plantings. Several universities (i.e., University of Illinois, Mississippi State 5

University, University of Wisconsin, Michigan State University, and the University of 6

Georgia) in the United States are currently cultivating giant miscanthus on a trial basis or 7

conducting research on giant miscanthus or the Miscanthus genus. Additionally, large

- scale 8

acreages of giant miscanthus have not been cultivated in the United States; al thoug h 9

commercial production of giant miscanthus for bioenergy production in co

- fired system s are 10

in the beginning stages in the United Kingdom. Given, that giant miscanthus has only been 11

grown in large

- scale trials in Europe the data on giant miscanthus plant ing in the United 12

States is more limited in scope. 13

In light of the lack of data applicable to the proposed project areas, an adaptive MMP is 14

being developed, which will include best management practices (BMP) for the establishment 15

and production of giant miscanthus to ensure avoidance and minimization of potential 16

effects to the immediate environment and the larger landscape. The MMP will be a living 17

document that is highly dependent on routine monitoring of the fields to determine the 18

success of giant m iscanthus plantings, its overall effects to the immediate environment, and 19

any potential effects to the larger landscape based on observation and measurement. This 20

document would contain information on appropriate and effective eradication methods that 21

wo uld develop over time as new data bec o me available. Likewise, other metrics or 22

observable measurements would adapt over time based on past observations, new 23

research finding s , and new regulations. 24

The following information has been found to lack complet e detail in relation to growth and 25

production of giant miscanthus in the United States. 26

Potential effects to socioeconomics focused on the information provided in the pro 27

forma analyses of the Project Sponsors. Data from Europe indicates a high cost of 28

establishment due to the vegetative propagation of the species; however, the BCAP 29

combined with the model undertaken by the Project Sponsors addresses most of 30

these concerns, along with technical assistance to be provide d to producers. 31**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ES**

**- 6** 

**-** Landscape scale an alyses of giant miscanthus are generally lacking since there 1

have not been any commercial

- scale field trials in the United States. 2

Literature documenting the potential for invasiveness of the fertile species of the 3

Miscanthus genus has been discussed alo ng with documentation supporting that 4

giant miscanthus should not be considered invasive due to its sterility and slow 5

rhizome spread within the United States

. 6

Literature discussing potential plant pest s has been recently published relating to the 7

wester n corn root worm, several species, of aphids, and rust ; those studies along 8

with recommendations have been included. 9

There is little p eer

- reviewed literature concerning the effects of giant miscanthus 10

plantings on biological diversity in the United States; however, some specific studies 11

have been published in Europe. These studies primarily focused on bird species 12

with some small mammal observations. These studies also looked at young

- aged 13

giant miscanthus stands, so there was little information available on biodiversity 14

found in mature stands. 15

Information concerning the nutrient uptake, nutrient addition trials, and root structure 16

has been included to discuss the potential for soil erosion, soil organic matter, and 17

soil carbon sequestration based on the a vailable literature. 18

Literature concerning nutrient uptake, water use efficiency, and irrigation needs 19

during establishment has been discussed based on the available literature. 20

21**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **i** 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

NOTICE OF AVAILABILI TY

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... - 1

- 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... ES

- 1

- 3

**INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....**  **ES**

**- 1** 

**-** 4

**PURPOSE AND NEED**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........................**  **ES**

**- 1** 

**-** 5

**ALTERNATIV ES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **..... ES** 

**- 2** 

**-** 6

**PROPOSED ACTION**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..............................**  **ES**

**- 2** 

**-** 7

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ......**  **ES**

**- 3** 

**-** 8

**DATA GAPS IN CURRENT UNITED STATES ESTABL**  **ISHMENT AND PRODUCTI ON** 

**................................ ......**  **ES**

**- 5** 

**-** 9

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

................................ ................................ . 2

- 1 10

**1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BAC**  **KGROUND**

**................................ ................................**  **............................ 2** 

**- 1**  11

**1.2 USDA NEPA GUIDANCE/A**  **UTHORITY**

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 2** 

**- 2**  12

**1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR**  **THE PROPOSED ACTION**

**................................ ................................**  **....... 2** 

**- 3**  13

**1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE**  **DOCUMENT**

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 2** 

**- 3**  14

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDI NG THE PROPOSED ACTI ON

................................ ............................... 2

- 1 15

**2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOP**  **MENT**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....**  **2**

**- 1**  16

**2.1.1 Proposed Crop Alternatives** 

**– Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated** 

**................................ .....**  **2**

**- 1**  17

**2.1.2 Proposed Project Area Locations** 

**– Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated** 

**............................. 2** 

**- 3**  18

**2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO BE A**  **NALYZED**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **2**

**- 5**  19

**2.2.1 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **2**

**- 5**  20

**2.2.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **2**

**- 6**  21

**2.2.2.1 Methods for Establishment and Production o**  **f Giant Miscanthus**

**................................ ......**  **2**

**- 8**  22

**2.2.2.2 Ashtabula Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 2** 

**- 11**  23

**2.2.2.3 Aurora Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **........................ 2** 

**- 12**  24

**2.2.2.4 Columbia Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **................... 2** 

**- 12**  25

**2.2.2.5 Paragould Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 2** 

**- 12**  26

**2.3 RESOURCES CONSIDERED**  **BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS** 

**................................ ....**  **2**

**- 13**  27

**2.4 COMPARIS**  **ONS OF THE ALTERNATI VES** 

**................................ ................................**  **...................... 2** 

**- 16**  28

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (BY RESOURCE AREA)

................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 1 29

**3.1 SOCIOECONOMICS** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **3**

**- 1**  30

**3.1.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **3**

**- 1**  31

**3.1.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............**  **3**

**- 1**  32

**3.1.2.1 Number of Farms and Land in Farms** 

**................................ ................................**  **................ 3** 

**- 1**  33

**3.1.2.2 Primary Field Crops** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .........**  **3**

**- 3**  34**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **ii 3.1.2.3**  **Primary Livestock Industries**

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 6**  1

**3.1.2.4 Rural Population Trends** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **3**

**- 8**  2

**3.1.2.5 Farm Income and Cost** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....**  **3**

**- 8**  3

**3. 2**  **LAND USE**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.... 3** 

**- 8**  4

**3.2.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **3**

**- 8**  5

**3.2.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..............**  **3**

**- 9**  6

**3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..........**  **3**

**- 18**  7

**3.3.1 Vegetation** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ........................**  **3**

**- 18**  8

**3.3.1.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 18**  9

**3.3.1.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **3**

**- 18**  10

**3. 3.2**  **Wildlife**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............................**  **3**

**- 22**  11

**3.3.2.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 22**  12

**3.3.2.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **3**

**- 22**  13

**3. 3.3**  **Protected Species**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............**  **3**

**- 23**  14

**3.3.3.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 23**  15

**3.3.3.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **3**

**- 23**  16

**3.4 SOIL RESOURCES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **3**

**- 29**  17

**3.4.1 Defini**  **tion of the Resource**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .**  **3**

**- 29**  18

**3.4.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **3**

**- 30**  19

**3.4.2.1 Ashtabula Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 3** 

**- 30**  20

**3.4.2.2 Aurora Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **....................... 3** 

**- 30**  21

**3.4.2.3 Columbia Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **................... 3** 

**- 30**  22

**3.4.2.4 Paragould Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................. 3** 

**- 32**  23

**3.5 WATER QUALITY AND QU**  **ANTITY**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .**  **3**

**- 32**  24

**3.5.1 Water Quality** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **3**

**- 32**  25

**3.5.1.1 Definition of the Resource** 

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 32**  26

**3.5.1.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **3**

**- 33**  27

**3.5.2 Water Quantity** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **3**

**- 35**  28

**3.5.2.1 De**  **finition of the Resource**

**................................ ................................**  **............................. 3** 

**- 35**  29

**3.5.2.2 Existing Conditions** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......**  **3**

**- 35**  30

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 1 31

**4. 1**  **DATA GAPS**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.. 4** 

**- 1**  32

**4.2 SOCIOECONOMICS** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **4**

**- 2**  33

**4.2.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .........**  **4**

**- 2**  34

**4.2.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **4**

**- 3**  35**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **iii 4.2.2.1**  **As htabula Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................... 4** 

**- 6**  1

**4.2.2.2 Aurora Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.......................... 4** 

**- 6**  2

**4.2.2.3 Columbia Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **..................... 4** 

**- 6**  3

**4.2.2.4 Paragould Proposed Project Area** 

**................................ ................................**  **.................... 4** 

**- 6**  4

**4.2.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 7**  5

**4.3 LAND USE** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **... 4** 

**- 7**  6

**4.3.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ........**  **4**

**- 7**  7

**4. 3.2**  **Proposed Action**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **4**

**- 7**  8

**4.3.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 8**  9

**4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ............**  **4**

**- 8**  10

**4.4.1 Vegetation** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..........................**  **4**

**- 8**  11

**4.4.1.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 8**  12

**4.4.1.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............**  **4**

**- 9**  13

**4.4.1.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 13**  14

**4.4.2 Wildlife** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............................**  **4**

**- 13**  15

**4.4.2.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **4**

**- 13**  16

**4.4.2.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 13**  17

**4.4.2.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 15**  18

**4.4.3 Protected Species** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............**  **4**

**- 15**  19

**4.4.3.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **4**

**- 15**  20

**4.4.3.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 15**  21

**4.4.3. 3**  **No Action Alternative**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 16**  22

**4.5 SOIL RESOURCES** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **4**

**- 16**  23

**4.5.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ......**  **4**

**- 16**  24

**4. 5.2**  **Proposed Action**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................**  **4**

**- 16**  25

**4.5.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .........**  **4**

**- 17**  26

**4.6 WATER QUALITY AND QU**  **ANTITY**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **4**

**- 17**  27

**4.6.1 Water Quality** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **4**

**- 17**  28

**4.6.1.1 Si**  **gnificance Threshold**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **4**

**- 17**  29

**4.6.1.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 17**  30

**4.6.1.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 18**  31

**4.6.2 Water Quantity** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **4**

**- 18**  32

**4.6.2.1 Significance Threshold** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..**  **4**

**- 18**  33

**4.6.2.2 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **4**

**- 18**  34

**4.6.2.3 No Action Alternative** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 20**  35**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **iv 4.7**  **ALTERNATIVES COMPARI SON** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **4**

**- 20**  1

**4.7.1 Proposed Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...............**  **4**

**- 21**  2

**4.7.2 No Action** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..........................**  **4**

**- 22**  3

5 CUMULATIVE I MPACTS ASSESSMENT

................................ ................................ ......................... 5

- 1 4

**5.1 DEFINITION** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.. 5** 

**- 1**  5

**5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A**  **NALYSIS BY RESOURCE AREA** 

**................................ ................................**  **. 5** 

**- 1**  6

**5.2.1 Socioeconomics** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **5**

**- 1**  7

**5.2.2 Land Use** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............................**  **5**

**- 2**  8

**5.2.3 Biological Resources** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **5**

**- 3**  9

**5.2.4 Soil Resources** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **5**

**- 4**  10

**5.2.5 Wate**  **r Quality and Quantity**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **5**

**- 4**  11

6 MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6

- 1 12

**6.1 INTRODUCTION** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ............................**  **6**

**- 1**  13

**6.2 ROLES AND**  **RESPONSIBILITIES**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **6**

**- 1**  14

**6.3 MITIGATION AND MONIT**  **ORING RECOMMENDATION S** 

**................................ ................................**  **... 6** 

**- 2**  15

**6.3.1 Socioeconomics** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **6**

**- 4**  16

**6.3.2 Land Use** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .............................**  **6**

**- 4**  17

**6.3.3 Biological**  **Resources**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **6**

**- 4**  18

**6.3.3.1 Vegetation** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **6**

**- 4**  19

**6.3.3.2 Wildlife** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ............................**  **6**

**- 5**  20

**6.3.3.3 Protec**  **ted Species**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **6**

**- 6**  21

**6.3.4 Soil Resources** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **6**

**- 6**  22

**6.3.5 Water Quality and Quantity** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **6**

**- 7**  23

**6.3.5.1 Water Quality** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ...................**  **6**

**- 7**  24

**6.3.5.2 Wa**  **ter Quantity**

**................................ ................................**  **................................ .................**  **6**

**- 8**  25

7 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7

- 1 26

8 PREPARERS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8

- 1 27

9 PERSONS AND AGENCI ES CONTACTED

................................ ................................ ...................... 9

- 1 28

29

30**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **v** LIST OF TABLES 1

2

Table ES

- 1. Proposed Giant Miscanthus Acres Added by Growing Season 2011

- 3

2014

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... ES

- 3

- 4

Table ES

- 2. Comparison of the Alternatives

................................ ............................... ES

- 4

- 5

Table 2

- 1. Proposed Establishment and Production Methods for Giant Miscanthus

..... 2

- 10 6

Table 2

- 2. Proposed Giant Miscanthus Acres Added by Growing Season 2011

- 7

2014

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2

- 11 8

Table 2

- 3. Estimated Biomass Tonnage by Production Year 2013

- 2017

...................... 2

- 11 9

Table 2

- 4. Comparison of the Alternatives

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 16 10

Table 3

- 1. Number of Farms by Farm Typology, 2007

................................ ................... 3

- 2 11

Table 3

- 2. Planted Acres, Harvested Acres, and Production of Select Field Crops 12

in the Project Counties (2010).

................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 4 13

Table 3

- 3. Primary Livestock Activities by County within the Proposed Project 14

Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 7 15

Table 3

- 4. Farmland Land Use Categories and Sub

- Categories for the Ashtabula 16

Proposed Project Area

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 10 17

Table 3

- 5. Farmland Land Use Categories and Sub

- Categories for the Aurora 18

Proposed Project Area (2007)

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 11 19

Table 3

- 6. Farmland Land Use Categories and Sub

- Categories for the Columbia 20

Proposed Project Area (2007)

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 12 21

Table 3

- 7. Farmland Land Use Categories and Sub

- Categories for the Paragould 22

Proposed Project Area (2007)

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 13 23

Table 3

- 8. Farmland Enrolled in CRP, WRP, Farmable Wetlands, or CREP in the 24

proposed project areas.

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 16 25

Table 3

- 9. Federally

- Listed Threatened and/or Endangered Species that Could 26

Potentially occur within the Proposed Project Areas

................................ ... 3

- 24 27

Table 3

- 10. Acres of Irrigated Land and Water Withdrawals by County within Each 28

Proposed Project Area

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 36 29

Table 4

- 1. Cost Comparison for Participating Versus Non

- Participating Producers 30

for the Establishment and Production of Giant Miscanthus

........................... 4

- 4 31

Table 4

- 2. Estimated Acres to be Planted by 2014 to Giant Miscanthus by 32

Proposed Project Area and Percent of Land Use Type.

................................ 4

- 8 33

Table 4

- 3. Characteristics of Ideal Biomass Crop/Weeds

................................ ............. 4

- 11 34

Table 4

- 4. Comparison of the Alternatives

................................ ................................ ... 4

- 21 35

Table 5

- 1. Land Use by Proposed Project Area with Planted Acres in Crops

................. 5

- 3 36

37

38**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **vi** LIST OF FIGURES 1

2

Figure 2

- 1. Proposed Project Area Locations.

................................ ................................ . 2

- 7 3

Figure 2

- 2. Giant Miscanthus.

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 9 4

Figure 3

- 1. Percent of Farmland Acres by County in the Proposed Project Areas.

........ 3

- 14 5

Figure 3

- 2. Comparison of the Percentage of Harvested Cropland and Total 6

Pasture land in the Proposed Project Areas.

................................ ............... 3

- 15 7

Figure 3

- 3. Percent of Total Acres Enrolled in Conservation Programs, 2007.

.............. 3

- 17 8

Figure 3

- 4. Level III Ecoregions within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas.

.... 3

- 19 9

Figure 3

- 5. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 10

Birds, Insects and Mammals within and adjacent to the Proposed Project 11

Areas.

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 25 12

Figure 3

- 6. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 13

Fishes and Clams within and adjacent to the Prop osed Project Areas.

...... 3

- 26 14

Figure 3

- 7. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 15

Plants within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas.

......................... 3

- 27 16

Figure 3

- 8. Percent of Total Land Classified as Highly Erodible by County within the 17

Proposed Pr oject Areas.

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 31 18

Figure 3

- 9. Waters Listed on the State 303(d) Lists for Impaired Waters

...................... 3

- 34 19

Figure 4

- 1. Approximate Locations of Anticipated Producers within the Proposed 20

Project Areas

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

- 10 21

22

23**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **vii** ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1

2

AHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AOSCA Association of Seed Certifying Agencies

ARS Agricultural Research Service

BCAP Biomass Crop Assistance Program

BCF biomass conversion facilities

BMP best management practice

C carbon

CAA Clean Air Act

CCC Commodity Credit Corporation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

cm centimeter

CO carbon monoxide

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CWA Clean Water Act

EA environmental assessment

EIA Economic Impact Analysis

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERS Economic Research Service

FONSI f inding of no significant impact

FSA Farm Service Agency

g gram

GHG greenhouse gases

HEL highly erodible lands

HILD high

- input low diversity

HUC hydrologic unit

IPM integrated pest management

kg kilograms

kP A kilo Pascal

LIHD low

- input high diversity**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **viii**

LMM Lower Missouri

- Moreau

μ g/m 3 micrograms per cubic meter

m meter

m 2 square meter

MDNRAPCD Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Division

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO 2 nitrogen dioxide

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OSIA Ohio Seed Improvement Association

Pb lead

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PM 2.5 particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns

PM 10 particulate matter of less than 10 microns

PPA Plant Protection Act

QAP Quality Assurance Program

RES Renewable Energy Standard

ROD Record of Decision

ROI Region of Influence

SHPO State Historical Preservation Offices

SO 2 sulfur dioxide

TSP Technical Service Providers

USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WRA Weed Risk Assessment

WRP Wetland Reserve Program

1

2**PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 1**  

## 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1



### 1.1 **INTRODUCTION AND BAC KGROUND**  2

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 3

implement s the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) authorized by the Food, 4

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill)

. This legislation, which was 5

passed into law on June 18, 2008, creates the BCAP and authorizes the program through 6

September 30, 201 2

. BCAP is intended to assist agricultural and forest land owners and 7

operators with the establishment and production of eligible crops including woody biomass 8

in sele cted project areas for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection, harvest, storage, 9

and transportation of eligible material to designated biomass conversion facilities (BCF) that 10

produce or intending to produce heat, power, biobased products, or advanced biofuels. The 11

BCAP is administered by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs of the Farm Service 12

Agency (FSA) on behalf of the CCC with the support of other Federal and local agencies. 13

On October 27, 2010, the CCC published the Record of Decision (R OD) for the BCAP Final 14

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and the BCAP Final Rule (7 Code of 15

Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1450) in the Federal Register (FR 75:207, 65995

- 66007; 16

66202

- 66243). 17

As part of the mitigation measures detailed i n the ROD, each project proposal is subject to a 18

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public Law [PL] 91

- 190, 42 U.S. Code [USC] 19

4321 et seq .) analysis prior to approval of the project area proposal. The initial 20

environmental evaluation of a project area proposal is developed through the completion of 21

Forms BCAP

- 19, BCAP

- 20, BCAP

- 21, and BCAP

- 22 and supporting information. A fter this 22

initial evaluation FSA can conclude that no additional environmental analyses are applicable 23

due to no potential for the proposed BCAP activity to significantly impact the environment or 24

that additional environmental analyses in the form of an environmental assessment (EA) or 25

e nvironmental impact statement (EIS) are necessary

, depending upon the potential level of 26

significance. 27

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the proposed establishment of BCAP project 28

areas supporting the proposed establishment and production of gi ant miscanthus hybrid 29

( Miscanthus X giganteus) by the Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass Company LLC 30

(Project Sponsors) in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which is being completed 31**PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 2**  to meet the requirements of the NEPA environmental evaluati on of the BCAP or to 1

determine if an EIS would be required. 2

In 2008, the owners of Aloterra Energy LLC began laying the groundwork to expand their 3

fuel marketing, distribution, and logistics operations into the emerging biomass renewable 4

energy market. In 2010, Aloterra Energy’s owners purchased a farm in Conneaut, Ohio and, 5

with the help of an enthusiastic community, planted stock giant miscanthus. During this 6

same period, Aloterra Energy secured the largest stock of giant miscanthus rhizomes in the 7

Unit ed States and combined that with specialized giant miscanthus rhizome harvesting and 8

planting equipment manufactured in the United States

. Aloterra Energy’s owners are now 9

leveraging four decades of commodities and energy experience to form a vertically 10

i ntegrated energy supply chain, focused on giant miscanthus. Aloterra Energy’s proposed 11

project area will provide farmers an energy crop rhizome source, harvesting and planting 12

equipment for the crop’s rhizomes, specialty harvesting for the mature cane, pro cessing 13

technology, and marketing services for the cooperative’s biomass fuel. 14

Formed in 1929, MFA Oil Company is the largest farmer owned energy cooperative in the 15

State of Missouri. In 2008, MFA Oil began laying the groundwork to expand its energy 16

servi ces into the emerging biomass renewable energy market. That initiative came to fruition 17

in 2010 as MFA Oil teamed up with Aloterra Energy LLC to form MFA Oil Biomass LLC to 18

lead the cooperative into the biomass energy field. MFA is leveraging its knowledg e in 19

farming and in the energy markets to form a vertically integrated renewable energy supply 20

chain. MFA’s proposed project area will provide farmers an energy crop source, harvesting 21

and planting equipment for the crop’s rhizomes, specialty harvesting f or the mature cane, 22

processing technology, and marketing services for the cooperative’s biomass fuel. 23



### 1.2 **USDA NEPA GUIDANCE/AUTHORITY**  24

This EA is being prepared in accordance with the NEPA ( PL 91

- 190, 42 USC 4321 et seq .); 25

implementing regulations adopted by t he Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 26

1500

- 1508); and FSA implementing regulations, Environmental Quality and Related 27

Environmental Concerns

– Compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799). According to CEQ 28

guidance, an EA is a “concise document for which a Federal agency is responsible that 29

serves to (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to 30

prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 1508.9).” Additionally, 31

since this document falls under the guidance of the BCAP Final PEIS, which was a broad 32

national

- level program document, CEQ guidance allows for “tiering. ” CEQ guidance defines 33**PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 3**  tiering as, “the coverage of general matters in broader EIS with subsequent narrower 1

statements or environmental a nalyses incorporating by reference the general discussions 2

and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared 3

(40CFR 1508.28). 4



### 1.3 **PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION**  5

The primary purpose of BCAP is to promote the cult ivation of perennial bioenergy crops and 6

annual bioenergy crops that show exceptional promise for producing bioenergy or biofuels 7

that preserve natural resources and that are not primarily grown for food or animal feed. 8

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the establishment and production of giant 9

miscanthus as a crop for energy production to be grown by BCAP participants in the project 10

areas proposed in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The need for the Propo sed 11

Action is to provide renewable biomass feedstock to a Biomass Conversion Facility (BCF) 12

for use in energy production with and potentially outside the immediate region(s)

. 13



### 1.4 **ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT**  14

This EA assesses the potential impacts of the Propos ed Action and No Action Alternatives 15

on the potentially affected environmental and socioeconomic resources. 16

Section 1 provides background information relevant to the Proposed Action, and 17

discusses its purpose and need. 18

Section 2 describes the alternatives , including the Proposed Action, and compares 19

the alternatives

. 20

Section 3 describes the baseline conditions (i.e., the conditions against which 21

potential impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives are measured) for each of 22

the potentially affected re sources. 23

Section 4 describes potential environmental consequences on these resources. 24

Section 5 includes analysis of cumulative impacts and irreversible and irretrievable 25

resource commitments. 26

Section 6 discusses mitigation measures. 27

Section 7 is a lis t of references cited in the EA

. 28

Section 8 lists the preparers of this document

. 29

Section 9 contains a list of persons and agencies receiving this document and 30

contacted during the preparation of this document. 31

32**PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 4**  1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 1**  

## 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDI NG THE PROPOSED ACTI ON 1



### 2.1 **ALTERNATIVES DEVELOP MENT**  2

As part of t he BCAP Project Area Selection Process, the Project Sponsors develop a 3

proposal application for submittal to FSA. Prior to this submittal, the Project Sponsors have 4

likely determined the economic feasibility of their proposal, including developing alterna tives 5

for location and crop species. The Project Sponsors developed selection criteria to meet the 6

overall purpose and need for the Proposed Action, the establishment and production of giant 7

miscanth us as a dedicated energy crop for energy production unde r the incentives of the 8

BCAP. As part of the alternatives development process the Project Sponsors analyzed both 9

alternative crops and alternative locations for the proposed project areas. The following 10

sections describe each of these processes that were under taken by the Project Sponsors 11

during their planning phases and why certain aspects were eliminated as unfeasible 12

alternatives. 13

**2.1.1 Proposed**  **Crop Alternative s** 

**– Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated**  14

The Project Sponsors utilized two primary criteria to determine the proposed crop 15

alternatives within the proposed project areas. These selection criteria included: 16

(1) Potential Biomass Yield in Tonnage Produced per Acre

– This selection 17

criterion was closely tied to economic feasibility because obtaining a suf ficient 18

annual harvest is necessary to make the proposed project economically viable for 19

the Project Sponsors. Prior to the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Project 20

Sponsors were considering the results of a three

- year study conducted by the Ohio 21

Seed I mprovement Association (OSIA). When the 2008 Farm Bill was authorized, 22

the Project Sponsors felt the economic feasibility for United States markets had 23

reached the threshold necessary to make the proposed project viable. The Project 24

Sponsors were also co ncurrently reviewing data from the OSIA study that 25

evaluated the annual tonnage yield for the perennial grass giant reed ( Arundo 26

donax ) that is a native of Europe, several varieties of the perennial native 27

switchgrass ( Panicum virga tum varieties), and the perennial hybrid grass native to 28

Asia

, giant miscanthus. The results of the three

- year study with harvesting 29

conducted between 2007 and 2010 indicated that giant miscanthus was the 30

superior biomass producer of the eight crops or varieties tested and provided 31

approximately 1.5 to two times more annual tonnage of biomass than switchgrass; 32**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 2**  (2) Potential for Invasiveness

– The Project Sponsors subsequently became a 1

member of the OSIA and worked with them as an independent, third party

, to 2

develop a voluntary Quality Assurance Program (QAP) that included site visits at 3

their propagation locations, genetic tracing of their stock, and a records audit. In 4

their letter to the Project Sponsors dated March 4, 2010 that was submitted as part 5

of their BCAP application , OSIA concluded that the Project Sponsors proposed 6

giant miscanthus was a sterile triploid hybrid producing no viable seed at the 7

Conneaut, Ohio and Kansas propagation locations inspected. Furthermore, the 8

Project Sponsors’ QAP was submitted to the Assoc iation of Official Seed Certifying 9

Agencies (AOSCA), which is the national authority for seed certification for 10

additional verification. 11

Other crop types were eliminated from detailed study within this EA due to the increased 12

potential for environmental impacts associated with additional land use or conversion for 13

less efficient species or hybrids, potential additional water supply or demand requirements 14

for propagation and planting purposes, potential impacts on water quantity due to continual 15

irrigation needs, potential water quality impacts due to higher nutrient requirements, 16

potentially higher air emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases ( GHG ) due to 17

additional transportation, harvesting (e.g., ethanol production typically uses multiple h arvest 18

passes per field), and feedstock drying (e.g., associated with crop choices with more 19

moisture content when harvested) sources. 20

The Project Sponsors also considered the use of corn stover or residuals, which are heavily 21

used in the production of c orn ethanol

- based biofuels (e.g. included in the BCAP, but not as 22

an advanced biofuel). However, this option was not considered economically viable 23

because of the infrastructure required and time to acquire and construct this infrastructure, 24

which the Pro ject Sponsors are not well positioned to obtain on an economically viable 25

basis. The presence of other established market competitors already producing corn 26

ethanol

- based biofuels in the Midwest with multiple harvest passes per planted field that 27

have thi s infrastructure in place, is another reason that the corn option was considered but 28

not pursued. 29

30**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 3**  **2.1.2 Proposed Project Area Locations** 

**– Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated**  1

The Project Sponsors utilized several criteria to determine the proposed project lo cations. 2

These selection criteria included: 3

(1) R egional L ocation

- The Midwest was selected because the growing 4

requirements of giant miscanthus include rainfall of generally more than 30 inches 5

per year and winter conditions that would trigger plant dormanc y, generally less 6

than 32°F, usually associated with adequate snow cover to protect the rhizomes. 7

Additionally, the Project Sponsors also have a history within this region, which 8

provided familiarity with the region and the conditions, including climatic, 9

agricultural economy, use of renewable energy or the desire for the use of 10

renewable energy, and willingness to participate in the BCAP. Therefore, the 11

Project Sponsors considered Midwestern locations because this region provided 12

the only suitable match for the growing requirements of the proposed advanced 13

biofuels feedstock in the United States; 14

(2) A vailability of A dequate R ainfall to S upport P lanting P ropagation A cres

– 15

More specific locations within the Midwest were selected through the second 16

selection criterion , adequate rainfall to primarily support planting of propagation 17

acres, but also to support the longer term growth of planted giant miscanthus after 18

propagation. As indicated above, a minimum of 30 inches per year of rainfall is 19

considered the mi nimum along with adequate snow cover to support this species

. 20

Within the Midwest, the Project Sponsors selected the proposed project areas 21

because they all receive the minimum amount of rainfall ; 22

(3) P roximity of I nfrastructure for M arket T ransportation

- The proposed project 23

areas adopted the model that the outside borders of the proposed project area 24

should be located no further than 50 miles from the BCF to reduce emissions and 25

transportation costs to make the effort economical ly feasible for the prod ucers. 26

Therefore, the BCF locations were carefully chosen to be the center point of the 27

50

- mile radius within each proposed project area and the BCF location must 28

include access to rail, highway, and be within reasonable distance of ports for 29

water connec tion. T he proposed Ashtabula project area was selected due to the 30

established Aloterra Energy farm in Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio which was 31

in proximity of the Port of Ashtabula and rail connections to local pellet markets. 32

The other proposed projec t areas were selected for their proximity to current 33**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 4**  highway and rail transportation to support existing agricultural transport 1

mechanisms from cotton, corn, beans, and poultry farming ; 2

(4) E conomic F easibility

- The Project Sponsors used economic feasibility based on 3

the current dominant agricultural land use in the region and the value of that land 4

use in relation to potential yields for giant miscanthus payments under the BCAP. 5

For example, throughout large parts of all four states corn, beans, beef, and p oultry 6

are the dominant agricultural products based on the return price for individual 7

producers. 8

As a result, the Project Sponsors selected individual proposed project areas in 9

those states where there was a large amount of marginal land not currently u nder 10

production in any of the dominant agricultural products to avoid competition 11

between a potentially more economically feasible option (e.g. the current 12

agricultural use) and what the Project Sponsors are proposing. Due to the higher 13

return on more ara ble land in conventional crops or livestock, the Project Sponsors 14

recognized the importance of targeting marginal croplands and current pastureland 15

where returns for participating producers would be higher than the existing land 16

use, which could encourage greater participation. Additionally, based on existing 17

research and internal economic analyses the Project Sponsors determined that 18

giant miscanthus could economically produce on smaller acreages, potentially 19

benefitting a larger group of producers. 20

In Arkansas, however; in response to specific requests from local participating 21

farmers, the Project Sponsors are proposing to use some lands that are currently 22

used for corn or beef but are more marginally productive. The request to plant 23

giant miscanthus i s associated with the desire to reduce runoff from high input food 24

crops and to mitigate the unsustainable depletion of groundwater from current 25

farming practices , which could be creating additional costs to these producers ; 26

(5) A ccess to L ocal M arkets

– The P roject Sponsors decided that access to local 27

markets was key for developing relationships that would meet the need for future 28

renewable energy feedstocks. For example, the proposed Ashtabula project area 29

is within close proximity to the Port of Ashtabula and rail where the Project 30

Sponsors anticipate meeting the significant needs of the energy industry in Ohio 31

triggered by Renewable Energy Standard (RES) mandates. However, the 32

transporting of pellets to both the Canadian and European markets is a viable 33**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 5**  e conomic option should biomass supplies exceed regional needs. In central 1

Missouri, the Project Sponsors anticipate providing their anticipated supply to the 2

City of Columbia, which passed a local RES for city

- owned utilities, and the 3

University of Missour i, which is in the process of converting their coal

- fired power 4

plant to either a partial co

- firing or complete co

- firing based on advanced biofuels 5

feedstocks. In southwestern Missouri, the Project Sponsors anticipate selling the 6

bulk of their pellet sup ply to regional poultry producers who primarily rely on 7

propane gas to heat their poultry producing facilities, but often alter their operations 8

if the price of propane gas rises beyond economic feasibility thresholds

. 9

Other alternative locations were el iminated from detailed study within this EA due to the 10

increased potential for environmental impacts associated with increased transportation and 11

infrastructure impacts, increased air emissions including GHG and other criteria pollutants 12

regulated under th e Clean Air Act (CAA) , additional water demand requirements if a 13

suboptimal climate were chosen with insufficient water supply, additional water quality 14

impacts if a suboptimal site was chosen with additional nutrient demand that may affect 15

impaired waters under the Clean Wate r Act (CWA) in the region, and potential 16

socioeconomic impacts if a region with an economically superior crop alternative was 17

selected. 18



### 2.2 **ALTERNATIVES TO BE A NALYZED**  19

Alternatives considered to be reasonably expected to meet the purpose and need for action 20

i nclude the Proposed Action

. Even though the No Action Alternative would not meet the 21

purpose and need for the proposed action, it is included as the baseline for which the 22

Proposed Action is compared to determine the potential effects to the human and nat ural 23

environment and the potential significance of those effects, both positive and negative

. 24

**2.2.1 No**  **A ction**  **A lternative**  25

Under the No Action Alternative, that FSA would not establish the proposed project areas 26

supporting the establishment and production of giant miscanthus. This alternative would 27

leave existing agricultural production practices in place in the proposed project areas

. This 28

alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the BCAP, as these Project Sponsors 29

would not enter the voluntary program for the incentive to produce dedicated bioenergy 30

crops. Also, the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Action 31

as described in Section 1.3. 32**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 6**  **2.2.2 P**  **roposed A**  **ction** 1

Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass LLC (Project Sponsors) are proposing that FSA 2

establish four separate BCAP project areas to establish and produce giant miscanthus on 3

50,000 acres pe r proposed project area (200,000 total acres) over the life of the project (20 4

years or longer). The acreage targeted for enrollment into the proposed project areas are 5

marginal crop lands and current pastureland. The Project Sponsor defines marginal and idle 6

lands as the following: 7

Marginal

– This refers to the productivity status of the land due to economics, 8

geographic locations, topography, or other site conditions that render production of 9

high value food crops such as corn and soybeans not viable. 10

Idle

– Land not currently being cropped. 11

The proposed project areas are located in four states in four distinct proposed project areas 12

( Figure 2

- 1 ). Missouri contains two proposed project areas; Columbia and Aurora. 13

Arkansas contains one proposed proje ct area Paragould. Ohio and Pennsylvania contain 14

the final proposed project area, Ashtabula. The Project Sponsors have been in discussions 15

with producers to ensure the economic feasibility of the project proposal to FSA; however, 16

no producers have been a sked to provide commitments to the Project Sponsors or have 17

entered into a discussion with the FSA to become BCAP participating producers. As such, 18

the proposed project areas have some approximate locations of acreage to be included 19

within the first growi ng season, but those acres are not committed; therefore, the level on 20

analysis for this EA is based at the combined county proposed project area level. Each 21

proposed project area is named for the approximate location of the BCF that will be utilized 22

to pr ocess the giant miscanthus biomass into pellets to be shipped to other facilities or users 23

for use in bioenergy products. Each proposed project area was developed as an 24

approximate 50

- mile radius from the approximate location of each BCF. This 50

- mile ra dius 25

was developed based on the generalized research findings (as detailed in the BCAP Final 26

PEIS) that 50

- miles was generally considered to be the maximum distance biomass 27

feedstocks could be transported to a BCF and make the BCF economically viable. Pro ject 28

acres have been determined to be potentially located anywhere within the 50

- mile radius 29

developed from the proposed BCF located city. 30

31**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 7**  Figure 2

- 1

. Proposed Project Area Locations

. 1**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 8**  The Project Sponsors reserve the right to decline any acres within the eligible project area 1

that the Project Sponsors, the FSA, or the FSA technical partners’ determine cannot 2

produce giant miscanthus effectively without substantial environmental effects. This would 3

be determined through one of the following: the Project Sponsors’ initial site evaluations, the 4

environmental screening process for each participating contract, or through the conservation 5

or forest stewardship planning processes. The environmental scree ning process for each 6

project proposal begins with the completion of Form BCAP

- 22 Environmental Screening for 7

the Project Proposal. The conservation planning process for each participating producer 8

includes the completion of the Natural Resources Conserva tion Service (NRCS) Form CPA

9

052 with the assistance of either NRCS field personnel or a certified technical service 10

provider (TSP). 11

Additionally, per the BCAP Final PEIS and BCAP Final Rule, the collection, harvest, 12

storage, and transportation of biomass from the proposed project areas to the BCF are 13

included within the provisions of the BCAP Matching Payments Program; therefore, those 14

activities are not being analyzed as part of the Proposed Action (BCAP Final PEIS Chapter 15

1.3.2, page 1

- 6). The Matching Payment Program was determined not to be a major 16

Federal action per the NEPA definition since (1) there was no discretionary authority to 17

implement the program terms; it was implemented per the direct language of the 2008 Farm 18

Bill and (2) that the materia ls collected during the Matching Payment Program were currently 19

being utilized in the marketplace for a similar, if not the same, purpose. 20

**2.2.2.1 Methods for Establishment and Production of Giant Miscanthus**  21

The establishment and production of giant miscanthus ( Fi gure 2

- 2 ) would begin with 22

centralized propagation acres on each farm . Rhizomes from the propagation acres would 23

be distributed to plantation acres during the next growing season. During this planting 24

season (2011) only , this initial establishment would require a centralized location within each 25

proposed project area with center

- pivot irrigation due to the timing of late in the growing 26

season

. This centralized propagation area for the entire proposed project area would only 27

occur this planting season; al l other planting s eason s would follow the on

- farm model with 28

the initial establishment of propagation acres, followed by plantation acres the following 29

growing season , both without subsequent irrigation beyond 2011

. 30**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 9**  Giant m iscanthus is a triploid hybrid perennial warm

1

season grass developed through the crossing of 2

Miscanthus sinensis (diploid species) with M. 3

sacchiflorus (tetraploid species)

, both of which are 4

native to Southeast Asia. One species, Miscanthus 5

sinensis was introduced to the United States, as an 6

ornamental ; other species are not frequently being 7

used, including varieties of giant miscanthus, which 8

is currently being developed as a biofuel feedstock. 9

Yield s in North American research trials have 10

reached 17 dry tons per acre per year with minimal 11

inputs. The species is a sterile hybrid which does 12

not produce viable seed and is therefore propagated 13

vegetatively by rhizome div ision. Planting 14

equipment for B e rmudagrass ( Cynodon spp) or 15

specialty vegetable crops has been used to successfully establish g i ant miscanthus in 16

Midwestern United States . Harvesting is done in a manner similar to traditional hay crops, 17

but the equipment must be able to handle high

- yiel d crops. Table 2

- 1 summarizes best 18

practices for the e stablishment and management of g iant m iscanthus. 19

At the time of planting, rhizomes should be dormant. Viable rhizomes are firm, tan in color, 20

weigh 1.0 to 1.5 ounces, and have at least one visible bud. Soil moisture is a key to 21

establishment and supplemental irrigation in the first growing season is encouraged, but not 22

required. Fertilizer should not be applied in the first two growing seasons, unless planted on 23

in very poor soil, indicating one that lacks sufficient soil nutrients for crop growth or is a soil 24

type that readily leaches nutrients (e.g., high sand content). In research trials, giant 25

miscanthus has shown tolerance to common maize (corn) herbicides, Harness (Acteochlor) 26

and Harness XTRA ( Acteochlor + Atrazine) are currently the only herbicides labeled for use 27

in giant miscanthus. A complete kill of any existing vegetation must be completed before 28

the establishment of the crop. Stems of giant miscanthus can be 1⁄2

- inch in diameter, 12 feet 29

tall and as dense as 10 stems per square foot. 30

31 Figure 2

- 2

. Giant Miscanthus.**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 10**  Table 2

- 1

. Proposed Establishment and Production Methods for Giant Miscanthus 1

Former Land Use: Traditional Crops Former Land Use: Currently Idle or Pasture

Crop Establishment Year One

Deep tillage in Fall or early Spring with chisel

plow. Perform burn

- down using one application of non

selective herbicide.

Tillage immediately prior to planting with disk or

soil finisher to ensure fine seedbed. Deep tillage in Fall or early Spring with chisel plow.

Tillage with disk to break soil clods.

Plant rhizomes at depth of 4 inches and density

of 6,000 per acre. A post

- planting roller may be

required to ensure solid contact between soil and

rhizome. Tillage immediat ely prior to planting with disk or soil

finisher to ensure fine seedbed.

Apply Harness© or Harness XTRA© herbicide at

label rate, prior to emergence of weeds. A

second application may be made if weeds

emerge. Plant rhizomes at depth of 4 inches and densi ty of

6,000 per acre. A post

- planting roller may be

required to ensure solid contact between soil and

rhizome.

Mow biomass in late winter/early spring. Apply Harness© or Harness XTRA© herbicide at

label rate, prior to emergence of weeds. A second

applic ation may be made if weeds emerge.

Mow biomass in late winter/early spring.

Crop Establishment Year Two

Apply Harness© or Harness XTRA© herbicide at label rate, prior to emergence of weeds. A second

application may be made if weeds emerge.

Mow, rake, and bale biomass in late Fall/early Spring, prior to emergence of new shoots.

Crop Maintenance (Years 3

- 15)

Fertilize with Nitrogen (8 lbs. per dry ton of biomass), Phosphorus (1.5 lbs. per dry ton of biomass), and

Potassium (8 lbs. per dry ton of biomass)

Harvest annually, from December to March, using equipment such as a mower/conditioner and large

square baler.

Crop Removal

Following final biomass harvest, deep tillage with plow to break apart rhizome mass. Tillage, as

necessary, to break rhizomes and soil clods.

Plant glyphosate tolerant crop and apply glyphosate during growing season when giant miscanthus

shoots appear.

Harvesting equipment must be able to handle this high yield crop. Biomass harvest should 2

not occur until after first frost when nutrients have been translocated from the stem to 3

rhizome. For the 2012 growing season, live rhizomes would be transported from the 4

centralized propagation acres to the plantation acres within each proposed project area in 5

bags on pallets conta ined within enclosed, refrigerated trucks similar to the standard 6

process used to transport live plant materials long distances. For the 2013 growing, live 7

rhizomes would be transported from on

- farm propagation acres to on

- farm plantation acres, 8

there wou ld not be any long distance transport of live plant materials off farms. 9

Glyphosate and traditional tillage have been found to be effect eradication methods for giant 10

miscanthus though it may require more than one growing season for complete eradication 11

(Caslin et al. 2010, Anderson et al. 2009 , Anderson et al. 2011 ). Caslin et al. (2010) 12

recommend an application of glyphosate after emergence followed by tillage. Anderson et 13**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 11**  al. (2009) recommend a tillage depth of at least 10 centimeters to remove any l iving 1

rhizomes after herbicide treatment. 2

**2.2.2.2 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  3

For the spring of 2011, the Project Sponsors have obtained initial commitments from farmers 4

to plant between 50 to 300 propagation acres of giant miscanthus, which will be replante d 5

into plantation acres in 2012. A propagation acre is planted densely in order to quickly 6

generate rhizomes the following year which are then spread to cover additional acres. A 7

plantation acre is planted less densely and is intended to be used to harvest giant 8

miscanthus for biomass. The Project Sponsors will scale up to 50,000 acres of giant 9

miscanthus by 2014, which will enable the Project Sponsors’ conversion facility to process 10

600,000 tons of biomass each year ( Tables 2

- 2 and 2

- 3 )

. The Project Sponsors have a 11

small scale pellet mill in operation. This conversion facility has existing pelletizing 12

technology that is energy efficient, mobile, easy to maintain, and able to be scaled up b y 13

combining smaller units using one conveyor and control system

. As the economic feasibility 14

establishes, scalability greatly increases the probability of success as expenditures will meet 15

developing tonnage needs. Pellet markets are diverse and are stro ng both inside and 16

outside of the United States

. To that point; the Project Sponsors have giant miscanthus 17

contracts with a large biomass aggregator and a local residential pellet distributor

. 18

Table 2

- 2

. Proposed Giant Miscanthus Acres Added by Growing Season 2011

- 2014 19

Project Area 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Acres

2011

- 2014 Propagation

Acres Range Total Giant Miscanthus Acres Added

Ashtabula 50

- 300 2,275 13,500 35,000 50,000

Aurora 100

- 400 7,950 13,500 31,000 50,000

Columbia 100

- 300 6,450 13,500 33,000 50,000

Paragould 100

- 600 10,850 13,500 28,400 50,000

NOTE: 2011 is the only year that will have only propagation acres planted, total additional acreage per year 20

includes both propagation acres and plantation acres (2012

- 2014)

. 21

Source: Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 22

Table 2

- 3

. Estimated Biomass Tonnage by Production Year 2013

- 2017 23

Project Area 2013

- 2014 2014

- 2015 2015

- 2016 2016

- 2017

Total Biomass Tonnage Processed

Ashtabula 12,000 102,000 309,000 600,000

Aurora 42,000 156,000 414,000 600,000

Columbia 32,000 132,000 402,000 600,000

Paragould 57,600 187,200 429,600 600,000

Source: Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 24**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 12**  **2.2.2.3 Aurora**  **Proposed Project Area**  1

In the spring of 2011, the Project Sponsors have obtained initial commitments from farmers 2

to plant between 100 to 400 propagation acres of giant miscanthus, which will be replanted 3

into plant ation acres in 2012. MFA Oil Biomass will utilize its 40,000 cooperative members to 4

scale up to 50,000 acres of giant miscanthus by 2014, which will enable the Project 5

Sponsors’ conversion facility to process 600,000 tons of biomass each year. The Project 6

Sponsors’ conversion facility is utilizing existing pelletizing technology that is energy 7

efficient, mobile, flexible in maintenance and product, and able to be scaled by combining 8

smaller units using one conveyor and control system

. As the economic feas ibility 9

establishes, scalability greatly increases the probability of success as expenditures will meet 10

developing tonnage needs and pellet markets already exist, are diverse, and are inside and 11

outside of the United States

. To that point, the Project Spo nsors have giant miscanthus 12

tonnage contracts with farmers with commercial heating needs, and large scale aggregators 13

of biomass. 14

**2.2.2.4 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  15

For the spring of 2011, the Project Sponsors have obtained initial commitme nts from farmers 16

to plant between 100 to 300 propagation acres of giant miscanthus, which will be replanted 17

into plantation acres in 2012. MFA Oil Biomass will utilize its 40,000 cooperative members 18

to scale up to 50,000 acres of giant miscanthus by 2014, which will enable t he Project 19

Sponsors’ conversion facility to process 600,000 tons of biomass each year. The Project 20

Sponsors’ conversion facility is utilizing existing pelletizing technology that is energy 21

efficient, mobile, flexible in maintenance and product, and able t o be scaled by combining 22

smaller units using one conveyor and control system

. As the economic feasibility 23

establishes, scalability greatly increases the probability of success as expenditures will meet 24

developing tonnage needs and pellet markets already exist, are diverse, and are inside and 25

outside of the United States

. To that point, the Project Sponsors have giant miscanthus 26

tonnage contracts with farmers with commercial heating needs, and large scale aggregators 27

of biomass

. 28

**2.2.2.5 Par**  **agould Proposed**  **Project Area** 29

In the spring of 2011, the Project Sponsors have obtained initial commitments from farmers 30

to plant between 100 to 600 propagation acres of giant miscanthus, which will be replanted 31

into plantation acres in 2012. MFA Oil Bioma ss will utilize its 40,000 cooperative members 32**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 13**  to scale up to 50,000 acres of miscanthus by 2014, which will enable the Project Sponsors’ 1

conversion facility to process 600,000 tons of biomass each year. The Project Sponsors’ 2

conversion facility is utiliz ing existing pelletizing technology that is energy efficient, mobile, 3

flexible in maintenance and product, and able to be scaled by combining smaller units using 4

one conveyor and control system

. As the economic feasibility establishes, scalability greatly 5

increases the probability of success as expenditures will meet developing tonnage needs 6

and pellet markets already exist, are diverse, and are inside and outside of the United 7

States

. To that point, the Project Sponsors have giant miscanthus tonnage cont racts with 8

farmers with commercial heating needs, and large scale aggregators of biomass. 9



### 2.3 **RESOURCES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM**  **DETAILED ANALYSIS** 10

As mentioned previously, this EA is being tiered from the BCAP Final PEIS, as such certain 11

resource areas a re being excluded from this analysis consistent with the BCAP Final PEIS

, 12

due to little or no affects to these resource areas due to their absence within the proposed 13

project area s or limitations on effects by program guidelines. Those resources areas bei ng 14

excluded from this analysis include : 15

W etlands

– were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA since the conversion of 16

wetland is prohibited under BCAP; 17

Floodplains

– were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since there is little 18

potential for effect from agricultural production in floodplains; 19

R egulated C oastal Z ones

– were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since 20

the proposed project areas are not located within any coastal areas or managed 21

coastal zones; 22

P rime and U nique F armland

– were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, 23

since they are exempt from coordination with the NRCS due to the continued 24

agricultural production of these area s rather than conversion into other land uses; 25

Environmental Justice

– was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since a 26

determination at the programmatic level was undertaken in the BCAP Final PEIS and 27

it was found to not result in any disproporti onate effects to minority or low

- income 28

populations; 29

Cultural R esources

– was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since this is 30

a site specific issue and will be addressed during the completion of the 31**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 14**  environmental evaluation as part of the conse rvation or forest stewardship planning 1

requirement for each individual producer BCAP contract ; 2

Noise

– was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since the effects would be 3

minor, only temporarily occurring during activities, and would be similar to agricultural 4

activities currently taking place within the proposed project areas. 5

Additionally, other resources that were analyzed within the BCAP Final PEIS and are being 6

eliminated in this EA due to the minor and insubstantial effects that could occur f rom the 7

implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative include: 8

Air Quality

– was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA due to the similarity 9

between the proposed activities within each of the proposed project areas and 10

existing agri cultural activities within those areas. All counties located within the 11

proposed project areas are rural or semi

- rural and the majority of the land use in 12

these counties in agriculture. As such, the additional agricultural use anticipated to 13

be produced should not introduce any additional significant emissions. As such, the 14

project is not expected to significantly impact the air quality in the proposed project 15

areas. However, a quick analysis of the attainment status based on the National 16

Ambient Air Qu ality Standards (NAAQS) was conducted for each county within the 17

proposed project areas

. Pennsylvania has designations for the following criteria 18

pollutants: carbon monoxide ( CO )

, particulate matter ( PM 10 , PM 2.5 , ) 1

- hour ozone, 8

- 19

hour ozone, and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). All counties in the proposed project area are 20

designated as in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Missouri has designations for 21

the following criteria pollutants: lead ( Pb ) , 8

- hour ozone, and PM 2.5. According to 22

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Division 23

(MDNRAPCD), SO 2 designations are being released within the next month. All 24

counties in the proposed project area s are designated as in attainment for all criteria 25

p ollutants including SO 2 . Arkansas has designations for the following criteria 26

pollutants: Pb, SO 2 , (nitrogen dioxide) NO 2 , CO, PM 10 , and PM 2.5

. All counties in the 27

proposed project area are designated as in attainment for all criteria pollutants. 28

Ohio h as designations for the following criteria pollutants: CO, Pb, NO 2 , PM 10 and 29

PM 2.5 , 1

- hour ozone, and 8

- hour ozone. All Ohio counties in the proposed project 30

area were designated as in attainment for 1

- hour and 8

- hour ozone, PM 10 , Pb, NO 2 , 31

and CO. Geauga and Trumbell c ount ies are designated as in attainment for PM 2.5

. 32

However, Lake County is designated as in full non

- attainment for PM 2.5 and 33**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 15**  Ashtabula County as partial non

- attainment for PM 2.5 . Lake County and Ashtabula 1

County are part of the Cleveland

- Akron

- Lorain Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 2

174. PM 2.5 pollutants are considered f ine particles being less than 2.5 micrometers 3

in diameter. These particles are so small they can be detected only with an electron 4

microscope. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including 5

motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural 6

burning, and some industrial processes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 7

[EPA] 2011). The 2005 Emissions In ventory for Ohio (EPA 2006 ) indicates that Lake 8

County had 3,310 tons per year (tpy) of PM 2.5 emissions with electric generating 9

units accounting for greater than 80 percent of the pollutant load, non

- road emissions 10

(e.g., diesel engines from construction and agricultural equipment) accounted for 11

approximately 6.6 percent of pollutant load. In Ashtabula County 1,407 tpy were 12

monitored in 2005, with 27.1 percent generated from non

- road emissions, other 13

stationary sources accounted for 62 percent of the poll utant load. The Ohio 14

Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has requested a Clean Data assessment 15

from the EPA to remove the 1997 PM 2.5 nonattainment status for counties in Ohio 16

(OEPA 2010). The OEPA provided monitoring data from the Lake County air qual ity 17

monitor ing station that indicated that the three

- year average was 11.9 micrograms 18

per cubic meter of air ( μ g/m 3 ), which is below the 15 μ g/m 3 primary NAAQS 19

standard. There are no monitoring stations located in Ashtabula County. Overall, it 20

would be a nticipated that agricultural equipment necessary for the establishment, 21

harvesting, and transportation of giant miscanthus would provide a minimum amount 22

of the PM 2.5 particulate load within these two counties based on the high level of 23

electric generating units in Lake County and the proximity to the Cleveland, Ohio 24

metropolitan area. 25

Recreation

– was eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA, since the effect to 26

outdoor recreation was determined to be minor, on the whole, from the BCAP Final 27

PEIS and would be site

- specific based on the practices of the individual BCAP 28

contract producers. 29

30**ALTERNATIVE INCLUDIN G THE PROPOSED ACTIO**  **N**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **2**

**- 16**  

### 2.4 **COMPARIS ONS OF THE ALTERNATI**  **VES** 1

Table 2

- 4 provides a tabula r summary of the potential effects from both the Proposed Action 2

and No Action Alternative. As described previously, the No Action Alternative would not 3

meet the purpose and need as described, but is the baseline to which the Proposed Action 4

is compared t o determine effects to the analyzed environmental resource areas. 5

Table 2

- 4

. Comparison of the Alternatives 6

Resource Area Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Socioeconomics + minor 0

Land Use

- minor 0

Biological Resources

Vegetation

- minor 0

Wildlife

- minor 0

Protected Species 0 0

Soil Resources + minor (primarily during

establishment) 0/

- minor

Water Quality/Quantity

Water Quality + minor 0

Water Quantity +/

- minor 0

Note: 7

+ =positive

- =negative 0 =neutral 8

9**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 1**  

## 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (BY RESOURCE AREA) 1



### 3.1 **SOCIOECONOMICS** 2

**3.1.1 Definition of the Resource**  3

Socioeconomic analyses generally include detailed investigations of the prevailing 4

popul ation, income, employment, and housing conditions of a community or Region of 5

Influence ( ROI )

. The socioeconomic conditions of a ROI could be affected by changes in 6

the rate of population growth, changes in the demographic characteristics of a ROI, or 7

cha nges in employment within the ROI caused by the implementation of the proposed 8

action. 9

Socioeconomic resources within this document include general agricultural characteristics 10

associated with number of farms, acres of primary field crops, and revenues gen erated from 11

primary field crops

. Additionally, a brief analysis of rural population trends is discussed. 12

**3.1.2 Existing Conditions**  13

**3.1.2.1 Number of Farms and Land in Farms**  14

From 1997 to 2007 , the number of farms in the United States declined 0.5 percent ( USDA 15

2009 b). Most farm categories declined from 1997 to 2007, with the number of acres in 16

farms declining 3.4 percent, the average size of farms declining by 3.0 percent, the amount 17

of cropland declining by 8.7 percent, and the amount of harvested cropland acreage 18

dec lining by 2.9 percent ( Ibid ). The average market value of land and buildings increased 19

approximately 90.2 percent for the average farm and approximately 95.7 for the average 20

acre ( Ibid ). Farm production expenses also showed an increase of approximately 5 2.8 21

percent over the decade. When compared by type of farm, the largest number of farms in 22

the United States falls within the small family farm

– residential or lifestyle farm. For the 23

majority, the largest number of farms in the proposed project area s fall within the small 24

family farm

– residential or lifestyle farm ( Table 3

- 1 ). 25

26**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 2**  Table 3

- 1

. Number of Farms by Farm Typology, 2007 1

Location Item Total Small Family Farms

Large

family Very

large

family Non

family Limited

resource Retirement Residential/

lifestyle Farming

occupation/

lower sales Farming

occupation/

higher sales

Ark ansas

Arkansas Number 49,346 7,581 9,932 18,434 4,797 953 1,727 4,135 1,787

% 100 15 20 37 10 2 3 8 4

Clay Number 731 104 127 208 78 54 37 88 35

% 100 14 17 28 11 7 5 12 5

Craighead Number 1,191 56 253 111 34 38 545 110 44

% 100 5 21 9 3 3 46 9 4

Greene Number 770 93 164 290 79 26 34 63 21

% 100 12 21 38 10 3 4 8 3

Jackson Number 445 34 59 134 43 39 50 49 37

% 100 8 13 30 10 9 11 11 8

Lawrence Number 592 67 102 195 74 29 39 58 28

% 100 11 17 33 13 5 7 10 5

Mississippi Number 369 25 31 78 36 15 43 121 20

% 100 7 8 21 10 4 12 33 5

Poinsett Number 418 27 40 88 43 11 62 102 45

% 100 6 10 21 10 3 15 24 11

Randolph Number 766 149 135 340 69 8 12 42 11

% 100 19 18 44 9 1 2 5 1

Missouri

Missouri Number 108,098 15,785 23,491 42,987 12,525 3,931 2,810 2,861 3,708

% 100 15 22 40 12 4 3 3 3

Boone Number 1,322 180 264 648 112 20 23 12 63

% 100 14 20 49 8 2 2 1 5

Callaway Number 1,503 198 374 642 158 29 22 25 55

% 13 25 43 11 2 1 2 4

Cole Number 1,103 163 287 503 95 20 11 7 17

% 100 15 26 46 9 2 1 1 2

Cooper Number 942 110 175 363 114 40 53 34 53

% 100 12 19 39 12 4 6 4 6

Howard Number 867 101 175 373 100 46 26 13 33

% 100 12 20 43 12 5 3 1 4

Monite a u Number 1,138 136 242 477 130 44 25 47 37

% 100 12 21 42 11 4 2 4 3

Randolph Number 1,000 161 232 448 82 23 7 14 33

% 100 16 23 45 8 2 1 1 3

Audrain Number 1,102 96 198 386 157 89 80 57 39

% 100 9 18 35 14 8 7 5 4

Monroe Number 1,036 126 236 402 117 43 28 34 50

% 100 12 23 39 11 4 3 3 5

Barry Number 1,606 239 303 620 174 32 22 165 51

% 100 15 19 39 11 2 1 10 3

Christian Number 1,265 236 311 541 106 22 10 7 32

% 100 19 25 43 8 2 1 1 3

Dade Number 883 124 195 343 129 31 17 21 23

% 100 14 22 39 15 4 2 2 3

Jasper Number 1,369 207 302 546 177 48 14 35 40

% 100 15 22 40 13 4 1 3 3

Lawrence Number 1,873 275 343 802 261 60 24 48 60

% 100 15 18 43 14 3 1 3 3

Newton Number 1,590 244 378 643 168 26 12 84 35

% 100 15 24 40 11 2 1 5 2

Stone Number 753 125 147 349 90 10 8 8 16**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 3**  Location Item Total Small Family Farms

Large

family Very

large

family Non

family Limited

resource Retirement Residential/

lifestyle Farming

occupation/

lower sales Farming

occupation/

higher sales

% 100 17 20 46 12 1 1 1 2

Ohio

Ohio Number 75,861 9,670 15,071 30,434 8,989 3,556 3,087 2,781 2,273

% 100 13 20 40 12 5 4 4 3

Ashtabula Number 1,127 193 258 381 182 43 27 19 24

% 100 17 23 34 16 4 2 2 2

Geauga Number 888 152 142 326 202 16 14 7 29

% 100 17 16 37 23 2 2 1 3

Lake Number 259 47 47 78 33 11 7 12 24

% 100 18 18 30 13 4 3 5 9

Trumbull Number 970 170 232 348 127 33 22 9 29

% 100 18 24 36 13 3 2 1 3

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Number 63,163 10,230 11,755 22,563 7,533 4,644 2,589 2,003 1,846

% 100 16 19 36 12 7 4 3 3

Crawford Number 1,468 274 249 514 231 90 65 17 28

% 100 19 17 35 16 6 4 1 2

Erie Number 1,609 278 386 604 158 84 38 18 43

% 100 17 24 38 10 5 2 1 3

Mercer Number 1,210 216 253 421 166 76 33 20 25

% 100 18 21 35 14 6 3 2 2

Source: USDA, 2009 1

**3.1.2.2 Primary Field Crops**  2

The 2003 National Resources Inventory indicates that approximately 368 million acres 3

within the United States is cultivated cropland and 58 million acres is uncultivated cropland. 4

In 1992, those figures were 334 million acres of cultivated cropland and 47 million acres of 5

uncultivated cropland. Table 3

- 2 illustrates the amount of acreage planted of select primary 6

field crops in 2010 , along with harvested acres of those crops, and total production of the 7

crops (USDA 2009 ). As shown in the table, a majority of the counties had corn (grain) and 8

soybean planted, harvested and production in 2010

. 9

10**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 4**  Table 3

- 2

. Planted Acres, Harvested Acres, and 1

Production of Select Field Crops in the Project Counties (201 0)

. 2

Area Crop Type Planted Acres Harvested Acres Production

Arkansas

Arkansas

State Totals Corn ( G rain) 390,000 380,000 57,000,000

Cotton, Upland (2008) 620,000 615,000 1,296,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 40,000 35,000 2,695,000

Rice All (2008) 1,401,000 1,395,000 92,938,000

Soybeans 3,190,000 3,150,000 110,250,000

Wheat All (2008) 1,070,000 980,000 55,860,000

Clay Corn ( Grain ) 23,600 23,500 3,666,000

Cotton Upland, All (2008) 28,500 28,400 60,500

Rice All (2008) 76,200 75,300 5,208,100

Soybeans 103,500 103,000 3,900,000

Wheat, All (2008) 20,000 17,000 765,000

Craighead Corn ( Grain ) 20,200 20,200 3,426,000

Cotton, Upland (2008) 73,200 72,900 154,000

Rice All (2008) 79,000 78,500 5,385,100

Soybeans 105,500 102,700 3,976,000

Wheat All (2008) 25,000 23,000 1,220,000

Greene Corn ( Grain ) 11,100 11,000 1,749,000

Cotton, Upland (2008) 8,500 8,400 17,500

Rice All (2008) 80,500 79,900 5,446,300

Soybeans 76,400 75,400 2,405,000

Wheat All (2008) 19,000 18,000 850,000

Jackson Corn ( Grain ) 7,900 7,800 1,170,000

Rice All (2008) 95,000 93,600 6,229,800

Soybeans 129,000 124,500 3,104,000

Wheat All (2008) 57,000 52,000 2,330,000

Lawrence Corn ( Grain ) 1,800 1,800 288,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,200 1,000 30,000

Rice All (2008) 99,000 98,500 6,08,7,300

Soybeans 65,100 63,900 1,815,000

Mississippi Corn ( Grain ) 19,300 18,900 3,137,000

Cotton, Upland (2008) 179,500 177,800 371,200

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,200 1,100 62,000

Rice All (2008) 44,300 44,000 3,115,200

Soybeans 255,500 254,700 8,820,000

Wheat All (2008) 44,000 36,000 2,160,000

Poinsett Corn ( Grain ) 10,100 9,800 1,499,000

Cotton, Upland (2008) 39,800 39,600 88,000

Rice All (2008) 120,000 119,000 8,278,400

Soybeans 170,800 166,900 5,875,000

Wheat All (2008) 38,000 35,000 1,860,000

Randolph Corn ( Grain ) 4,900 4,900 637,000

Rice All (2008) 33,500 33,400 2,237,800

Soybeans 31,600 31,200 1,063,000

Missouri

Missouri

State Totals Corn ( Grain ) 3,150,000 3,000,000 369,000,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 4,200,000 8,820,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 40,000 33,000 2,574,000

Soybeans 5,150,000 5,070,000 210,405,000

Wheat All (2008) 1,250,000 1,160,000 55,680,000

Boone Corn ( Grain ) 25,700 24,400 2,806,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 44,000 86,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,000 900 64,800

Soybeans 40,500 39,900 1,643,000

Wheat All (2008) 12,400 12,200 569,600**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 5**  Area Crop Type Planted Acres Harvested Acres Production

Callaway Corn ( Grain ) 30,600 29,800 4,052,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 49,000 99,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,700 1,500 133,000

Soybeans 58,400 57,600 2,588,000

Wheat All (2008) 14,300 13,300 568,100

Cole Corn ( Grain ) 5,100 4,600 608,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 41,000 95,000

Soybeans 10,000 9,800 440,000

Cooper Corn ( Grain ) 48,600 47,800 6,231,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 34,000 70,000

Soybeans 70,800 70,400 3,177,000

Wheat All (2008) 20,900 20,400 1,120,000

Howard Corn ( Grain ) 34,700 33,700 4,157,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 28,000 59,000

Soybeans 41,900 41,600 1,839,000

Wheat All (2008) 10,500 10,300 453,800

Moniteau Corn ( Grain ) 11,300 10,800 1,198,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 52,000 112,000

Soybeans 21,200 21,100 981,000

Wheat All (2008) 7,400 7,000 298,500

Randolph Corn ( Grain ) 16,800 14,500 1,403,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 36,000 76,000

Soybeans 45,600 45,200 1,735,000

Wheat All (2008) 10,300 9,500 453,100

Audrain Corn ( Grain ) 94,800 91,500 11,186,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 25,000 57,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 4,200 3,900 302,000

Soybeans 167,000 164,900 7,451,000

Wheat All (2008) 37,400 36,300 1,785,000

Monroe Corn ( Grain ) 56,100 53,500 5,485,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 33,000 72,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,600 1,400 142,000

Soybeans 86,800 86,000 3,745,000

Wheat All (2008) 15,500 15,200 649,100

Barry Corn ( Grain ) 3,600 3,000 333,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 72,000 176,000

Soybeans 2,000 1,900 58,000

Wheat All (2008) 1,300 1,000 38,700

Christian Corn ( Grain ) 700 600 59,900

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 46,000 111,000

Dade Corn ( Grain ) 15,300 14,400 1,552,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 64,000 114,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 1,000 900 80,400

Soybeans 26,800 26,600 918,000

Wheat All (2008) 26,500 24,800 1,049,000

Jasper Corn ( Grain ) 29,000 28,100 3,615,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 58,000 109,000

Sorghum ( Grain ) 700 500 38,900

Soybeans 45,900 45,400 1,532,000

Wheat All (2008) 28,500 27,500 1,154,000

Lawrence Corn ( Grain ) 9,400 8,400 778,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 88,000 202,000

Soybeans 9,400 9,300 278,000

Wheat All (2008) 6,600 5,100 219,500

Newton Hay All (Dry) (2008) 87,000 204,000

Soybeans 5,100 5,000 137,000

Wheat All (2008) 4,200 3,100 129,600**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 6**  Area Crop Type Planted Acres Harvested Acres Production

Stone Corn ( Grain ) 500 300 26,800

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 19,000 34,000

Ohio

Ohio

State Totals Corn ( Grain ) 3,450,000 3,270,000 533,010,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 1,140,000 2,802,000

Oats 65,000 50,000 3,500,000

Soybeans 4,600,000 4,590,000 220,320,000

Wheat All (2008) 1,120,000 1,090,000 74,120,000

Ashtabula Corn ( Grain ) 20,200 19,200 2,965,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 27,000 71,700

Soybeans 32,000 31,800 1,588,000

Geauga Corn ( Grain ) 3,100 2,800 396,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 12,600 31,700

Oats 900 850 68,700

Lake Hay All (Dry) (2008) 3,200 5,800

Trumbull Corn ( Grain ) 19,900 18,600 2,974,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 15,200 36,300

Oats 2,100 2,020 165,000

Soybeans 26,300 26,200 1,220,000

Wheat All (2008) 6,000 5,800 400,200

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

State Totals Corn ( Grain ) 1,350,000 910,000 116,480,000

Hay, All (Dry) (2008) 1,750,000 3,810,000

Oats 110,000 80,000 4,720,000

Soybeans 500,000 495,000 20,790,000

Wheat All (2008) 195,000 185,000 11,840,000

Crawford Corn ( Grain ) 35,000 25,600 3,529,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 48,300 116,400

Oats 5,600 4,300 264,000

Soybeans 20,000 19,900 896,000

Erie Corn ( Grain ) 22,000 18,500 2,536,000

Oats 3,000 2,500 158,000

Soybeans 10,500 10,400 441,000

Wheat All (2008) 3,600 3,400 168,000

Mercer Corn ( Grain ) 38,000 32,000 4,677,000

Hay All (Dry) (2008) 35,700 88,400

Oats 4,300 3,500 208,000

Soybeans 17,700 17,600 825,000

Wheat All (2008) 4,200 4,100 214,000

Source: USDA 2009

**3.1.2.3 Primary Livestock Industries**  1

The primary livestock industries across the proposed project areas are cattle for all states in 2

addition to sheep in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Table 3

- 3 lists the most recent data on 3

livestock numbers by type and by county. Only Lake County, Ohio did not co ntain any 4

reportable or discloseable level of cattle. The Aurora and Columbia proposed project areas 5

contributed approximately 19.5 percent of all cattle in Missouri. Both the Paragould and 6

Ashtabula proposed project areas accounted for five percent or l ess for their state totals. 7

The Ashtabula proposed project area accounted for approximately three percent of the 8

sheep in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 9**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 7**  Table 3

- 3

. Primary Livestock Activities by 1

County within the Proposed Project Areas 2

Area Livestock Number of Head

Arkansas

Arkansas State Totals Cattle All (2010) 1,890,000

Clay Cattle All (2010) 8,200

Craighead Cattle All (2010) 12,300

Greene Cattle All (2010) 7,400

Jackson Cattle All (2010) 10,500

Lawrence Cattle All (2010) 18,200

Mississippi Cattle All (2010) 1,700

Poinsett Cattle All (2010) 2,000

Randolph Cattle All (2010) 35,500

Missouri

Missouri State Totals Cattle All (2010) 4,150,000

Boone Cattle All (2010) 30,500

Callaway Cattle All (2010) 39,000

Cole Cattle All (2010) 42,500

Cooper Cattle All (2010) 55,000

Howard Cattle All (2010) 25,500

Moniteau Cattle All (2010) 75,000

Randolph Cattle All (2010) 30,500

Audrain Cattle All (2010) 39,000

Monroe Cattle All (2010) 28,500

Barry Cattle All (2010) 83,000

Christian Cattle All (2010) 49,500

Dade Cattle All (2010) 60,000

Jasper Cattle All (2010) 51,000

Lawrence Cattle All (2010) 100,000

Newton Cattle All (2010) 74,000

Stone Cattle All (2010) 26,500

Ohio

Ohio State Totals Cattle All (2010) 1,280,000

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 125,000

Ashtabula Cattle All (2010) 18,700

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 600

Geauga Cattle All (2010) 7,800

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 1,300

Lake Sheep and Lambs (2008) 200

Trumbull Cattle All (2010) 11,800

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 200

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State

Totals Cattle All (2010) 1,620,000

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 98,000

Crawford Cattle All (2010) 42,500

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 2,000

Erie Cattle All (2010) 14,200

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 600

Mercer Cattle All (2010) 28,500

Sheep and Lambs (2008) 2,500

Source: USDA NASS 2011. 3

4**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 8**  **3.1.2.4 Rural Population Trends**  1

The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) found that by 2006 non

- metro counties in the 2

United States accounted for a population of approximately 50.2 million persons, which is 3

a pproximately 16.8 percent of the total United States population (ERS 2008; U.S. Census 4

Bureau [USCB] 2008). The general trend in these counties was a decline in the population 5

with over 51 percent of the non

- metro counties experiencing population declines of 6

approximately 0.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2006. 7

**3.1.2.5 Farm Income and Cost**  8

The ERS ( USDA 2011c ) indicated that net farm income in 2011 is projected to be above the 9

2010 forecast by 19.8 percent

. Net farm income was est imated to be approximately $94.1 10

billion in 2011 with net cash income of $98.6 billion. Total expenses in the agricultural 11

sector are anticipated to increase by $20.2 billion, exceeding $300 billion for the first time

. 12

Crop receipts were estimated to increase to $24.1 billion. 13

At the household level, the average family farm household income for 20 10 was estimated 14

to be $ 83,021

, an increase of 7.6 percent from 2009

. The ERS anticipates that in 2011 15

approximately 12.9 percent of average family farm hou sehold income was generated from 16

on

- farm sources with an average of approximately $ 75,178 of household income generated 17

from off

- farm sources ( Ibid ). 18



### 3.2 **LAND USE** 19

**3.2.1 Definition of the Resource**  20

Land use analysis primarily details the interactions of humans and their environment, both 21

natural and human

- induced. Such analyses address how different land uses currently 22

interact and if there would be conflict between new and existing land uses. In urban areas, 23

land uses are primarily controlled for public health an d safety concerns through land use 24

zoning mechanisms. In rural areas, land use restrictions may be developed at a county or 25

regional scale, or land use restrictions may not exist or be limited to special public health 26

and safety concerns. Land use within this document is being described as the acreage 27

within cropland and permanent pasture since these lands uses are being proposed for 28

conversion into a dedicated energy crop land use. 29**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 9**  **3.2.2 Existing Conditions**  1

The 2007 Agricultural Census estimates the amount of land in agricultural land uses in the 2

United States

. Table s 3

- 4 through 3

- 7 illustrate the agricultural lands defined by land use 3

categories and sub

- categories in the proposed project area counties. From land use 4

categories, harvested cropland as a percentage of total land in farms can be derived; 5

indicating harvested cropland is a dominant land use in the Ashtabula (52

. 5 percent) and 6

Paragould (81.7 percent) proposed project areas. In the Aurora ( 32.9 perce nt) and 7

Columbia (44.9 percent) proposed project areas , harvested cropland is a prominent land 8

use category; however, pastureland, of all types (cropland, pastureland; woodland, 9

pastured; and permanent pasture and rangeland) account for 55.4 perc ent and 29.3 percent 10

of the proposed project areas, respectively. 11

Figure 3

- 1 provides an illustration of percentage of total farmland in each of the proposed 12

project areas, while Figure 3

- 2 illustrates the percentage of cropland and pastureland with in 13

ea ch proposed project area. 14**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 10**  Table 3

- 4

. Farmland Land Use Categories and 1

Sub

- Categories for the Ashtabula Proposed Project Area 2

Land Use Type Ohio Ashtabula Geauga Lake Trumbull Pennsylvania Crawford Erie Mercer

(A cres 2007)

Approximate land area 26,149,825 449,244 256,106 146,267 395,084 28,631,687 648,136 509,921 429,980

Land in farms 13,956,563 161,698 56,558 16,065 125,136 7,809,244 232,093 173,125 171,860

Total cropland 10,832,772 106,255 29,541 10,126 87,440 4,870,287 139,526 101,698 111,556

Total woodland 1,473,638 34,898 14,389 2,931 21,631 1,717,791 55,047 41,485 32,028

Permanent pasture and

rangeland, other than

cropland and woodland

pastured 1,046,728 10,461 7,768 1,012 8,962 732,275 21,614 15,495 17,130

Land in farmsteads,

buildings, livestock

facilities, ponds, roads,

wasteland, etc. 603,425 10,084 4,860 1,996 7,103 488,891 15,906 14,447 11,146

Total Cropland

Harvested cropland 9,991,007 93,639 23,413 7,316 80,484 3,942,079 114,671 77,909 94,618

Cropland used only for

pasture or grazing 348,923 4,173 2,913 364 2,416 397,131 10,575 7,769 7,174

Other cropland 492,842 8,443 3,215 2,446 4,540 531,077 14,280 16,020 9,764

Cropland on

which all crops

failed 42,855 1,252 705 179 576 51,177 1,441 1,691 1,259

Cropland idle or

used for cover

crops or soil

improvement, but

not harvested and

not pastured or

grazed 449,987 7,191 2,510 2,267 3,964 443,785 9,550 13,449 7,404

Cropland in

cultivated summer

fallow

- - - - - 36,115 3,289 880 1,101

Total Woodland

Woodland not

pastured 1,194,513 32,299 12,072 2,772 18,603 1,567,607 49,293 37,227 28,084

Woodland pastured 279,125 2,599 2,317 159 3,028 150,184 5,754 4,258 3,944

Pastureland, All Types 1,674,776 17,233 12,998 1,535 14,406 1,279,590 37,943 27,522 28,248

Permanent pasture

and rangeland, other

than cropland and

woodland pastured 1,046,728 10,461 7,768 1,012 8,962 732,275 21,614 15,495 17,130

Cropland used only

for pasture or

grazing 348,923 4,173 2,913 364 2,416 397,131 10,575 7,769 7,174

Woodland pastured 279,125 2,599 2,317 159 3,028 150,184 5,754 4,258 3,944

Conservation Acres

- CRP, WRP, Farmable

Wetlands, and CREP 385,442 2,181 196

- 1,113 232,543 4,792 3,478 2,036

Source: Adapted from USDA NASS 2007 3

4**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 11**  Table 3

- 5

. Farmland Land Use Categories and 1

Sub

- Categories for the Aurora Proposed Project Area (2007) 2

Land Use Type Missouri Barry Christian Dade Jasper Lawrence Newton Stone

Acres (2007)

Approximate land area 43,974,665 498,075 360,110 313,616 408,645 391,510 399,846 296,980

Land in farms 29,026,573 289,626 189,177 276,229 258,815 322,822 245,892 121,792

Total cropland 16,405,595 114,244 76,040 127,080 135,730 150,703 107,943 36,790

Total woodland 4,414,396 51,481 33,465 28,031 21,199 33,879 33,989 28,625

Permanent pasture and rangeland,

other than cropland and woodland

pastured 6,864,391 113,402 71,100 114,815 88,631 126,177 93,902 53,240

Land in farmsteads, buildings,

livestock facilities, ponds, roads,

wasteland, etc. 1,342,191 10,499 8,572 6,303 13,255 12,063 10,058 3,137

Total Cropland

Harvested cropland 12,980,113 77,319 52,185 105,106 110,017 112,839 81,364 22,203

Cropland used only for pasture or

grazing 1,858,684 31,869 21,001 15,136 14,855 30,001 19,908 12,860

Other cropland 1,566,798 5,056 2,854 6,838 10,858 7,863 6,671 1,727

Cropland on which all crops

failed 118,387 526 (D) 721 2,039 364 961 224

Cropland idle or used for cover

crops or soil improvement, but

not harvested and not pastured

or grazed 1,374,183 4,212 2,213 5,571 8,421 6,779 5,540 1,503

Cropland in cultivated summer

fallow 74,228 318

- 546 398 720 170

-

Total Woodland

Woodland not pastured 2,548,059 20,690 14,363 7,466 9,159 15,156 14,288 12,122

Woodland pastured 1,866,337 30,791 19,102 20,565 12,040 18,723 19,701 16,503

Pastureland, All Types 10,589,412 176,062 111,203 150,516 115,526 174,901 133,511 82,603

Permanent pasture and rangeland,

other than cropland and woodland

pastured 6,864,391 113,402 71,100 114,815 88,631 126,177 93,902 53,240

Cropland used only for pasture or

grazing 1,858,684 31,869 21,001 15,136 14,855 30,001 19,908 12,860

Woodland pastured 1,866,337 30,791 19,102 20,565 12,040 18,723 19,701 16,503

Conservation Acres

- CRP, WRP,

Farmable Wetlands, and CREP 1,691,694 978 855 5,902 12,551 7,968 3,955

- Source: Adapted from USDA NASS 2007 3

4**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 12**  Table 3

- 6

. Farmland Land Use Categories and 1

Sub

- Categories for the Columbia Proposed Project Area (2007) 2

Land Use Type Missouri Audrain Boone Callaway Cole Cooper Howard Moniteau Monroe Randolph

(Acre s 2007)

Approximate land

area 43,974,665 443,029 438,428 534

, 121 250,525 360,999 296,862 265,616 414,507 308,737

Land in farms 29,026,573 424,880 258,734 322

, 929 180,840 302,429 276,590 242,946 288,293 221,647

Total cropland 16,405,595 337,854 152,527 166

, 339 79,523 189,065 172,316 122,630 183,346 119,856

Total woodland 4,414,396 26,308 38,532 63

, 853 42,655 39,984 38,944 37,496 44,391 37,022

Permanent pasture

and rangeland, other

than cropland and

woodland pastured 6,864,391 42,271 54,510 77

, 798 50,769 62,895 49,924 69,372 44,555 51,331

Land in farmsteads,

buildings, livestock

facilities, ponds,

roads, wasteland,

etc. 1,342,191 18,447 13,165 14

, 939 7,893 10,485 15,406 13,448 16,001 13,438

Total Cropland

Harvested cropland 12,980,113 308,285 121,717 135

, 285 59,816 151,755 131,709 89,403 142,075 86,479

Cropland used only

for pasture or

grazing 1,858,684 11,727 17,088 16

, 106 15,319 19,234 17,289 22,918 15,445 11,727

Other cropland 1,566,798 17,842 13,722 14

, 948 4,388 18,076 23,318 10,309 25,826 21,650

Cropland on

which all crops

failed 118,387 498 3,150 711 276 580 290 1,308 723 495

Cropland idle

or used for

cover crops or

soil

improvement,

but not

harvested and

not pastured or

grazed 1,374,183 16,053 9,865 13

, 287 3,346 15,641 22,468 8,634 24,016 20,626

Cropland in

cultivated

summer fallow 74,228 1,291 707 950 766 1,855 560 367 1,087 529

Total Woodland

Woodland not

pastured 2,548,059 18,201 25,395 42

, 574 16,492 21,187 26,166 14,153 30,449 25,164

Woodland

pastured 1,866,337 8,107 13,137 21

, 279 26,163 18,797 12,778 23,343 13,942 11,858

Pastureland, All

Types 10,589,412 62,105 84,735 115

, 183 92,251 100,926 79,991 115,633 73,942 74,916

Permanent

pasture and

rangeland, other

than cropland and

woodland

pastured 6,864,391 42,271 54,510 77

, 798 50,769 62,895 49,924 69,372 44,555 51,331

Cropland used

only for pasture or

grazing 1,858,684 11,727 17,088 16

, 106 15,319 19,234 17,289 22,918 15,445 11,727

Woodland

pastured 1,866,337 8,107 13,137 21

, 279 26,163 18,797 12,778 23,343 13,942 11,858

Conservation Acres

- CRP, WRP,

Farmable Wetlands,

and CREP 1,691,694 18,310 9,958 15,199 3,367 19,998 25,125 11,486 34,628 30,192

Source: Adapted from USDA NASS 2007 3**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 13**  Table 3

- 7

. Farmland Land Use Categories and 1

Sub

- Categories for the Paragould Proposed Project Area (2007) 2

Land Use Type Arkansas Clay Craighead Greene Jackson Lawrence Mississippi Poinsett Randolph

(acres, 2007)

Approximate land area 33,287,812 409,126 452,604 369,640 405,455 375,429 575,122 484,998 417,184

Land in farms 13,872,862 330,464 336,919 267,263 302,125 263,615 461,328 340,704 252,325

Total cropland 8,432,221 293,353 301,734 229,272 266,354 200,765 451,917 322,991 135,019

Total woodland 2,239,119 17,234 15,163 13,945 18,399 27,534 3,742 6,470 52,971

Permanent pasture and

rangeland, other than

cropland and woodland

pastured 2,637,556 13,236 12,381 14,053 12,563 30,408 3,332 4,537 59,884

Land in farmsteads,

buildings, livestock

facilities, ponds, roads,

wasteland, etc. 563,966 6,641 7,641 9,993 4,809 4,908 2,337 6,706 4,451

Total Cropland

Harvested cropland 7,367,068 279,480 290,968 215,891 250,327 184,410 440,967 316,213 109,715

Cropland used only for

pasture or grazing 724,044 4,331 4,046 4,649 5,964 10,727 5,288 4,005 21,438

Other cropland 341,109 9,542 6,720 8,732 10,063 5,628 5,662 2,773 3,866

Cropland on

which all crops

failed 47,770 935 1,296 849 1,699 785 1,812 568 217

Cropland idle or

used for cover

crops or soil

improvement, but

not harvested and

not pastured or

grazed 259,318 8,478 4,135 6,058 6,769 3,963 1,843 1,484 3,431

Cropland in

cultivated

summer fallow 34,021 129 1,289 1,825 1,595 880 2,007 721 218

Total Woodland

Woodland not

pastured 1,496,471 13,107 12,879 9,153 15,092 16,614 3,657 5,068 29,190

Woodland pastured 742,648 4,127 2,284 4,792 3,307 10,920 85 1,402 23,781

Pastureland, All Types 4,104,248 21,694 18,711 23,494 21,834 52,055 8,705 9,944 105,103

Permanent pasture

and rangeland, other

than cropland and

woodland pastured 2,637,556 13,236 12,381 14,053 12,563 30,408 3,332 4,537 59,884

Cropland used only

for pasture or

grazing 724,044 4,331 4,046 4,649 5,964 10,727 5,288 4,005 21,438

Woodland pastured 742,648 4,127 2,284 4,792 3,307 10,920 85 1,402 23,781

Conservation Acres

- CRP, WRP, Farmable

Wetlands, and CREP 441,655 11,054 2,647 3,366 6,575 4,389 14,477 1,810 10,273

Source: Adapted from USDA NASS 2007 3

4**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 14** 

Figure 3

- 1

. Percent of Farmland Acres by County in the Proposed Project Areas

. 1**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 15**  Figure 3

- 2

. Comparison of the Percentage of Harvested Cropland and Total 1

Pastureland in the Proposed Project Areas. 2**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 16**  Table 3

- 8 and Figure 3

- 3 illustrates the farmland Enrolled in Conservation Reserve 1

Program (CRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Farmable Wetlands, or Conservation 2

Reserve Enhancement Programs (CREP) in the proposed project areas. There was 3

approximately 54,591 acres enrolled in to conservation programs within the Paragould 4

proposed project area, 168,263 acres within the Columbia proposed project area, 32,209 5

acres within the Aurora proposed project area, and 13,796 acres within the Ashtabula 6

proposed project area. 7

Table 3

- 8

. Farmland Enrolled in CRP, WRP, 8

Farmable Wetlands, or CREP in the proposed project areas. 9

County Acres enrolled in Conservation Practices Percent of total acres

Arkansas

Clay 11,054 2.7

Craighead 2,647 0.6

Greene 3,366 0.9

Jackson 6,575 1.6

Lawrence 4,389 1.2

Mississippi 14,477 2.5

Poinsett 1,810 0.4

Randolph 10,273 2.5

Missouri

Audrain 18,310 4.1

Boone 9,958 2.3

Callaway 15,199 2.8

Cole 3,367 1.3

Cooper 19,998 5.5

Howard 25,125 8.4

Moniteau 11,486 4.3

Monroe 34,628 8.4

Randolph 30,192 9.8

Barry 978 0.2

Christian 855 0.2

Dade 5,902 1.9

Jasper 12,551 3.1

Lawrence 7,968 2.0

Newton 3,955 1.0

Stone 0 0.0

Ohio

Ashtabula 2,181 0.5

Geauga 196 0.1

Lake 0 0.0

Trumbull 1,113 0.3

Pennsylvania

Crawford 4,792 0.7

Erie 3,478 0.7

Mercer 2,036 0.5

Source: Adapted from PAPO 2011a, PAPO 2011b, PAPO 2011c, PAPO 2011d

10**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 17**  Figure 3

- 3

. Percent of Total Acres Enrolled in Conservation Programs, 2007

. 1**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 18**  

### 3.3 **BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES** 1

**3.3.1 Vegetation**  2

**3.3.1.1 Definition of the Resource**  3

Vegetation refers to the plants

, both native and introduced, of a specific region. 4

**3.3.1.2 Existing Conditions**  5

**3.3.1.2.1 Ecoregions**  6

For this project, the Level I II Ecoregions will be used to illustrate the natural vegetation of 7

each proposed project area

. Figure 3

- 4 illustrates the ecoregions within and adjacent to the 8

proposed project areas. 9

**3.3.1.2.1.1 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  10

This proposed project area is dominated by the Erie Drift Ecoregion, characterized by low 11

rounded hills, scattered end moraines and areas of we tlands. The area was historically 12

cover ed by maple

- beech

- birch forests but much of the area has been converted to farms. A 13

small portion of this proposed project area is also covered by the Eastern Great Lakes and 14

Hudson Lowlands Ecoregion. This region is a coastal strip of beach ridges and swales. 15

This area has also been converted to farming, with a large percentage of agriculture 16

associated with dairy operations ( EPA 2011)

. 17

**3.3.1.2.1.2 Aurora**  **Proposed Project Area**  18

This proposed project area is loca ted within the Ozark Highlands E coregion. Topography 19

varies from steep slopes near the large streams to moderate relief hills on the broad 20

plateaus or inter

- stream areas. The m ajority of the region is open forest or woodlands, 21

dominated by oak or mixed stands of oak a nd pine. Cleared upland areas are used for 22

pasture and livestock ( EPA 2011)

. 23

**3.3.1.2.1.3 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  24

This proposed project area is covered by three E coregions, Central Irregular Plains, Interior 25

River Valleys and Hills

, and Ozark Highlands. The Cent ral Irregular Plains have a mix of 26

land uses. The potential natural vegetation is a grassland/woodland mosaic with wider 27

wooded strips along the streams. The grasslands are dominated mostly by tallgrass 28

prairies. This area has now been converted to extensive cropland and pastureland. The 29

30**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 19**  Figure 3

- 4

. Level III Ecoregions within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas

. 1**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 20**  Interior River Valleys and Hills E coregion is made up of many wide, flat

- bottomed, terraced 1

valleys, forested valley slopes, and dissected glacial

- till plains. This region is generally a 2

transitional area between the more forested areas in the Ozarks, and the flatter plains and 3

more exten sive cropland of regions to the north. The Ozarks Highlands are covered by 4

forest or woodlands, dominated by oak or mixed stands of oak and pine ( EPA 2011)

. 5

**3.3.1.2.1.4 Paragould**  **Proposed Project Area**  6

The proposed project area is dominated by the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Ecoregion, and to a 7

lesser extent the Mississippi Valley Loess Plain. The Mississippi Alluvial Plain is located 8

along the Mississippi River from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers southward 9

to the Gulf of Mexico. This area is a broa d, nearly level, agriculturally

- dominated plain that 10

provides important habitat for fish and wildlife, and includes the largest continuous system of 11

wetlands in North America. The Mississippi Alluvial Plains is also a major bird migration 12

corridor used in fall and spring migrations. Historically, the vegetation in this area is 13

bottomland hardwood forest and woodlands. Today many parts of the Mississippi Alluvial 14

Plains have been cleared for cropland. 15

The Mississippi Valley Loess Plain is a small area in eastern Arkansas is composed of a 16

small series of loess

- capped hills surrounded by the Mississippi Plain. The area is made up 17

of woodland and pastureland dominated by post oak

– blackjack oak forest, southern red 18

oak

– white oak forest and beech

– maple forest ( EPA 2011)

. 19

**3.3.1.2.1 Invasive and Noxious Plant Species**  20

Current agricultural and conservation practices include the planting of native and introduced 21

species and control or eradication of invasive or noxious species. The Executive Order ( EO ) 22

13112 , Invasive Species, directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive 23

species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human 24

health impacts that invasive species cause unless the benefits of the introduction or spread 25

of the invasive species clearly outweigh potential harms. In addition, the Plant Protection 26

Act ( PPA ) , which became law in June 2000 as part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, 27

consolidated all or part of 10 existing laws, applicable to USDA activit ies, into one 28

comprehensive law, including the authority to regulate plants, plant products, certain 29

biological control organisms, noxious weeds, and plant pests (APHIS 2002). EO 13112 30

defines native species as a species that, with respect to a particular ecosystem, other than 31

as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. An 32

alien or non

- native species is any species, with respect to a particular ecosystem, including 33**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 21**  its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biologic al material capable of propagating that species, that 1

is not native to that ecosystem; an invasive species is a nonnative “species whose 2

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 3

health” (EO 13112). The PPA de fines a noxious weed as any plant or plant product that can 4

directly or indirectly bring harm to agriculture, the public health, navigation, irrigation, natural 5

resources, or the environment; this Act expands the definition of noxious weed from the 6

definit ion in the 1974 Federal Noxious Weed Act, which included only weeds that were of 7

foreign origin, new to, or not widely prevalent in the United States (APHIS 2002). Noxious 8

weeds are identified and listed on State and Federal lists. 9

Invasive plant species can have significant negative impacts on biological resources 10

including decreases in native wildlife and plant species populations, alterations to rare plant 11

communities, or changing ecological processes that native plant species and other desirable 12

plants and wildlife depend on for survival (including impacts upon native pollinators) (NISC 13

2008). Invasive plant species could potentially cause or vector decimating plant diseases, 14

prevent native and agricultural species from reproducing, suppress the growth of 15

neighboring plants, out

- compete desirable species for nutrients, light, moisture or other vital 16

resources; and adversely impact erosion rates, hydrologic regimes and soil chemistry such 17

as pH and nutrient availability. Natural wildfire cycles could al so be altered; invasions by 18

fire

- promoting grasses could alter entire plant communities, eliminating or sharply reducing 19

populations of many native plant species ( Ibid ). 20

Eradication or control of invasive and noxious species can be an arduous task often 21

i ncluding multiple methods of treatment to be effective. The application of herbicide, 22

grazing, burning, mechanical or manual control (cutting, excavating), and mowing are all 23

methods that can be used to control and eradicate invasive species. While it ma y not be 24

possible to fully eradicate an invasive plant species, management activities can control 25

further spread or takeover. Some species of invasive plants require timed treatment for 26

eradication or control such as when the plant is dormant, young, or p rior to 27

flowering/seeding. Additionally, vegetation may become accustomed to certain methods of 28

control and other methods may be required to aid in management (NRCS Practice Standard 29

595, Pest Management). 30

Giant miscanthus is not listed on any of the proposed project areas State (Arkansas, 31

Missouri, Ohio

, or Pennsylvania ) list of noxious weeds as of March 2011 , this may be 32

partially due to the fact that this species has not had widespread distribution in a localized or 33**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 22**  regional level; however, this is the most recent listing for these states . This species is also 1

not listed on the Federal Noxious Weed List as of March 2011. Two species of Miscanthus 2

(M. floridulus and M. sinensis ) , one of which is a parent species of the hybrid being 3

proposed by the P roject Sponsors, are listed on the Federal Invasive species list as of 4

March 2011. 5

**3.3.2 Wildlife**  6

**3.3.2.1 Definition of the Resource**  7

Wildlife refers to the animal species (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, 8

and fish/shellfish), both native and introdu ced, which characterize a region. 9

**3.3.2.2 Existing Conditions**  10

**3.3.2.2.1 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  11

Major wildlife species in this area include muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus ) , beaver ( Castor 12

canadensis ), least shrew ( Cryptotis parva ), least weasel ( Mustela nivalis ), mink ( Mustela 13

vison ), southern bog lemming ( Synaptomys cooperi ), Virginia opossum ( Didelphis 14

virginiana ), white tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), striped skunk ( Mephitis mephitis ), 15

American bittern ( Botaurus lentiginosus ), alder flycatcher ( Empidonax alnor um ), American 16

black duck ( Anas rubripes ), Canada goose ( Branta c anadensis ), great egret ( Ardea alba ), 17

least bittern ( Ixobrychus exilis ), and least sandpiper ( Calidris minutilla ). Fish of importance, 18

including common game fish, across the area include smallmouth bass ( Micropterus 19

dolomieu ), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), white sucker ( Catostomus commersonii ), and 20

stonecat madtom ( Noturus flavus ) (ODNR 2011a). 21

**3.3.2.2.2 Aurora**  **Proposed Project Area**  22

Major wildlife species in the area include white

- tailed deer, eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus 23

floridanus ), raccoon ( Procyon lotor ), wood duck ( Aix sponsa ), wild turkey ( Meleagris 24

gallopavo ), smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides salmoides ). 25

Several prairie species, such as black

- tailed jackrabbit s ( Lepus californicus ) and prairie 26

chickens ( Tympanuchus cupido ), inhabit small areas of the original tall grass prairie 27

Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). 28

**3.3.2.2.3 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  29

Major wildlife species in this Area inc lude white

- tailed deer, coyote ( Canis latrans ) , gray fox 30

( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ) , red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ), beaver

, raccoon

, skunk , muskrat, 31**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 23**  opossum

, mink

, rabbit , fox squirrel ( Sciurus niger ) , gray squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis )

, 1

Canada goose , bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) , turkey vulture ( Cathartes aura )

, 2

turkey, woodcock ( Scolopax minor ) , great horned owl ( Bubo virginianus )

, wood duck

, 3

pileated woodpecker ( Dryocopus pileatus ) , red

- bellied woodpecker ( Melanerpes carolinus )

, 4

ring

- necked pheas ant ( Phasianus colchicus ) , and bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) . Fish 5

of importance, including common game fish, across the a rea include carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), 6

catfish

, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) , crappie 7

( Pomoxis sp.), and sunfish ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 8

2011 )

. 9

**3.3.2.2.4 Paragould**  **Proposed Project Area**  10

Across this are, major wildlife species in this Area include white

- tailed deer, coyote, gray fox, 11

red fox, raccoon, skunk, muskrat, cottont ail rabbit, fox squirrel, bobwhite quail and mourning 12

dove. Fish of importance , including common game fish, across the Area include carp, 13

bullhead, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, and crappie ( Confidential Application 14

for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 )

. 15

**3.3.3 Protected Species**  16

**3.3.3.1 Definition of the Resource**  17

Protected species are those Federally designated as threatened or endangered under the 18

ESA or species that are considered candidates for being listed as threatened or 19

endangered

. Critical habitat is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area 20

occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features 21

essential to conservation, and those features may require special management 22

considerations or p rotection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 23

by the species if the agency determines that the area itsel f is essential for conservation 24

(USFWS 2008a). 25

**3.3.3.2 Existing Conditions**  26

Table 3

- 9 lists the Federally

- listed t hreatened and /or e ndangered species that could be 27

present in the proposed project area counties. Figures 3

- 5 through 3

- 7 illustrate the 28

potential ranges of Federally

- listed species within the proposed project areas. 29

30**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 24**  Table 3

- 9

. Federally

- Listed Threatened and/or Endangered Species that Could 1

Potentially occur within the Proposed Project Areas 2

Category Species

– Common Name (Scientific Name) T/E Counties

Aurora

Fishes /

Clams Ozark cavefish

( Amblyopsis rosae ) T Barry, Jasper, Lawrence, Newton,

Stone

Neosho madtom ( Noturus placidus ) T Jasper

Plants Missouri bladderpod ( Physaria filiformis ) T Christian, Dade, Lawrence

Mead's milkweed ( Asclepias meadii ) T Dade

No common name ( Geocarpon minimum ) T Dade, Jasper, Lawrence

Western prairie fringed Orchid

( Plantanthera praeclara ) T Jasper, Lawrence

Running buffalo clover ( Trifolium stoloniferum ) E Barry, Christian, Dade, Jasper

Mammals Ozark big

- eared bat

( Corynorhinus(=Plecotus) townsendii ingens ) E Barry, Stone

Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) E Barry, Christian, Stone

Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens ) E Barry, Christian, Dade, Jasper,

Lawrence, Newton, Stone

Insects American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ) E Newton

Columbia

Fishes /

Clams Pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) E Boone, Cole, Cooper, Moniteau

Topeka shiner

( Notropis topeka (= tristis )) E Boone, Cole, Cooper, Moniteau,

Randolph

Pink mucket (pearly mussel) ( Lampsilis abrupta ) E Cole

Plants Virginia sneezeweed ( Helenium virginicum ) T Boone

Running buffalo clover ( Trifolium stoloniferum ) E Boone, Cole, Cooper, Moniteau

Mammals Indiana bat

( Myotis sodalis ) E Audrain, Boone, Cooper, Monroe,

Randolph

Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens ) E Boone, Cole

Paragould

Birds Interior Least Tern ( Sterna antillarum athalassos ) E Mississippi

Fishes /

Clams Pink mucket (pearly mussel) ( Lampsilis abrupta ) E Clay, Randolph, Lawrence, Jackson

Fat pocketbook ( Potamilus capax ) E Craighead, Mississippi, Poinsett

Curtis pearlymussel ( Epioblasma florentina curtisii ) E Lawrence

Scaleshell mussel ( Leptodea leptodon ) E Lawrence

Pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) E Mississippi

Plants Pondberry ( Lindera melissifolia ) E Lawrence

Mammals Gray bat (Myotis grisescens ) E Lawrence

Ashtabula

Birds Kirtland's Warbler ( Dendroica kirtlandii ) E Ashtabula, Lake, Crawford, Erie

Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) E Ashtabula, Lake, Erie

Fishes /

Clams Clubshell mussel

( Pleurobema clava ) E Ashtabula, Trumbull, Crawford, Erie,

Mercer

Northern riffeshell mussel

( Epioblasma torulosa rangiana ) E Crawford, Erie, Mercer

Mammals Indiana bat

( Myotis sodalis ) E Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Trumbull,

Crawford, Erie, Mercer

Source: Adapted from PAPO 2011a, PAPO 2011b, PAPO 2011c, PAPO 2011d 3**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 25**  Figure 3

- 5

. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 1

Birds, Insects and Mammals within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas. 2**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 26**  Figure 3

- 6

. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 1

Fishes and Clams within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas. 2**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 27**  Figure 3

- 7

. Potential Ranges of Federally

- listed Threatened and/or Endangered 1

Plants within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Areas. 2**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 28**  **3.3.3.2.1 Ashtabula Proposed Project Area**  1

A review of Federally

- listed protected (threatened and/or endangered) species based on the 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data indicate that four Federally

- listed endangered 3

species have the potential to occur in Ohio counties within the proposed project area. The 4

Clubshell mussel ( Pleurobema clava ) has the potential to occur in Ashtabula and Trumbull 5

Counties; the Kirtland’s warbler ( Dendroica kirtlandii ) and Piping plover ( Charadrius 6

melodus ) have the potential to occur in Ashtabula and Lake Counties; and the Indiana bat 7

( Myotis sodalis ) has the potential to occur in Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, and Trumbull 8

counties. 9

The Clubs hell mussel is known from Pymatunig Creek in Ashtabula County, Ohio, but no 10

other counties within the proposed project area in Ohio. Kirtland’s warblers are not currently 11

known from any of the counties within the proposed project area in Ohio. The Great Lakes 12

population of Piping plovers is only known from the Headland Dunes area of coastal Lake 13

County, but no other counties within the proposed project area in Ohio. According to the 14

Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007) for Indiana bats, there are known summe r roosts in 15

Ashtabula County in Ohio. Of those Federally

- listed species with the potential to occur within 16

the proposed project area, only the Federally endangered Piping plover has designated 17

Critical Habitat in Ohio in Lake County. However, this Critica l Habitat is designated within 18

the Headland Dunes Nature Preserve and not in any areas that will be used for agricultural 19

purposes. No other Federally

- listed endangered species with the potential to occur in the 20

Ohio portion of the proposed project areas have designated Critical Habitat in these 21

counties ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). 22

**3.3.3.2.2 Aurora**  **Proposed Project Area**  23

Three plants on the Federal list of threatened and endangered species are identified within 24

grasslands in th e proposed project areas

. The Missouri bladder pod ( Physaria filiformis ) has 25

been found in glades and pastureland, and the Mead’s milkweed ( Asclepias meadii ) is found 26

in association with tallgrass prairie lands. Western prairie fringed orchid ( Platanthera 27

praeclara ) is also associated with grasslands, specifically damp, tallgrass prairies. 28

Geocarpon ( Geocarpon minimum ) is also associated with glades. Many listed plants thrive 29

on periodic disturbance, including mowing and burning. 30

Mammals associated with this proposed project area include three bat species. Both 31

Indiana and gray bats forage over bodies of water and use wooded corridors adjacent to 32

water as roosting sites. The Ozark big

- eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii ingens ) may no 33**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 29**  longer exist in Missouri. However, the other bat species have been known to overwinter in 1

limestone caves ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). 2

**3.3.3.2.3 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  3

Fishes and clams are associated with water and re quire high water quality. Plants listed in 4

association with the Columbia proposed project area are primarily associated with mesic 5

areas. Mammals associated with this proposed project area include two bat species, the 6

Indiana bat and the Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens ). Both species forage over bodies of water 7

and use wooded corridors adjacent to water as roosting sites. Indiana bat may also 8

overwinter in limestone caves ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 9

2011 ). 10

**3.3.3.2.4 Paragould**  **Proposed P**  **roject Area** 11

The listed bird species prefers habitat adjacent to bodies of water that have sandbars or 12

sand/gravel pit areas. Listed fishes/clams are associated with water and water quality. The 13

Gray bat will forage over bodies of water and use wooded corr idors adjacent to water as 14

roosting sites ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). 15



### 3.4 **SOIL RESOURCES** 16

**3.4.1 Definition of the Resource**  17

Soils are a natural body made up of weathered minerals, organic matter, air and water. 18

Soils are formed mainly by the weathering of rocks, the decaying of plant matter, and the 19

deposition of materials such as chemical and biological fertilizers that are derived from other 20

origins. Soils are differentiated based on characteristics such as particle size, text ure and 21

color, and classified taxonomically into soil orders based on observable properties such as 22

organic matter content and degree of soil profile development (Brady and Weil 1996). Soil 23

taxonomy was established to classify soils according to the relat ionship between soils and 24

the factors responsible for their character ( NRCS 1999). For the purpose of this project, the 25

soil resources will be discussed based on the soil classification in the particular proposed 26

project area

. 27

Soil erosion is a naturally occurring event and the erosion rates are relatively slow; however, 28

human activity can greatly accelerate the rate of erosion. Poor farming practices, loss of 29

vegetation through deforestation, overgrazing and the maintenance of agricultural land are 30

some of the factors that make soils more susceptible to erosion. For the purpose of this 31

document

, highly erodible lands (HEL) were used to evaluate the potential for erosion with in 32**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 30**  the proposed project area s ( Figure 3

- 8 )

. For more information about HEL, refer to the 1

BCAP Final PEIS (Chapter 3.4)

. 2

**3.4.2 Existing Conditions**  3

**3.4.2.1 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  4

In general, soils across this region favor agriculture. The soils in this region are often very 5

deep, gently sloping and poo rly drained, depending on specific soil type. The soils in this 6

area were formed in different textures of glacial till (USDA 2007)

. 7

There was approximately 193,410 acres of HEL within the counties of the Ashtabula 8

proposed project area ( Taylor 2011 ). Wi thin this proposed project area, Mercer County had 9

the highest amount of HEL, covering 11 percent of the county. 10

**3.4.2.2 Aurora Proposed Project Area**  11

Soils across this region favor agriculture, including corn, soybean and grains. Soils range 12

from well

- drained t o poorly

- drained, depending on specific soil type, land features, and slope 13

position. Upland sites are typically better drained than lowlands. At times, clay and silt 14

content can create drainage problems ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Projec t 15

Areas, 2011 )

. 16

There was approximately 1,338,641 acres of HEL within the counties of the Aurora 17

proposed project area, with an average of 51 percent of the land being HEL ( Confidential 18

Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). Within this propo sed project area, 19

Stone County had the highest amount of HEL, covering 93 percent of the county. 20

**3.4.2.3 Columbia Proposed**  **P**

**roject Area** 21

In general, soils across this region favor agriculture, including corn, soybean and grains. 22

Soils range from well

- drained to poorly

- drained, depending on specific soil type, land 23

features, and slope position. At times, clay content can create drainage pro blems 24

( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 )

. 25

There was approximately 1,266,771 acres of HEL within the counties of the Columbia 26

proposed project area, with an average of 37 percent of the land being HEL ( Confidential 27

Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). Within this proposed project area, 28

Callaway County had the highest amount of HEL, covering 61 percent of the county. 29**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 31**  Figure 3

- 8

. Percent of Total Land Classified as Highly Erodible by County within the 1

Proposed Project Areas. 2**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 32**  **3.4.2.4 Paragould**  **Proposed Project Area**  1

Soils range from well

- drained to poorly

- drained, depending on specific soil type, land 2

features, and slope position. Upland sites are typically better drained th an lowlands. At 3

times, clay and silt content can create drainage problems ( Confidential Application for 4

Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 )

. 5

There was approximately 710,118 acres of HEL within the counties of the Paragould 6

proposed p roject a rea, with an average of 25 percent of the land being HEL ( Confidential 7

Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ). Within this proposed project area

, 8

Randolph County had the highest amount of HEL, covering 61 percent of the county. 9

Mississippi Coun ty contains no soil classified as HEL

. 10



### 3.5 **WATER QUALITY AND QU ANTITY**  11

**3.5.1 Water Quality**  12

**3.5.1.1 Definition of the Resource**  13

Freshwater is necessary for the survival of most terrestrial organisms, and is required by 14

humans for drinking and agriculture, among other uses; how ever, less than one percent of 15

Earth’s water is in the form of freshwater that is not bound in ice caps or glaciers. The 16

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, or CWA , Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Water 17

Quality Act are the primary Federal laws that prot ect the nation’s waters. The principal law 18

governing pollution of the nation’s surface water resources is the CWA

. The Act utilizes 19

water quality standards, permitting requirements, and monitoring to protect water quality. 20

The EPA sets the standards for water pollution abatement for all waters of the United States 21

under the programs contained in the CWA but, in most cases, delegates the authority to 22

issue and enforce permits to qualified S tates. For this analysis, water resources include 23

surface water qu ality (including lakes, rivers and associated tributaries, and estuaries), 24

groundwater quality, and water use/quantity of both surface and groundwater. 25

Surface water , as defined by the EPA, are waters of the United States, such as rivers, 26

streams, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs

, support ing everyday life through uses such as 27

drinking water and other public uses, irrigation, and industrial uses. S urface runoff from 28

rain, snow melt, or irrigation water, can affect surface water quality by depositing sediment, 29

minerals, or contaminants into surface water bodies. Surface runoff is influenced by 30

meteorological factors such as rainfall intensity and duration, and physical factors such as 31

vegetation, soil type, and topography. 32**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 33**  The 303(d) List of Waters reports on streams and lakes identified as impaired for one or 1

more pollutants and do not meet one or more water quality standards. The term, "303(d) 2

list," is short for the list of impaired waters (stream segments, lakes) that t he Clean Water 3

Act requires all states to submit f or EPA approval every two years. The states identify all 4

waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicab le 5

water quality standards and rank the waters taking into account the uses of the water and 6

severity of the pollution problem (EPA 2008)

. Figure 3

- 9 illustrates the impaired streams 7

and water bodies within each state containing the proposed project areas

. 8

Groundwater is the water that flows underground and is stored in natural geologic 9

formations called aquifers. It is ecologically important because it sustains ecosystems by 10

releasing a constant supply of water into wetlands and contributes a sizeable amount of flow 11

to permanent streams and rivers (FSA 2003). 12

**3.5.1.2 Existing Conditions**  13

**3.5.1.2.1 Ashtabula Proposed Project Area**  14

According to the 303(d) list, there are 1,868 impaired stream segments within the Ashtabula 15

proposed project area for a total of 3,711.34 miles o f impaired streams. There is also a total 16

of 56.87 square miles of impaired lakes and reservoirs (EPA 2010). 17

**3.5.1.2.2 Aurora Proposed Project Area**  18

According to the 303(d) list, there are 328 impaired stream segments within the Aurora 19

proposed project area for a t otal of 557.40 miles of impaired streams (EPA 2010). 20

**3.5.1.2.3 Columbia Proposed Project Area**  21

According to the 303(d) list, there are 314 impaired stream segments within the Columbus 22

Project Area for a total of 388.63 miles of impaired streams. There is also a tota l of 0.30 23

square miles of impaired lakes and reservoirs (EPA 2010). 24

**3.5.1.2.4 Paragould Proposed Project Area**  25

According to the 303(d) list, there are 335 impaired stream segments within the Paragould 26

Project Area for a total of 581.71 miles of impaired streams. T here is also a total of 5.2 27

square miles of impaired lakes and reservoirs (EPA 2010). A majority of the water use relies 28

on surface water sources. However, counties closer to the Mississippi Rive r are more likely 29

to use ground water s ources. Uses of grou nd water include domestic, industry, and irrigation. 30

31**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 34**  Figure 3

- 9

. Waters Listed on the State 303(d) Lists for Impaired Waters 1**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 35**  **3.5.2 Water Quantity**  1

**3.5.2.1 Definition of the Resource**  2

Water use/quantity is the specific amount of water used for a given task, such as the 3

production of dedicated bioenergy crops. Three types are distinguished: withdrawal , where 4

water is taken from a river, or surface or underground reservoir, and after use returned to a 5

natural water body; consumptive , which starts with withdrawal but without any return (e.g. 6

irrigation) and is no longer available directly for subsequent uses; non

- withdrawal , the in situ 7

use of a water body for, e.g. navigation, fishing, re creation, effluent disposal and power 8

generation. (FAO 2005)

. 9

**3.5.2.2 Existing Conditions**  10

Table 3

- 9 illustrates the amount of acres of the cropland that are irrigated. The table also 11

illustrates the water withdrawals by source for each county within the proposed project area

. 12

The EPA defines a watershed as the area of land where all of the water that is under it or 13

drains off of it goes into the same place (EPA 2009). Further, the USGS defines a 14

watershed as the divide separating one drainage basin from another. The USGS has 15

divided and sub

- divided the United States using hydrologic units (HUC). The hydrologic unit 16

system has four levels of classification (USGS 2011)

. For this project the fourth level of 17

classification, the 8

- digit HUC codes

, were used to clas sify the watersheds within the 18

proposed project area. 19

**3.5.2.2.1 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  20

Within the counties in Ashtabula proposed project area, three of the four Ohio counties had 21

less than 400 acres of irrigated cropland with the exception of Lake County, Ohio that had a 22

total of 2,180 acres of irrigated land ( Table 3

- 10 )

. There was a total of 7.28 million gallons 23

of water withdrawn per day in the proposed project area, with an average of 66 percent from 24

surface water and 34 percent from groundwater sourc es (USGS 2010b)

. 25

Eight different watersheds are located within the counties in the Ashtabula proposed project 26

area, with the dominate watersheds being Ashtabula

- Chagrin and Grand. These eight 27

watersheds cover 5,218,511 acres of land in Ohio and Pennsylva nia with 26 percent within 28

the proposed project area (Seaber 2007)

. There were approximately 3,600 miles of streams 29

and rivers within the Ohio proposed project area and 1,700 miles of streams and rivers 30

31

32**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 36**  Table 3

- 10

. Acres of Irrigated Land and 1

Water Withdrawals by County within Each Proposed Project Area 2

County Total Cropland Irrigated Land Percent

Irrigated

Acres Withdrawals
(in million gallons per day)

By source

Total (acres) Ground

water Surface

water

Arkansas

Arkansas 8,432,221 4,460,682 52.9 7,020 1,510 8,530

Clay 293,353 227,000 77.4 466.08 9.36 475.44

Craighead 301,734 244,365 81.0 350.76 44.61 395.37

Greene 229,272 164,615 71.8 206.17 3.81 209.98

Jackson 266,354 178,101 66.9 378.04 22.54 400.58

Lawrence 200,765 130,983 65.2 220.99 24.21 245.20

Mississippi 451,917 269,564 59.6 270.57 2.12 272.69

Poinsett 322,991 262,180 81.2 672.02 90.36 762.38

Randolph 135,019 67,301 49.8 101.46 37.38 138.84

Missouri

Missouri 16,405,595 1,199,981 7.3 1,340 38.9 1,370

Audrain 337,854 15,462 4.6 2.27 7.86 10.13

Boone 152,527 3,596 2.4 0.99 0.61 1.60

Callaway 166,339 4,025 2.4 2.67 2.26 4.93

Cole 79,523 448 0.6 0.00 0.06 0.06

Cooper 189,065 393 0.2 0.15 0.00 0.15

Howard 172,316 12,049 7.0 1.90 0.00 1.90

Moniteau 122,630 160 0.1 0.28 0.00 0.28

Monroe 183,346 1,473 0.8 0.00 0.81 0.81

Randolph 119,856 738 0.6 0.29 0.00 0.29

Barry 114,244 416 0.4 0.06 0.00 0.06

Christian 76,040 158 0.2 0.04 0.00 0.04

Dade 127,080 8,621 6.8 3.03 0.73 3.76

Jasper 135,730 5,169 3.8 2.33 1.65 3.98

Lawrence 150,703 2,416 1.6 0.19 0.70 0.89

Newton 107,943 1,150 1.1 1.93 0.00 1.93

Stone 36,790 74 0.2 0.02 0.00 0.02

Ohio

Ohio 10,832,772 37,959 0.4 17.7 24.9 42.6

Ashtabula 106,255 352 0.3 0.01 0.10 0.11

Geauga 29,541 355 1.2 0.04 0.29 0.33

Lake 10,126 2,180 21.5 0.38 4.43 4.81

Trumbull 87,440 152 0.2 0.16 0.54 0.70

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania 4,870,287 37,786 0.8 8.29 16 24.3

Crawford 139,526 564 0.4 0.07 0.09 0.16

Erie 101,698 1,397 1.4 0.30 0.69 0.99

Mercer 111,556 195 0.2 0.08 0.10 0.18

Source: USDA 2009; USGS 2010 b

. 3

4**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 37**  within the Pennsylvania proposed project area. There were approximately 13,800 acres of 1

lakes, ponds and reservoirs within the Ohio proposed project area and 16,200 acres within 2

the Pennsylvania proposed project area (USGS 2010a). 3

**3.5.2.2.2 Aurora Proposed Project Area**  4

Within the Aurora proposed project area , there was an average of 2,572 acres of irrigated 5

land within the proposed project area. Overall, Missouri had a total of 1.19 million acres of 6

irrigated land. There was a total of 10.68 million gallons of water withdrawn per day in the 7

proposed project area , with an average of 29 percent from surface water and 71 percent 8

from groundwater sources (USGS 2010b)

. 9

Seven different watersheds impact counties within the Aurora proposed project area; 10

however, the Sac, Spring

, and James watersheds cover most of the area. These three 11

watersheds cover 2,567,536 acres of land in Missouri ( Confidential Application for Proposed 12

BCAP Project Areas, 2011 )

. There were approximately 7,500 miles of streams and rivers 13

within this proposed project area. There were approximately 37,6 00 acres of ponds, lakes 14

and reservoirs within this proposed project area (USGS 2010a). Springs are numerous and 15

often contribute to the base flow of many area streams. 16

**3.5.2.2.3 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  17

Within the Columbia proposed project area , there was an average of 4,260 acres of irrigated 18

land within the proposed project area

. Overall, Missouri had a total of 1.19 million acres of 19

irrigated land. There was a total of 20.15 million gallons of water withdrawn per day in the 20

proposed project area , with an average of 58 percent from surface water and 42 percent 21

from groundwater sources (USGS 2010b)

. 22

While Columbia proposed project area includes land area in 13 different watersheds, the 23

broadest is the Lower Missouri

– Moreau (LMM). The Lower Missouri Mor eau contacts 24

every county in the Project Area, except for Monroe County. It represents land area 25

encompassing 2,175,934 acres ( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 26

2011 )

. There were approximately 11,900 miles of streams and rivers within this proposed 27

project area. There were approximately 11,900 acres of ponds, lakes and reservoirs within 28

this proposed project area (USGS 2010a). 29

**3.5.2.2.4 Paragould**  **Proposed Project Area**  30

Within the Paragould proposed project area , there was an average of 193,014 acres of 31

irrigated land (69 percent of the total acres) which is slightly above the state total of 52.9 32**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **3**

**- 38**  percent of the acres being irrigated. There was an average of 362.56 million gallons o f 1

water withdr awn per day in the proposed project area , with an average of eight percent from 2

surface water and 92 percent from groundwater sources (USGS 2010b)

. 3

While Paragould proposed project area includes land area in 11 different watersheds, the 4

gre atest land area is represented by three of those 11

. The Lower St. Francis, Little River 5

Ditches, and Cache watersheds encompass a total of 3,471,360 acres and impact all 6

counties represented in this proposed project area

. The western

- most counties, Rand olph, 7

Jackson, and Lawrence, are impacted by an additional seven watersheds, inclusive. 8

However, these watersheds represent a much smaller portion of the proposed project area 9

(PAPO 2011d)

. There were approximately 14,000 miles of streams and rivers withi n this 10

proposed project area. There were approximately 20,600 acres of ponds, lakes and 11

reservoirs within this proposed project area (USGS 2010a). 12**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 1**  

## 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES 1



### 4.1 **DATA GAPS** 2

Giant miscanthus is a new agron omic crop species in the United States, and also still 3

relatively new in Europe, where the oldest cultivation areas are approximately 30 years old 4

or less. The Miscanthus genus was introduced to the United States over 100 years ago in 5

ornamental plantings. Several universities (i.e., University of Illinois, Mississippi State 6

University, University of Wisconsin, Michigan State University, and the University of 7

Georgia) in the United States are currently cultivating giant miscanthus on a trial basis or 8

conducting research on giant miscanthus or the Miscanthus genus. Additionally, large

- scale 9

acreages of giant miscanthus have not been cultivated in the United States; althoug h 10

commercial production of giant miscanthus for bioenergy production in co

- fired systems are 11

in the beginning stages in the United Kingdom. Given, that giant miscanthus has only been 12

grown in large

- scale trials in Europe the data on giant miscanthus plant ing in the United 13

States is more limited in scope. 14

In light of the lack of data applicable to the proposed project areas, an adaptive Mitigation 15

and Monitoring Plan (MMP) is being developed, which will include best management 16

practices (BMP) for the esta blishment and production of giant miscanthus to ensure 17

avoidance and minimization of potential effects to the immediate environment and the larger 18

landscape . The framework for the MMP is included in Section 6 . The MMP will be a living 19

document that is hi ghly dependent on routine monitoring of the fields to determine the 20

success of giant miscanthus plantings, its overall effects to the immediate environment, and 21

any potential effects to the larger landscape based on observation and measurement. This 22

docum ent would contain information on appropriate and effective eradication methods that 23

would develop over time as new data became available. Likewise, other metrics or 24

observable measurements would adapt over time based on past observations, new 25

research fin ding, and new regulations. 26

The following information has been found to lack complete detail in relation to growth and 27

production of giant miscanthus in the United States. 28

Potential effects to socioeconomics focused on the information provided in the pr o 29

forma analyses of the Project Sponsors. Data from Europe indicates a high cost of 30

establishment due to the vegetative propagation of the species; however, the BCAP 31**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 2**  combined with the model undertaken by the Project Sponsors addresses most of 1

these concer ns, along with technical assistance to be provided to producers. 2

Landscape scale analyses of giant miscanthus are generally lacking since there 3

have not been any commercial

- scale field trials in the United States. 4

Literature documenting the potential for invasiveness of the fertile species of the 5

Miscanthus genus has been discussed along with documentation supporting that 6

giant miscanthus should not be considered invasive due to its sterility and slow 7

rhizome spread within the United States. 8

Literature discussing potential plant pests has been recently published relating to the 9

western corn root worm, several species, of aphids, and rust; those studies along 10

with recommendations have been included. 11

There is little peer

- reviewed literature concerning the effects of giant miscanthus 12

plantings on biological diversity in the United States; however, some specific studies 13

have been published in Europe. These studies primarily focused on bird species 14

with some small mamma l observations. These studies also looked at young

- aged 15

giant miscanthus stands, so there was little information available on biodiversity 16

found in mature stands. Also, the literature is lacking on the potential effects to 17

larger species in either young or mature stands of giant miscanthus. 18

Information concerning the nutrient uptake, nutrient addition trials, and root structure 19

has been included to discuss the potential for soil erosion, soil organic matter, and 20

soil carbon sequestration based on the av ailable literature. 21

Literature concerning nutrient uptake, water use efficiency, and irrigation needs 22

during establishment has been discussed based on the available literature. 23



### 4.2 **SOCIOECONOMICS** 24

**4.2.1 Significance Threshold**  25

For socioeconomics the significance thr esholds include a substantial change in farm 26

income, which could lead to wider community effects such as employment loss and 27

population declines. 28**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 3**  **4.2.2 Proposed Action**  1

Implementing the Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse effects to the 2

soci oeconomic conditions of any of the proposed project areas. The Proposed Action would 3

provide a positive cash

- flow stream to producers and an economically viable product 4

through the BCF to local, regional, and potentially out of region sales according to t he BCAP 5

project area application documents. Giant miscanthus would require some level of inputs 6

(e.g., herbicides ) during the establishment phases, with minimal fertilizer inputs annually 7

beginning in year three of the maintenance period to replace nutrie nts lost through biomass 8

production; thereby, maintaining the existing agricultural products stream, with the potential 9

for creating new markets for more species

- specific agricultural chemicals. Agricultural 10

services would be maintained in the short

- term, with the potential creation of new services 11

streams for heavier

- duty equipment manufacture and contract farming for harvesting, baling, 12

and transportation of baled products to the BCF. Overall, the maintenance of existing higher 13

value cropland acres with the inclusion of smaller dedicated energy crop production should 14

maintain or enhance farm household and agricultural services

- related household incomes. 15

BCAP was developed to provide assistance to participating producer to offset a portion of 16

the costs associated with establishing and producing dedicated energy crops. Table 4.1 17

lists the estimated establishment and production costs for giant miscanthus with a 18

comparison of the BCAP payments to participating producers. In considering the value of 19

BCAP t o participating producers within the proposed project areas a crop budget analysis 20

with information from the Michigan State University (MSU) Extension miscanthus estimated 21

budgets was conducted. The MSU miscanthus budgets provide an analysis of both ‘chea p’ 22

and market rate rhizomes. Under MSU’s analysis with “market rhizomes” after 10 years the 23

producer is still cash flow negative over $6,000 on each acre planted. If the rhizome costs 24

were reduced to only 25 percent of MSU’s estimate, the producer would still need 10 years 25

to break even. Under MSU’s analysis, producers would have little incentive to establish 26

energy crops. However, with “cheap rhizomes,” the producer is cash flow positive after the 27

third year. BCAP provides enough incentive, per the MS U cost and revenue values, that a 28

producer would begin realizing a profit in year nine or in year eight, if the matching payment 29

were delayed until a full harvest was collected. 30

31**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 4**  Table 4

- 1

. Cost Comparison for Participating Versus Non

- Participating Producers 1

for the Establishment and Production of Giant Miscanthus 2

Item Giant Miscanthus

Establishment without

BCAP Giant Miscanthus

Establishment with BCAP

Per Acre (all values rounded to the next whole $)

Crop Establishment

Rhizomes ($1.80 ea) $7,290 $7,290

Soil Amendments $0 $0

Pest Control $18 $18

Machinery Cost $67 $67

Labor $3 $3

Total Establishment Cost $7,378 $7,378

BCAP Establishment

Payment $0 $5,534

BCAP Annual Payment $0 $89

Revised Establishment Cost $7,378 $1, 755

Year 2 Production

Annual Costs

– Year 2 $1,133 $1,133

Estimated Revenue

– Year 2

(5 tons @ $60/ton) $300 $300

BCAP Annual Payment $0 $ 67

BCAP Matching Payment

– Year 1 $0 $225

Profit/Loss Continual

- $8,211

- $2,296

Year 3 Production

Annual Costs

– Year 3 $343 $343

Estimated Revenue

– Year 3 $600 $600

BCAP Annual Payment $0 $67

BCAP Matching Payment

– Year 2 $0 $450

Profit/Loss Continual

- $ 7,954

- $ 1,522

Year 4 Production

Annual Costs

– Year 4 $343 $343

Estimated Revenue

– Year 4 $600 $600

BCAP Annual Payment $0 $67

Profit/Loss Continual

- $ 7,697

- $ 1,198

Year 5 Production

Annual Costs

– Year 4 $343 $343

Estimated Revenue

– Year 4 $600 $600

BCAP Annual Payment $0 $67

Profit/Loss Continual

- $ 7,440

- $ 874

Notes: 3

All cost estimates derived from MSU miscanthus budget (James et al. 2009) 4

The average rental rate for CRP as of February 2011 in each state containing proposed project areas 5

are: Arkansas = $59.53/acre; Missouri = $74.16/acre; Ohio = $118.87/acre; Pennsylvania = 6

$102.85/acre. The average rental rate for these four states = $88.85 ( USDA FSA 2011a) 7

A reduction in the annual BCAP payment was estimated at 25 percent for biomass sold for heat, power, 8

or biobased products ( USDA FSA 2011b). 9**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 5**  The Project Sponsors have been very successful in finding producers willing to plant energy 1

crops on less productive land when shown BCAP incentives that create positive cash flows 2

in comparison to establishment without BCAP. Importantly, producer commi tments are 3

contingent upon BCAP funding, which indicates that the short term incentives provided by 4

BCAP create a viable energy crop market. MSU’s research supports the Project Sponsors’ 5

experience with actual producers in proposed project areas that with out BCAP incentives in 6

an approved project area, producer interest under current market conditions declines 7

dramatically. 8

Under the Proposed Action, the Project Sponsors propose to establish and produce giant 9

miscanthus in the proposed project areas with a maximum acreage of 50,000 acres per 10

project area by 2014 . The Project Sponsors estimate that approximately 20 percent of the 11

total acreage in the proposed project areas for Aurora, Columbia, and Paragould would be 12

marginal cropland with the remainder bei ng non

- cropland, such as pastureland. In the 13

Ashtabula proposed project area, 10 percent of the total acreage would be marginal 14

cropland. The Project Sponsors have a goal of minimizing the amount of arable cropland to 15

be included in the contract acreage, thereby maximizing producer incomes through 16

diversification of a small amount of marginal croplands or idle lands, such as pastureland. 17

On average, contract acreage would be estimated to be in a range between 38 to 100 acres 18

per contract. The BCAP Final PEIS (Table 3.1

- 5) lists the national average farm size for 19

different farm types; overall the majority of farms within the United States are considered 20

small family farms with average farm size between 137 acres (Limited Resource) to 1,040 21

acres (Farming Occupation/Higher Sales). In each of the states included within the 22

proposed project areas, greater than 84 percent of the farms would be considered small 23

family farms. The Project Sponsors, through small acreage enrollments, would provide an 24

incentive f or small farms to enter a BCAP contract, especially with the producer assistance 25

to be provided as part of the proposed project area models. 26

To determine the economic viability of the Proposed Action, the Project Sponsors developed 27

an Economic Impact Ana lysis (EIA) for each proposed project area. For each proposed 28

project area region, the 20 year project time

- frame from the giant miscanthus acres 29

produced under BCAP, the anticipated economic impact to the region would total more than 30

$750 million (US$201 1). The EIA estimated the annual value to the producer s in each 31

proposed project area to be approximately $33 million for the approximately 600,000 tons 32

anticipated to be produced annually at full production (2017) . The Project Sponsors’ BCF 33**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 6**  would be estimated to directly create six positions in 2014, 78 positions in 2016, and 114 1

positions in 2017. 2

**4.2.2.1 Ashtabula**  **Proposed Project Area**  3

In Ashtabula, at full scale production in 2017 the local BCF developed by the Proje ct 4

Sponsors would create 1,210 new positions (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced across all 5

related economic sectors) and bring approximately $49.9 million into the region annually. 6

Economic modeling was performed to analysis the contribution of the Prop osed Action for 7

each proposed project area as part of the Project Sponsors’ confidential project area 8

application. 9

**4.2.2.2 Aurora**  **Proposed Project Area**  10

In Aurora, at full scale production in 2017 the local BCF developed by the Project Sponsors 11

would create 960 n ew positions (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced across all related 12

economic sectors) and bring approximately $49.2 million into the region annually. Economic 13

modeling was performed to analysis the contribution of the Proposed Action for each 14

proposed pr oject area as part of the Project Sponsors’ confidential project area application. 15

**4.2.2.3 Columbia**  **Proposed Project Area**  16

In Columbia, at full scale production in 2017 the local BCF developed by the Project 17

Sponsors would create 980 new positions (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced across all 18

related economic sectors) and bring approximately $50.9 million into the region annually. 19

Economic modeling was performed to analysis the contribution of the Proposed Action for 20

each proposed project area as part of the Pr oject Sponsors’ confidential project area 21

application. 22

**4.2.2.4 Paragould**  **Proposed Project Area**  23

In Paragould, at full scale production in 2017 the local BCF developed by the Project 24

Sponsors would create 750 new positions (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced acro ss all 25

related economic sectors) and bring approximately $50.0 million into the region annually. 26

Economic modeling was performed to analysis the contribution of the Proposed Action for 27

each proposed project area as part of the Project Sponsors’ confidenti al project area 28

application. 29**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 7**  **4.2.3 No Action Alternative**  1

The selection of the No Action Alternative would not result in significant adverse effects to 2

the socioeconomic conditions of the proposed project areas. Under this alternative, the 3

Project Sponsors wou ld not undertake the establishment and production of giant miscanthus 4

in the proposed project areas. The agricultural conditions would remain as described in 5

Section 3.1 and would follow projected demand and production aspects. This alternative 6

would not create a small acreage diversification into dedicated energy crops, nor would a 7

new services market be developed for heavy

- duty machinery associated with high

- yielding 8

biomass crops, such as giant miscanthus. 9



### 4.3 **LAND USE** 10

**4.3.1 Significance Threshold**  11

For land use the significance thresholds include a substantial change in land use type that 12

could trigger the development of agricultural lands into other non

- agricultural land use types 13

within the region or adjacent to the region. 14

**4.3.2 Proposed Action**  15

Implem enting the Proposed Action would not result in significant changes in land use types 16

that could trigger development of agricultural lands into other non

- agricultural land use types 17

n or would it create a substantial loss of arable cropland within the propos ed project areas. 18

Under the Proposed Action, the Project Sponsors propose to establish and produce giant 19

miscanthus in the proposed project areas with a maximum total acreage of 50,000 acres per 20

project area by 2014 . The Project Sponsors estimate that ap proximately 20 percent of the 21

total acreage in the proposed project areas for Aurora, Columbia, and Paragould would be 22

marginal or cropland with the remainder being non

- cropland, such as pastureland 23

( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas , 2011 ) . In the Ashtabula 24

proposed project area, 10 percent of the total acreage would be marginal cropland 25

( Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 ) . On average, contract 26

acreage would be estimated to be in a range between 38 to 1 00 acres. 27

Table 4

- 2 lists the estimated total acres that could be planted by each land use type, 28

cropland (harvested cropland and other cropland) or pastureland (pastureland, all types) by 29

proposed project area and that estimated percentage by either cropland or pastureland

. 30

31**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 8**  Table 4

- 2

. Estimated Acres to be Planted by 2014 to 1

Giant Miscanthus by Proposed Project Area and Percent of Land Use Type. 2

Proposed

Project

Area Harvested

Cropland Other

Cropland Cropland

– Giant

Miscanthus Percent of

Other

Cropland Pastureland

All Types Pastureland

– Giant

Miscanthus Percent of

Pastureland

All Types

Ashtabula 492,050 58,708 5,000 8.5 139,885 45,000 32.2

Aurora 561,033 41,867 10,000 23.9 944,322 40,000 4.2

Columbia 1,226,524 150,079 10,000 6.7 799,682 40,000 5.0

Paragould 2,0 8 7,971 52,986 10,000 18.9 261,540 40,000 15.3

Source: Adapted from USDA NASS 2007

, Confidential Application for Proposed BCAP Project Areas, 2011 3

The Project Sponsors have a priority of using marginal or idle croplands in place of higher

4

value harvested croplands and pasturelands . T he Ashtabula proposed project area would 5

include the greatest perce ntage of giant miscanthus plantings in the combined acreage of 6

the pastureland and other cropland land use types (25.2 percent) due to the smaller area in 7

other c ropland and pastureland land use types , when compared to the other proposed 8

project areas. Th e Paragould proposed project area would be antici pated to have 9

approximately 15.9 percent of combined pastureland and other cropland planted in giant 10

miscanthus; however, due to issues related to nutrient use and leaching, water use, and soil 11

erosion, more acres of productive cropland could be utilized for giant miscanthus production; 12

thereby lowering the percentage of marginal lands used. In the Aurora and Columbia 13

proposed project areas, the percentage of marginal land (other cropland and pastureland) 14

an ticipated to be planted into giant miscanthus is slightly over five percent for both areas. 15

**4.3.3 No Action Alternative**  16

The selection of the No Action Alternative would not result in significant adverse effects to 17

the land use within the proposed project areas. Under this alternative, the Project Sponsors 18

would not undertake the establishment and production of giant miscanthus in the proposed 19

project areas. The agricultural conditions would remain as described in Section 3.1 and 20

would follow projected demand an d production aspects. This alternative would not create a 21

small acreage diversification into dedicated energy crops. 22



### 4.4 **BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES** 23

**4.4.1 Vegetation**  24

**4.4.1.1 Significance Threshold**  25

For vegetation, a significant effect would be a finding of invasiveness for the s pecies, that it 26

had a high likelihood of being a vector for a plant pathogen or insect harmful to native 27

species, or that it was extremely difficult to eradicate once established. 28**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 9**  **4.4.1.2 Proposed Action**  1

Implementing the Proposed Action

, in association with the MMP , ( Section 6 ) would be 2

anticipated to result in minor effects to local and regional vegetation due to the change in 3

vegetation from the existing cover to giant miscanthus

. As the MMP, is developed based on 4

comments received on this document and from ex ploring the BMPs associated with 5

production of giant miscanthus and associated large

- stature perennial grasses, additional 6

measures to avoid and minimize effects to vegetation would be detailed. Some of these 7

measures could include exclusions from plantin g within 100

- year floodplains and floodways, 8

to minimize the potential for vegetative spread through rhizome or active stalks transported 9

via stormwater flows or wind and active management to provide eradication in adjacent 10

areas, if necessary. 11

As mentioned previously, the Project Sponsors anticipated that most of the acreage for giant 12

miscanthus would be idle lands, which are being considered as pastureland for this analysis. 13

The data from land use types as reported in the Agricultural Census a re from 2007, more 14

complete data could be collected by the Project Sponsors that indicate a higher percentage 15

of croplands have been idled or left fallow since 2007, which would alter the percent by land 16

type included within the project acres. Pastureland s throughout the proposed project areas 17

could be in fallow agricultural fields with annual vegetation or a mix of annual and perennial 18

vegetation, in permanent impro ved pasture, or rangeland. Twenty percent or less of the 19

giant miscanthus acreage is antic ipated to be marginal cropland, which could be currently 20

fallow or in traditional row crops. Vegetation species diversity is highly site specific and part 21

of the larger local landscape

. Figure 4

- 1 provides the approximate locations of the 22

anticipated cur rent producers, which are spread throughout the proposed project areas. 23

Also, the Project Sponsors have estimated that individual contracts for giant miscanthus 24

production would range between 38 to 100 acres, with the minimum acreage being what is 25

conside red by the Project Sponsors to be economically viable for the producer. These small 26

patches of fields should assist in the minimization of the loss of landscape level vegetation 27

biodiversity and richness along with anticipated buffers to riparian areas an d wildlife 28

corridors through the MMP. 29

Two components of concern associated with giant miscanthus include its potential for 30

invasiveness and as a vector for disease or plant pests. The following sections detail each 31

of these areas. 32

33**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 10**  Figure 4

- 1

. Approximate Locations of 1

Anticipated Producers within the Proposed Project Areas 2**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 11**  **4.4.1.2.1 Invasiveness**  1

Overall, the literature concerning giant miscanthus as a potential invasive species indicates 2

a low likelihood; howev er, a lack of commercial scale field

– sized trials has not occurred in 3

the United States. The very components that make a species ideal for a biomass feedstock 4

are often the same characteristics that are described of weedy invasive species ( Table 4

- 3 ). 5

Gi ant miscanthus is a naturally occurring hybrid species that is vegetatively propagated and 6

does not produce viable seeds with one of the parent species being Miscanthus sinensis

, 7

which is considered an invasive species in the United States ; the other paren t species ( M. 8

sacchariflorus ) is not included on any Federal or State lists of noxious or invasive species

. 9

Table 4

- 3

. Characteristics of Ideal Biomass Crop/Weeds 10

Type of

Characteristic Ideal Biomass Crop Ideal Weedy Characteristics

Life History Perennial Perennial

High Aboveground Biomass

Production High Aboveground Biomass

Production

Flowers Late Or Little Allocation to

Seed Production

Physiology Drought Tolerant Drought Tolerant

Tolerates Low Fertility Soils Tolerates Low Fertility Soils

Tolerates Saline Soils Tolerates Saline Soils

C4 Photosynthetic Pathway C4 Photosynthetic Pathway

High Water/Nutrient Efficiency High Water/Nutrient Efficiency

Other Highly Competitive

– Reduces

Herbicide Use Highly Competitive

– Reduces

Herbicide Use

Few Resident Pests

– Reduces

Pesticide Use Few Resident Pests

– Reduces

Pesticide Use

Allelopathic Allelopathic

Re

- allocates Nutrients to Roots in

Fall

Source: Raghu et al. 2006 11

Raghu et al. (2006) indicated that aspects of the genetics (i.e., the parent species) 12

associated with giant miscanthus could indicate the potential for this species to be invasive, 13

such as the ability to resprout from belowground, rapid growth, efficient p hotosynthetic 14

pathways. J Ø rgensen (2011) indicates that rhizome spread of giant miscanthus occurs only 15

at about 10 centimeters (cm) per year from observation of intentionally planted areas , which 16

is relatively slow. However, there have been no documented unintentionally spreading of 17

giant miscanthus in Europe, where the species has been studied for over 30 years. In the 18

event that giant miscanthus rhizomes in intentionally planted areas spread beyond the 19

planted fields, J Ø rgensen (2011) indicates that rh izomes transported accidentally by man, 20

soil erosion, or flooding could be easily eradicated using commercially available herbicides 21**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 12**  (see Section 2.2.2.1) that are shown effective with this strategy

. In contrast, J Ø rgensen 1

(2011) indicates that M. sacchari florus (i.e., a parent species of giant miscanthus) has 2

creeping rhizomes that spread several meters (m) in a few years with high adaptability to 3

riparian areas, which has a higher potential for translocation via erosion and water transport. 4

Gordon et al ( 2011) assessed the potential invasiveness of several potential dedicated 5

energy crop species using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA). The WRA is a 6

tool that has been used in Australia and New Zealand for over a decade to determine if plant 7

species should be considered for use in those countries. The WRA has been shown to be 8

90 percent accurate in indentifying invasive species, 70 percent accurate in non

- invaders, 9

with approximately 10 percent of non

- invaders incorrectly predicted to be invasive (G ordon 10

et al. 2011). Gordon et al (2011) performed the WRA on 12 potential dedicated energy 11

crops, not native to Florida, for Florida and the United States. They found that only four 12

species (giant miscanthus, plume grass, sugarcane, and sweet sorghum) sh ould be 13

accepted as potential dedicated energy crops based on the WRA results, one species 14

(cabbage gum) should be further evaluated, and the remainder rejected (giant reed, Red 15

River gum, rose gum, jatropha, leadtree, elephantgrass, and castor bean). Gor don et al. 16

(2011) did indicate that since both giant miscanthus and sweet sorghum had parent genetics 17

from documented invasive species, production should be carefully monitored for changes in 18

fertility or other traits. Barney and DiTomaso (2008) also perf ormed a WRA on giant 19

miscanthus and found it to be acceptable for a dedicated energy crop. 20

Davis et al. (2010) suggests that using the WRA may not be sufficient as a stand

- alone tool 21

provided that the chance of an inadvertent approval of an invasive spec ies could be 1:10 or 22

1:20. Davis et al. (2010) suggest a nested approach where an initial screen, such as WRA, 23

is used to determine if a pre

- entry evaluation of a species is warranted. This evaluation 24

would analyze data from the species home range for it s potential for invasiveness; if 25

approved after this step, and then a post

- entry evaluation would be conducted. The post

26

entry evaluation would include quarantined field trials to determine if release of a species is 27

appropriate. 28

**4.4.1.2.2 Disease Vector, Host fo**  **r Plant Pathogens, Host for Plant Pests** 29

Another potential for vegetative effects is the movement of diseases and plant pests from 30

one species to another, such as from giant miscanthus to corn. Recently published 31

literature in the United States does indica te that giant miscanthus could provide a refuge or 32

reservoir for plant pests, especially for corn. J Ø rgensen (2011) indicates that the western 33**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 13**  corn rootworm has been found in giant miscanthus, while Stewart and Cromey (2011) 1

indicated that reports of dise ases such as barley yellow dwarf virus, rust ( Puccinia 2

emaculata ) and smut ( Tilletia maclaganii ) in miscanthus and switchgrass. Additionally, 3

Spenser and Raghu (2009) found that in greenhouse and field studies there was significant 4

emergence of western corn rootworm from giant miscanthus placed near corn fields. 5

Bradshaw et al. (2010) found two species of aphids (yellow sugarcane aphid and corn leaf 6

aphid) in samples taken from giant miscanthus fields in four states with stands ranging from 7

one year to 21

- years old. The yellow sugarcane aphid was located in seven samples across 8

the four states and the corn lead aphid was located i n four samples in four states. 9

According to Bradshaw et al. (2010) the presence of aphids in giant miscanthus is of 10

concern since aphids can transmit plant viruses. The research in this area is somewhat 11

lacking as these are new reports and steps should b e taken to monitor for any plant 12

diseases or pests within established stands of giant miscanthus. Future directions to be 13

included in the MMP may include integrated pest management (IPM) programs associated 14

with dedicated energy crops or buffers away from existing corn crops

. 15

**4.4.1.3 No Action Alternative**  16

Selecting the No Action Alternative would not result in significant effects to the local or 17

regional vegetation within the proposed project areas, as the Project Sponsors would not 18

establish and produce giant m iscanthus in those areas. Current agricultural activities would 19

remain similar or along the current projected trends for those regions. 20

**4.4.2 Wildlife**  21

**4.4.2.1 Significance Threshold**  22

For wildlife , a significant effect would be a finding of substantial decline in biodiversity or 23

species richness for the local area or the region. 24

**4.4.2.2 Proposed Action**  25

Implementing the Proposed Action, in association with the MMP, would be anticipated to 26

results in minor negative effects to wildlife diversity. Wildlife diversity effects w ould be 27

contingent upon the type of previous land use the acreage was in prior to conversion into 28

giant miscanthus stands. There could be adverse effects to larger wildlife as giant 29

miscanthus stands mature when compared to pasturelands; however, data rel ated to larger 30

species is lacking; therefore, the implementation of appropriate BMPs, as developed in the 31

MMP would be essential to gauge short and longer

- term effects on local larger wildlife. 32**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 14**  Field margins and wildlife buffers would provide continued ac cess in areas where larger 1

wildlife are known to occur. Studies from Europe indicate a neutral to positive effect for 2

young

- aged stands of giant miscanthus on bird species richness depending upon the 3

previous vegetation cover. Fernando et al (2010) indic ates that monocultures are not 4

generally as diverse, but that biodiversity levels depend on the crop and the environmental 5

setting. They also indicate that perennial rhizomatous grasses require less tillage, lower 6

agrochemicals and high above

- and below

- g round biomass, which are beneficial for soil 7

microfauna and provide cover to invertebrates and birds. Fernando et al (2010) indicate that 8

according to their weighted

- model, no significant differences related to a suite of 9

environmental impacts was observe d for the perennial species supported for dedicated 10

energy crops. They suggested that compared to cultivated fields (e.g., potato and wheat )

, 11

all perennial dedicated energy crops had fewer environmental impacts; however, they had 12

greater impacts that fall ow fields when considered on the whole. 13

Bellamy et al (2009) indicated that a comparison of giant miscanthus to winter wheat in the 14

United Kingdom provided some preliminary information on abundance and diversity of birds. 15

They found that in fields (stud y field size of three hectare = 7.41 acres) with giant 16

miscanthus aged between one to three years, they found a greater abundance and diversity 17

of birds than in the control wheat fields. Bellamy et al. (2009) hypothesized that the reasons 18

for this could h ave been contributed to the shelter provided by giant miscanthus during the 19

winter and the abundance of non

- crop plants in these early stage giant miscanthus fields. 20

Bellamy et al (2009) surmised that on

- going management for wildlife would be necessary to 21

ensure continued biodiversity as the giant miscanthus plants matured and the crop structure 22

developed. Similarly, Semere and Slater (2007) found that young giant miscanthus fields in 23

Herefordshire, England have a greater variety and abundance of open

- gro und bird than 24

reed canary grass fields; however, the abundance and diversity of birds and small mammals 25

was higher at the edges of both type of perennial biomass fields than in the fields 26

themselves. Semere and Slater (2007) indicate that perennial biomas s grasses could 27

provide improved wildlife habitat due to the lower input in relation to traditionally managed 28

row crops. Sage et al. (2010) found that miscanthus grown in southwestern England was 29

approximately neutral when compared to grasslands in the nu mber of birds. They found 30

bird use to be variable and dependent on many factors such as region, weediness, crop 31

structure, and patchiness. Fargione (2010) indicated that researchers found potential for a 32

loss of bird biodiversity in high

- input low divers ity (HILD) bioenergy crops, such as corn 33

soybeans, while in low

- input high diversity (LIHD) bioenergy crops such as native prairie, 34**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 15**  bird species richness increased. They also found that for species of concern the magnitude 1

of changes was more than double general ist species. Fargione (2010) indicates a lack of 2

specific data availability for crops such as giant miscanthus, which has a different structure 3

than native prairie grass species in the United States, indicating a need for more research 4

on these spe cies. J Ø rgensen (2011) indicates that very few species directly feed on 5

miscanthus so diversity indicators are due in part to the lack of continual tilling, reduced 6

pesticide levels, and provision of cover. At maturity, these stands could have a decline in 7

biodiversity if field margins shrink as the fields become fully mature. 8

**4.4.2.3 No Action Alternative**  9

Selecting the No Action Alternative would not result in significant effects to the local or 10

regional wildlife within the proposed project areas, as the Proje ct Sponsors would not 11

establish and produce giant miscanthus in those areas. Current agricultural activities would 12

remain similar or along the current projected trends for those regions. 13

**4.4.3 Protected Species**  14

**4.4.3.1 Significance Threshold**  15

For protected species, bo th for vegetation and wildlife, a significant effect would be a finding 16

of substantial decline in the number or range of species for the local area or the region 17

directly attributable to the Proposed Action. 18

**4.4.3.2 Proposed Action**  19

Implementing the Proposed Action would not result in significant effects to any protected 20

species, Federally

- listed as threatened and/or endangered, primarily due to the lack of those 21

species within the proposed project areas. Some species, such as the Indiana bat

, may 22

occur while commu ting or migrating along waterways that serve as corridors between roost 23

areas and other habitats, but existing crop and idle lands do not provide suitable habitat 24

within the proposed project areas. Other concerns would be for fish, clams, and 25

invertebrate s located in streams near giant miscanthus plantings. The MMP would develop 26

an appropriate buffer to ensure that effects to any species that could be located near giant 27

miscanthus fields would be avoided through BMPs, such as buffer distances to riparian 28

areas. 29**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 16**  **4.4.3.3 No Action Alternative**  1

Selecting the No Action Alternative would not result in significant effects to the local or 2

regional protected species within the proposed project areas, as the Project Sponsors would 3

not establish and produce giant miscanthu s in those areas. Current agricultural activities 4

would remain similar or along the current projected trends for those regions. 5



### 4.5 **SOIL RESOURCES** 6

**4.5.1 Significance Threshold**  7

Impacts to soil resources would be considered significant if implementation of an actio n 8

resulted in permanently increasing erosion, altered soil characteristics that threaten the 9

viability of the cover, or affected unique soil conditions. 10

**4.5.2 Proposed Action**  11

Implementing the Proposed Action would result in a positive reduction in the soil erosi on 12

through abundant below ground biomass with soil retaining abilities

. G iant miscanthus 13

produces abundant above and below ground biomass. The top soil layer (0 to 30 cm) 14

contains around 28 percent of the root biomass, while nearly half of the total roots were 15

present in the deeper soils layers ( below 90 cm) (Neukirchen et al 1999). The extensive 16

deep root system can improve soil qualities by improving water storage, microbial process, 17

and soil organic carbon storage (Blanco

- Canqui 2010). Davis et al. (2 010) found that over a 18

10

- year study of giant miscanthus in Illinois, giant miscanthus produced greater above 19

ground carbon (C) (1,606 to 2,426 grams [ g ] C/ square meter [m 2 ]) when compared to 20

switchgrass, native prairie, (344 to 705 g C/m 2 ) and corn (405 to 717 g C/m 2 ). Davis et al. 21

(2010) also indicated that giant miscanthus could produce soil C at a faster rate due in part 22

to greater litter fall and below ground plant production (root system). Hansen et al. (2004) 23

indicated that in soil samples taken f rom 9

- year old and 16

- year old giant miscanthus plants 24

in Denmark that it was estimated that between 26 to 29 percent of accumulated C input was 25

retained in the soil. The combined root system and high litter accumulation on the soil 26

surface would reduce t he wind and water soil erosion

. 27

Initial preparation of land for giant miscanthus established could result in the soil disturbance 28

similar to traditional tillage of commodity crops

. The preparation process could cause an 29

increase risk of erosion followin g rainfall events until the giant miscanthus could have time to 30

establish (Donnelly et al 2010). The soil tillage for giant miscanthus establishment can 31

redistribute the organic matter and nutrients that accumulate at the surface of soils and 32**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 17**  create benef icial effects for the soil quality by mixing the soils and organic matter (Donnelly 1

et al 2010). First

- year harvesting of rhizomes would have similar soil disturbances as the 2

initial planting; however, later year’s harvesting would be similar to activities for hay 3

production that only minimally effect soil layers. Likewise, the eradication of the cro p would 4

result in additional tillage, similar to the establishment phase and traditional row crop tillage, 5

which would redistribute soil organic matter, but would leave the soil bare until a new cover 6

crop was established. To off

- set short

- term soil erosi on potential associated with 7

propagation and harvest of rhizome, fields with HEL would be avoided, if possible and other 8

BMPs per the MMP would be incorporated into this phase. 9

Overall

, there could be a positive result of soil quality and reduction of so il erosion for the 10

P roposed A ction. Giant miscanthus can produce an ample amount of above and below 11

ground biomass allowing for reduction in soil loss which would reduce the potential for 12

sediment to move from fields carrying pesticides and nutrients to t he surface water bodies. 13

This could also reduce the sediment s being deposited off

- site and reduce suspended 14

sediment s that could move with runoff water directly into water bodies. 15

**4.5.3 No Action Alternative**  16

Selecting the No Action Alternative would be unlikely to change current practices. Under this 17

alternative, the Project Sponsors would not undertake the establishment and production of 18

giant miscanthus in the proposed project areas. The proposed project areas would not 19

receive the potential soil benefits that could be provided by giant miscanthus and could 20

potentially receive negative effects to soil quality through continued traditional crop 21

management

. 22



### 4.6 **WATER QUALITY AND QU ANTITY**  23

**4.6.1 Water Quality**  24

**4.6.1.1 Significance Threshold**  25

An accounting of increa ses or reductions in input use such as fertilizer, herbicides, and 26

pesticides is performed to evaluate potential changes in water quality. 27

**4.6.1.2 Proposed Action**  28

Implementing the Proposed Action would not result in a significant decline in surface water 29

quality o r groundwater quality within the proposed project areas. Over the productive life of 30

the plantation acres, inputs of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides would be anticipated to be 31**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 18**  lower when compared to inputs for traditional row crops; however, since the majority of 1

acres proposed for plantation acres would be marginal and idle lands there could be an 2

increase in inputs over the existing vegetation on those areas. 3

Since giant m iscanthus is expected to be an excellent nutrient scavenger and recycles 4

n utrients back to the root system, and results in excellent soil surface cover to prevent 5

erosion losses, off

- site movement of nitrogen and phosphorus would be expected to be low. 6

Research also suggests that once established giant miscanthus can lead to lo w levels of 7

nitrate leaching and as a result improving groundwater quality when compared to other 8

crops ( Christian and Riche 1998 ). The conversion of unused acres to giant m isca n thus 9

production would likely reduce runoff, sediment loss

, and nutrient loss due to the high 10

ground cover provided by the plant. This reduction in sediment and nutrient loss in runoff 11

could enhance water bodies and water quality , especially in sensitive watersheds

. 12

**4.6.1.3 No Action Alternative**  13

Selecting the No Action A lternative, would not produce a significant change in water quality, 14

unless there was a substantial increase in land use toward traditional commodity crops. 15

Based on agricultural crop production projections, planted corn acreage is anticipated to 16

increase by approximat ely 5.4 percent between 2008 and 2017; however, all other primary 17

field crop planted acreage is anticipated to decline. Overall, the change in land use through 18

the selection of the No Action Alternative would not indicate increased acreage wi th a need 19

for increased agricultural chemicals. 20

**4.6.2 Water Quantity**  21

**4.6.2.1 Significance Threshold**  22

Water quantity changes could result in positive or negative effects on total water use in the 23

short

- term and over the life of the crop compared to other cropping systems depending on 24

the regional climate. Land use and water use changes would affect hydrology relative to 25

runoff and stream flow. 26

**4.6.2.2 Proposed Action**  27

The water use relative to total quantity would be affected by this action only in areas where 28

there is a hi gh irri gation used to water cropland , where a large amount of acreage may be 29

converted from irrigated cropland to non

- irrigated giant miscanthus, or where short

- term 30

irrigation would be required during this planting season (2011) if irrigation to those 31**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 19**  propagatio n acres does not currently exist . The Ashtabula, Aurora and Columbia proposed 1

project area s have less than 10 percent irrigated lands (USDA 2009) . The Paragould 2

proposed project area irrigates a much larger percent age of the cropland; an average of 3

70.1 percent of the cropland is irrigated. This proposed project area is also a much larger 4

area, with over 2.5 million acres of farmland. Under the Proposed Action the 5

implementation schedule would plant propagation acres in 2011 that would produce 9,600 6

pro pagation acres in 2012 , with the goal to have 50,000 acres total per proposed project 7

area, accounting for around 2.0 percent of the total acres of farmland in the Paragould 8

proposed project area by 2014

. 9

Miscanthus has a high efficiency of water use to biomass yield when compared to corn or 10

sorghum crops. Typically, giant miscanthus required between 100 to 300 l iters of water to 11

produce one kilogram (kg) of biomass ( Heaton et al 2010 ). For comparison, typically a corn 12

or sorghum crop requir es 300 liters per kg of biomass. 13

The proposed project would only require irrigation in this first year (2011) due to late planting 14

of the crop and would not require irrigation after the first propagation year. Therefore, the 15

Proposed Action would be lik ely to transfer some irrigated cropland to irrigated giant 16

miscanthus propagation acres during 2011, resulting in irrigation use approximately equal to 17

previous years within the proposed project areas. Additionally, the Proposed Action would 18

result in som e unirrigated pastureland acres converted into cropland that would require no 19

irrigation; there fore, impacts to water quantity would be minimal

, in relation to existing 20

irrigation use within the proposed project areas

. 21

The other issue that should be menti oned in relation to water use by the giant miscanthus is 22

the annual water use and water losses associated with evapotranspiration (ET) when 23

compared to annual row crops

. Giant miscanthus does have higher ET losses when 24

compared to corn or corn mixes and switchgrass (McIsaac et al. 2010; VanLoocke et al. 25

2010; Heaton et al. 2010). Giant miscanthus is a perennial plant which leads to a longer 26

active growing season. VanLooc ke et al. (2010) indicated that the growing season for giant 27

miscanthus with emergence in mid

- to late

- April continuing into September or October may 28

explain a portion of the increased ET over annual row crop production. Also, giant 29

miscanthus has a faste r growth rate, larger leaf area, and deep root system when compared 30

to annual crops, thereby having higher ET rates (Smeets 2008). Rainfall interception is 31

relatively high for giant miscanthus, as well (Donnelly 2010). 32**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 20**  VanLoocke et al. (2010) also indic ate that past studies have shown that conversion to 1

annual crop dominated cover could have reduced ET in Corn Belt of the United States by 2

approximately 75 millimeters (mm) per year, indicating that giant miscanthus could have ET 3

rates more in line with pa st vegetative cover in prime farming areas than current crop cover. 4

Beale et al. (1999) indicated that water use efficiency for giant miscanthus, when normalized 5

by the daily maximum vapor pressure deficit, were within the range of C 4 crops over several 6

e nvironments (7.3 grams per kiloPascal per kilogram [g kPA/kg]

– 9.4 g kPA/kg) and based 7

on literature would be similar to corn (8.2 to 12.0 g kPA/kg) and pearl millet (8.4 to 10.6 g 8

kPA/kg). The annual water use of giant miscanthus may be higher than corn or sorghum 9

due to the rainfall interception and transpiration rates. However, as mentioned earlier, the 10

yield per unit of water produced by giant miscanthus is anticipated to be higher than the 11

biomass produced by other crops, such as annual crops. Also as a result of the deep root 12

system and large leaf area, there are higher infiltration rates during rain events allowing for a 13

reduced run

- off and the reduced peak flows (Smeets 2008). 14

Although, there could be an increased annual water use by the planti ng of giant miscanthus, 15

due to the small production area and the overall improvement of infiltration impacts should 16

be minimal to water quantity from the Proposed Action. 17

**4.6.2.3 No Action Alternative**  18

The selection of the No Action Alternative would not result in significant adverse effects to 19

the water quantity within the proposed project areas. Under this alternative, the Project 20

Sponsors would not undertake the establishment and production of giant miscanthus in the 21

proposed project areas. The change in land u se through the selection of the No Action 22

Alternative would not indicate increased acreage with a need for increased agricultural 23

irrigation. 24



### 4.7 **ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON**  25

This section of the EA provides a brief comparison for the potential effects associated with 26

both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Table 4

- 4 lists the qualitative 27

comparison of the alternatives. 28

29**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 21**  Table 4

- 4

. Comparison of the Alternatives 1

Resource Area Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Socioeconomics + minor 0

Land Use

- minor 0

Biological Resources

Vegetation

- minor 0

Wildlife

- minor 0

Protected Species 0 0

Soil Resources + minor (primarily during

establishment) 0/

- minor

Water Quality/Quantity

Water Quality + minor 0

Water Quantity +/

- minor 0

Note: 2

+ =positive

- =negative 0 =neutral 3

**4.7.1 Proposed Action**  4

Implementing the Proposed Action would result in minor positive and negative effects to the 5

local and regional area; however, many of these effects would be minimized through the use 6

of the MMP. The Proposed Action c ould result in additional diversified i ncome for the 7

contract producer, as well as technical assistance from the Project Sponsors in the 8

production and harvesting of giant miscanthus. The Project Sponsors have a proposed BCF 9

in each of the proposed project areas ensuring that producers will ha ve a demand for their 10

products. Also, ancillary agricultural services should expect an increase due to the Project 11

Sponsors goal of primarily contracting idle acres and not active cropland. The Proposed 12

Action would result in a changed local landscape wi th the addition of the giant miscanthus 13

fields; however, most contract acreage would be small between 38 to 100 acres. The MMP 14

would be used to ensure that adverse effects from this new crop are minimized or avoided. 15

Similarly, minor negative effects wou ld be anticipated for biological diversity as pastureland 16

is converted in giant miscanthus croplands. The MMP would be essential to provide 17

mechanisms such as buffers and field edges to provide for continued wildlife and vegetative 18

diversity in these area s and control of rhizome and vegetative spread

. Recent research has 19

indicated that giant miscanthus can function as a source of plant pests to conventional 20

crops ; the MMP monitoring and buffer would be essential to ensure that any infestation are 21

identifi ed and treated early to avoid transmission to local croplands, such as corn. Giant 22

miscanthus, which has an extensive perennial root system, would be anticipated to have 23

positive effects on soil retention, soil organic matter, and conversion to soil carbo n, as well 24

as increased water quality related to nutrient leaching and transported sediments. Also, due 25

to its growth patterns, giant miscanthus would be anticipated to require more water than 26**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQ UENCES** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **4**

**- 22**  annual crops, such as corn; however, giant miscanthus has much higher water use 1

efficiency, generating high amounts of biomass per volume of water consumed. 2

**4.7.2 No Action**  3

The No Action Alternative would result in no adverse effects to the local and regional area 4

since there would be no giant miscanthus planted in any o f the proposed project areas as 5

described in this BCAP Project Proposal. However, the No Action Alternative would not 6

assist in meeting the overall goal of BCAP, which is to develop dedicated energy crops for 7

use into the conversion of bioenergy. 8

9**CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A SSESSMENT** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **5**

**- 1**  

## 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A SSESSMENT 1



### 5.1 **DEFINITION** 2

The CEQ regulations stipulate that cumulative effects analysis consider the potential 3

environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when ad ded to 4

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person 5

undertakes such other actions.” Cumulative effects most likely arise when a relationship 6

exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location 7

or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with or in proximity to the proposed 8

action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more 9

geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide, even partially, in time tend to 10

have potential for cumulative effects. 11

The Proposed Action is to establish BCAP project areas supporting the establishment and 12

produc tion of giant miscanthus as a dedicated energy crops for bioenergy production. The 13

scale of this action is regional and includes counties within Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and 14

Pennsylvania. Given the action is to produce an alternative crop on existing agricultural 15

lands, identifying past, present, and reasona bly foreseeable future actions is based on 16

existing cropland production, project ed future cropland production, existing CRP acres 17

within each county, future expirations of CRP acres within each county, and the potential for 18

additional BCAP project acres wi thin these proposed project areas. 19



### 5.2 **CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A NALYSIS BY RESOURCE**  **AREA** 20

**5.2.1 Socioeconomics**  21

In the United States, average farm operator household income from 2007 to 2009 has been 22

consistently higher than the average United States household income; how ever, the 23

percentage difference has been declining from a high of 31.1 percent higher to 13.5 percent 24

higher (USDA Economic Research Service [ERS] 2011). Farming activities have 25

contributed approximately 11.3 percent to household income, with the projecte d average 26

being 12.5 percent in 2010 ( Ib i d

). After two declining years of total household income of 27

farm operators, the forecast for 2010 and 2011 indicate an increase, which will be record 28

levels ( Ibid ). Traditional commodity crops continue to be high

- v alue for associated land 29

production capabilities providing a substantial proportion of farm operator household income 30

for many areas. Combined with the foreseeable high commodity prices associated with 31

recent natural occurrences that have impacted food cr ops globally and the driver for 32**CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A SSESSMENT** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **5**

**- 2**  alternative fuels and energy sources from renewable resources, traditional crops such as 1

corn and soybean would be anticipated to continue as the dominant agricultural land uses 2

within these proposed project areas. 3

Under t he Proposed Action, contract producers would be creating a diversified crop profile 4

with the inclusion of giant miscanthus on their marginal or idle lands. Given the infancy of 5

industry for biomass feedstock production, large acreages are not anticipated to be 6

converted into dedicated biomass crops with the short

- time frame associated with BCAP. 7

The Project Sponsors are anticipating a total combined acreage across all proposed project 8

areas to be 200,000 acres by 2014. The potential for dedicated energy crops exists through 9

many regions of the United States; however, one of the primary limiting factors is 10

accessibility to a BCF that (1) provides a market to producers for their biomass feedstock 11

and (2) has a market for sale of the bioenergy product produc ed at that facility . Overall, the 12

cumulative effects to socioeconomics associated with the Proposed Action and No Action 13

Alternative would be minor, given the high commodity prices associated with traditional 14

crops and the lack of adequate BCF with enough demand in the region to convert more than 15

a modest amount of agricultural lands to dedicated energy crop production away from 16

traditional crops. 17

**5.2.2 Land Use**  18

The combined proposed project areas include approximately 6.5 million acres of cropland 19

and pasture land with varying degrees of activity ( Table 5

- 1 ) . Overall, soybeans are the 20

most cultivated crop accounting for less than 1.7 million acres within the combined proposed 21

project areas. Corn followed with 0.6 million planted acres in the combined proposed 22

project areas. Projections from the USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020 indicate that 23

increased United States planted acres of soybeans and corn would, on average, remain 24

relatively flat, with some short

- term increase in corn (USDA World Agricultural O utlook 25

Board 2011). 26

Of the land in farms, approximately 191,000 acres are in CRP as of 2010 (13.7 percent of 27

permanent pasture or rangeland), with approximately 66,500 acres expiring from CRP 28

between 2012 to 2014. Currently there are approximately 31.2 million acres enrolled in 29

CRP practices in the United States, with 4.4 million expiring at the end of Fiscal Year 2011 30

(14 percent) . Overall, the cumulative effects to land use associated with the Proposed 31

32**CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A SSESSMENT** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **5**

**- 3**  Table 5

- 1

. Land Use by Proposed Project Area with Planted Acres in Crops 1

Proposed

Project Area Harvested

Cropland

(2007) Total CRP

Acres

(2010) Total

Pasture

(2007) Planted Acres (2010) Percent of Planted Acres within the

State(s)

Corn Sorghum Oats Soy

beans Corn Sorghum Oats Soy

beans

Ashtabula 492,050 8,732 139,885 138,200 0 15,900 106,500 2.9% 0.0% 9.1% 2.1%

Auror a 561,033 20,241 944,322 58,500 1,700 0 89,200 1.9% 4.3% 0.0% 1.7%

Columbia 1,2 2 6,524 131,336 799,682 323,700 8,500 0 542,200 10.3% 21.3% 0.0% 10.5%

Paragould 2,087,971 31,505 261,540 98,900 2,400 0 937,400 25.4% 6.0% 0.0% 29.4%

Source: USDA NASS 2009

, 2011 2

Action and No Action Alternative would be minor, given the high commodity prices 3

associated with traditional crops and the lack of adequate BCF with enough demand in the 4

region to convert more than a modest amount of agricultural lands to dedicated e nergy crop 5

production away from traditional crops. 6

**5.2.3 Biological Resources**  7

Cumulative effects from the Proposed Action would be minimized through the use of the 8

MMP to ensure that overall biodiversity would be maintained and the potential for plant 9

pests wo uld be minimized. The potential cumulative effects of establishment of a biomass 10

crop would impact wildlife as habitats are fragmented, degraded, or destroyed from 11

dedicated energy crop establishment; however, the amount of acreage within any of the 12

propo sed project areas would be minor and would be mitigated through the MMP. The 13

establishment of new dedicated energy crops in areas previously fallow or cropped for a 14

different style of agriculture may itself cause some direct mortality and range shifting a t the 15

local scale of wildlife. Direct effects are likely to occur during the establishment phase, but 16

would be similar to traditional agricultural cropping of fallowed or idle lands. During the short 17

term, species using pastureland could relocate to marg inal areas or wildlife corridors. 18

Overall, the cumulative effects to biological resources associated with the Proposed Action 19

and No Action Alternative would be minor, given the high commodity prices associated with 20

traditional crops and the lack of adequ ate BCF with enough demand in the region to convert 21

more than a modest amount of agricultural lands to dedicated energy crop production away 22

from traditional crops. The use of the MMP for the Proposed Action would also minimize 23

effects to biological resou rces and provide mechanisms for adaptive management should 24

the need arise based on crop monitoring. 25

26**CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A SSESSMENT** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **5**

**- 4**  **5.2.4 Soil Resources**  1

The Proposed Action would be anticipated to create positive effects to soils at multiple 2

levels, including a reduction of soil erosion, and increase in soil organic matter, and soil 3

carbon deposition, when compared to traditional crops or fallowed land und er annual 4

species. Overall, the cumulative effects to soils resources associated with the Proposed 5

Action and No Action Alternative would be minor, given the high commodity prices 6

associated with traditional crops and the lack of adequate BCF with enough demand in the 7

region to convert more than a modest amount of agricultural lands to dedicated energy crop 8

production away from traditional crops. 9

**5.2.5 Water Quality and Quantity**  10

The conversion to a perennial dedicated energy crop provides greater water use eff iciency 11

than traditional row crops such as corn, thereby indicating a more productive choice for 12

biomass production. Giant miscanthus would be anticipated to use more water than 13

fallowed or idle lands with permanent pasture, rangeland, or annual species. Taken in 14

combination with traditional crops in the proposed project areas, there could be greater use 15

of groundwater supplies or effects on groundwater recharge. However, these effects would 16

be mitigated through monitoring and BMPs associated with the MM P. The conversion from 17

traditional crops to dedicated energy crops would be anticipated to limit runoff from 18

agricultural fields and potential need for irrigation past the initial establishment period. 19

Potential plant pests newly associated with giant mis canthus could require more pesticide 20

use or greater IPM than potentially anticipated based on existing literature from Europe , but 21

should be less than traditional row crops. Overall, the cumulative effects to water quality 22

and quantity associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would be minor, 23

given the high commodity prices associated with traditional crops and the lack of adequate 24

BCF with enough demand in the region to convert more than a modest amount of 25

agricultural lands to dedicat ed energy crop production away from traditional crops. 26

27**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 1**  

## 6 MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING 1



### 6.1 **INTRODUCTION** 2

The CEQ issued revised guidance for mitigation and monitoring to be included in NEPA 3

decision documents that inc lude three general types of scenarios including: ( 1) mitigation 4

incorporated into project design; ( 2) mitigation alternatives for NEPA decision documents 5

(i.e., EA and EIS); and ( 3) mitigation commitments analyzed in EAs to support a Mitigated 6

FONSI (CEQ 2 011). The purpose of mitigation in this D raft EA is the first type, which is 7

incorporation into project design following the original intent of the definition of mitigation 8

provided by CEQ that includes: 9

Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action o r parts of an action; 10

Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 11

implementation; 12

Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 13

environment; 14

Reducing or eliminating an impact over time, thr ough preservation and maintenance 15

operations during the life of the action; and 16

Compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 17

environments. 18

The recently revised CEQ guidance also explicitly specifies that adaptive management, or 19

the potential for the lead agency under NEPA to take corrective action if the originally 20

committed mitigation measures fail to address the target potential impacts, is allowable and 21

desirable to both protect the environment and help a F ederal agency meet their stated 22

goals. 23



### 6.2 **ROLES AND RESPONSIBI LITIES**  24

The revised CEQ guidance on mitigation and monitoring explicitly requires each federal lead 25

agency under NEPA, or FSA i n this case, to identify mitigation tracking mechanisms, 26

commitments for any mitigation proposed; responsibility for implementation particularly if 27

shared, reasonably foreseeable circumstances regarding anticipated or projected funding 28

availability to impl ement mitigation commitments; and the identification of any outside 29

entities that may be responsible for assisting the lead agency through financial or other 30**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 2**  means to implement the committed mitigations. In BCAP , the lead agency under NEPA is 1

FSA and the cooperating agencies include the USDA Rural Development, Animal and Plant 2

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA United States Forest Service (USFS), and the 3

NRCS , as described in the Final PEIS (USDA FSA 2010). FSA is expected to have primary 4

respon sibility for implementation and tracking of the mitigation and monitoring program. 5

FSA is currently developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRCS to have NRCS 6

provide technical support as TSPs on an individual contract basis to ensure each produc er 7

complies with existing requirements of BCAP including completion of the Environmental 8

Screening worksheet, completion of a Conservation Plan, and compliance with all existing 9

rules and regulations following BMPs outlined in NRCS Conservation Practice St andards. 10

The role of the P roject S ponsors, are expected to include potential financial assistance with 11

implementation of the monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of mitigation and 12

financial assistance for any eradication efforts outside of the i ntentionally planted areas

. 13

FSA has a framework for defining the components of the MMP that will be required for this 14

project, but has not yet finalized the plan to consider all public input on the draft EA prior to 15

making a final plan recommendation. A dditionally, FSA is aware of on

- going research for 16

giant miscanthus; however, publication of those results has not yet been provided. FSA will 17

provide review and monitoring of newly developed and available data for inclusion within this 18

project and for pr ojects of similar nature for BCAP, as it becomes available. 19



### 6.3 **MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING RECOMMENDATION**  **S** 20

General mitigation and monitoring recommendations for BCAP

, as a national program with 21

numerous feedstock options

, were detailed in the Final PEIS including common BMPs to 22

address potential adverse impacts of energy crop establishment. Examples of the common 23

BMPs include conservation buffers strips, no

- till or reduced till planting methods, avoiding 24

the primary nesti ng season to protect grassland bird populations, and work window 25

avoidance for energy crop establishment to avoid establishment during high precipitation or 26

rainfall events. 27

The purpose of this mitigation and monitoring plan is to provide project

- speci fic mitigation 28

measures for the project that FSA is proposing to approve under BCAP. An inherent part of 29

that process includes site

- specific review by TSPs using the Environmental Screening 30

worksheet to determine whether environmentally sensitive resource s such as federally 31

threatened or endangered species or wetlands are present and could be potentially affected. 32

Where possible, implementation of BMPs through Conservation Plan development would 33**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 3**  mitigation any potential environmental impacts on key resour ces addressed within the scope 1

of this EA. In the event sensitive resources have the potential to be present, FSA or their 2

partners will assist each participating producer at the contract level to conduct any and all 3

appropriate consultations with resourc e agencies such as the USFWS

, U.S. Army Corps of 4

Engineers (USACE), and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). 5

In general, potential environmental impacts associated with establishment and cultivation of 6

giant miscanthus as proposed by the P roject S ponsors are likely to be temporary in nature 7

and variable in scale from local to regional depending on existing characteristics of the 8

individual producer’s total land acreage being enrolled, their current land use, the 9

surrounding mix of agricultural uses in each of the four project areas, and the year in the 10

growth cycle (i.e., establishment in year one or two or maintenance in years three to 15). 11

Potential impacts are more likely to be localized in areas where average farm size or the 12

portion of total l and holdings an individual producer is enrolling is small compared to areas 13

with large farm sizes and land holdings where impacts could be more regional in nature. 14

Potential impacts are also likely to vary by current land use with reduced environmental 15

imp acts on lands currently enrolled in traditional row crops compared to larger potential 16

impacts on lands currently idle or in pastureland when converted to giant miscanthus

. 17

Potential impacts are also likely to vary depending on the surrounding character of farmland 18

such that areas dominated by a single agricultural use (e.g., corn or beans) that have a 19

large proportion of land converted to BCAP may have larger impacts that regions dominated 20

by a variety of agricultural uses such that any land conversions to BCAP are relatively 21

diluted. Finally, impacts are likely to vary by phases of the growth cycle such that 22

establishment in year one (propagation) and year two ( plantation planting) cycle may have 23

larger impacts than maintenance (years 3 to 15) related to soil erosion and loss, water 24

quality and quantity impacts, and herbicide application for weed control. 25

All proposed site

- specific mitigation measures will rely on adaptive management and 26

monitoring to ensure that proposed mitigation commitments are met, and that in the event 27

they do not prevent the intended potential impacts, that additional corrective measures are 28

implemented to rectify the situation as required by the recent CEQ guidance (CEQ 2011). 29

Adaptive management and monitoring is also useful for assessing the effectiveness of 30

particular mitigations and addressing any uncertainty regarding whether a proposed method 31

of mitigation is likely to address the intended potential environmental impact. 32**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 4**  **6.3.1 Socioeconomics**  1

The proposed project has the potential to impact socioeconomics by converting land 2

currently enrolled in food crops to energy crops. However, this potential impact is primarily 3

expected to be localized to the Paragould proposed project area associated with 4

sustainability issues regarding curre nt agricultural row crop use raised by producers who 5

have expressed interest in enrolling in BCAP with the more marginally productive areas 6

currently in corn or beans. Potential impacts are expected to be potentially mitigated by 7

minimizing the conversion of food to energy crops and when that conversion does occur, 8

focusing only on the marginally productive lands currently enrolled in food crops. The 9

project sponsors are currently working with FSA, the USDA

, Agricultural Research Service 10

(ARS), and NRCS t o develop appropriate metrics for tracking conversion of lands currently 11

enrolled in food production and tracking documentation of their productive status. 12

**6.3.2 Land Use**  13

Potential impacts on land use may include conversion of land use types such as the 14

conversi on from traditional row crops to giant miscanthus as discussed above or the 15

conversion of idle land, pastureland, or hayland into giant miscanthus

. Potential mitigation 16

measures as discussed above for tracking the conversion of land types and their produc tive 17

status are also expected to mitigate potential adverse impacts on land change. If adaptive 18

monitoring indicates large

- scale or regional land use conversions are occurring, then 19

additional restrictions on land use conversion may be necessary. 20

**6.3.3 Biologi**  **cal Resources** 21

**6.3.3.1 Vegetation**  22

The primary potential impacts of giant miscanthus establishment are expected to be the 23

potential for the hybrid to produce fertile seed and thus spread beyond the extent of the 24

propagation or planting acres. Based on third

- party i ndependent verification by the OSIA 25

(OSIA 2010), the likelihood of giant miscanthus producing fertile seed and spreading beyond 26

the enrolled fields is expected to be low. The OSIA has been monitoring the flower unit of 27

OSIA’s giant miscanthus selection fo r pollen and seed production by observation and 28

microscopic examination ( Armstrong 2011

– Appendix A ). Accordingly, neither pollen nor 29

seed has been produced ( Ibid ). The extruded anthers of the flower unit have been shriveled 30

in appearance and similar to what we see with male sterile seed corn inbred lines ( Ibid ). In 31**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 5**  addition, there have been no observed volunteer seedlings emerging in observation plot 1

areas adjacent to the giant miscanthus selection ( Ibid ). 2

Additional weed risk assessments conducted on giant miscanthus compared to other 3

potential bioenergy crops such as giant reed, switchgrass, Eucalyptus species, and 4

Jatropha (i.e., a deciduous succulent plant) have concluded the risk of invasiveness in the 5

United State s is low (Barney and DiTomaso 2008, Gordon et al. 2011). In the event, giant 6

miscanthus does escape, eradication studies indicate spring tillage followed by glyphosate 7

application w as successful in eliminating 95 percent of aboveground biomass after the fi rst 8

application (Anderson et al. 2011). 9

Mitigation is expected to include development of a monitoring protocol on an appropriate 10

frequency and scale to facilitate early detection and eradication. This mitigation measure is 11

under development with the pro ject sponsors in conjunction with FSA, ARS, and NRCS, and 12

may ultimately include integration in national invasive species risk assessments being 13

conducted by APHIS and USDA. Adaptive monitoring of the potential for escape is 14

anticipated followed by inclus ion of corrective measures involving eradication as described 15

above, if necessary, may be included. 16

**6.3.3.2 Wildlife**  17

Potential impacts on wildlife and biodiversity may include habitat loss associated with 18

conversion of lands currently idle, in pasture, or in hay, to giant miscanthus ; reduced winter 19

cover and food supplies on lands currently enrolled in row crops; impacts on nesting 20

grassland bird populations; and additional habitat fragmentation in areas where field sizes 21

are larger and more contiguous. Potential impacts due to habitat loss are expected to be 22

mitigated using similar measures as described above to assess land use change to track 23

and document the current status of any land converted to giant miscanthus under BCAP. 24

The relatively low residual height l eft after harvesting giant miscanthus may reduce winter 25

cover and affect nesting conditions for grassland birds such as northern bobwhites ( Colinus 26

virginianus ), eastern meadowlarks ( Sturnella magna ), and grasshopper sparrows 27

( Ammodramus savannarum ) . Fina lly, conversion of larger areas dominated by a single land 28

use type (i.e., idle land, pasture land, or hayland) may have proportionally larger impacts on 29

habitat fragmentation in project areas. 30

Mitigation measures are under development with the project sp onsors, FSA, ARS, and 31

NRCS and may include harvesting windows to avoid impacts on nesting grassland birds, 32**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 6**  regional tracking of grassland bird populations, installation of conservation buffer strips for 1

overwinter habitat, and monitoring land use conversio ns as described above. Existing 2

sources of data such as the Breeding Bird Survey and other annual surveys conducted by 3

state wildlife resource agencies (e.g., bobwhite quail counts) may be used to track wildlife 4

population trends in each project area. Ad aptive monitoring is anticipated to be used to 5

monitor regional wildlife population trends and if necessary, implement corrective measures 6

to alter land use conversion requirements or other measures to rectify any potentially 7

unaddressed impacts resulting from the proposed project. 8

**6.3.3.3 Protected Species**  9

Potential impacts on protected species, such as F ederally threatened or endangered 10

species are possible in those areas where Critical Habitat has been designated, suitable 11

habitat exists within the documented ra nge of the species, or known records have been 12

documented. Compliance with existing regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, 13

will be accomplished with the assistance of TSPs through the Environmental Screening 14

worksheet and subsequent resource a gency consultation if deemed necessary. 15

Mitigation is under development with the project sponsors, FSA, ARS, and NRCS and is 16

expected to include a tiered structure whereby individual producers who enroll land in close 17

proximity to sensitive habitat such as streams, wetlands, or riparian zones are required to 18

implement additional BMPs as part of their Conservation Plan and potentially work with 19

TSPs to complete appropriate resource agency consultations if necessary. Such a tiered 20

approach is expected to b e used throughout the monitoring program to make sure additional 21

measures are taken when sensitive resources are present or in close proximity. Potential 22

examples of BMPs in close proximity to such sensitive habitats include buffers to maintain 23

specific p lanting distances, conservation buffer strips or plantings, silt fencing, potential 24

application of no tilling establishment methods to address sedimentation impacts, and use of 25

appropriately labeled herbicides to protect aquatic species. 26

**6.3.4 Soil Resources**  27

Po tential impacts on soil resources may include soil erosion and loss as a result of field 28

preparation and planting in giant miscanthus . Compared to land currently in traditional row 29

crops, potential soil erosion and loss is expected to be temporary and sho rt

- term

, primarily 30

associated with the establishment phase compared to more intensive annually tilled crops. 31

Compared to land currently idle or in pasture or hay, potential soil erosion and loss may be 32**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 7**  slightly higher but still temporary and short

- term as sociated with establishment. Regardless 1

of current land use, long

- term benefits of soil retention with established rhizomes and 2

carbon soil sequestration towards the middle of the 15

- year maintenance period on enrolled 3

fields are expected to off

- set tempo rary and short

- term increases in soil erosion and loss 4

that may also be associated with reduced carbon sequestration. 5

Mitigation is under development with the project sponsors, FSA, ARS, and NRCS and may 6

include a tiered structure as described above in Section 6.3.3 that uses BMPs associated 7

with no

- till planting methods for project areas in close proximity to sensitive h abitats such as 8

streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. Adaptive monitoring is expected to be used to 9

track the effectiveness of carbon sequestration over the life of a given giant miscanthus 10

planting (i.e., up to 15 years) compared to short

- term and te mporary soil losses associated 11

with tilling and field preparation. In addition, the project sponsors anticipate selling carbon 12

credits, or similar type credits, from the sequestration benefits in markets such as the 13

European Exchange, which will require i ndependent, third

- party verification and data 14

collection for verification. 15

**6.3.5 Water Quality and Quantity**  16

**6.3.5.1 Water Quality**  17

Potential impacts on water quality include short

- term and temporary increases in nutrient 18

and fertilizer runoff during establishment and m onitoring. Compared to land currently in 19

traditional row crops, conversion to giant miscanthus is expected to result in less nutrient 20

and fertilizer runoff. Compared to land currently idle or in pasture or hay, conversion to giant 21

miscanthus may result i n slight but short

- term and temporary increases in nutrient and 22

fertilizer runoff. However, long

- term declines in nutrient loss (i.e., phosphorus and nitrogen) 23

during the maintenance period (years 3 to 15) are likely to off

- set temporary and short

- term 24

in creases in nutrient leaching or runoff. The anticipated fertilizer application rate is also 25

expected to be substantially lower compared to traditional row crops, but may be higher than 26

idle or pasture or hay land. 27

Mitigation is being developed with the p roject sponsors, FSA, ARS, and NRCS and may 28

include numerous BMPs for integration with the Conservation Plans specifically designed to 29

address potential short

- term and temporary impacts on water quality more likely associated 30

with conversion of idle or pas ture or hayland to giant miscanthus

. Adaptive monitoring may 31

include methods to measure local water quality associated with potential nutrient leaching or 32**MITIGATION AND MONIT ORING** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **6**

**- 8**  fertilizer runoff such as lysimeter installation below the root growth zone to address field

1

scale w ater balances. 2

**6.3.5.2 Water Quantity**  3

Potential impacts on water quantity may arise from surface or groundwater supply depletion 4

as giant miscanthus may increase the amount of withdrawal s compared to current land uses 5

such as traditional row crops or idle, pasture, or hayland. This potential impact is likely to be 6

greatest in the Paragould proposed project area where participating producers report 7

interest in enrolling due to unsustainabl e water demands due to current agricultural 8

practices dominated by traditional row c rops (e.g., corn and beans). 9

Mitigation is under development with the project sponsors, FSA, ARS, and NRCS and may 10

include BMPs as part of the Conservation Plan to addres s potential water quantity impacts 11

associated with surface or groundwater supply depletion. Potential mitigation may also 12

include using existing measures of surface and groundwater flow from United State 13

Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges or other loc al monitoring methods. Adaptive 14

monitoring is expected to be used to determine whether any surface or groundwater 15

supplies are being affected and if so, implement corrective measures. 16

17**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 1**  

## 7 REFERENCES

Acroglu, M., and A.S. Aksoy, 2005. The Cultivation and Energy Balance of Miscanthus x

giganteus Production in Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 29, pp. 42

- 48.

Aloterra Energy LLC. 2011 Confidential Project Area Proposal , Ashtabula, Ohio and

Pennsylvania

.

Anderson , E.K., T.B. Voigt, G.A. Bollero, and A.G. Hager. 2011. Controlling Miscanthus x

giganteus

. Miscanthus x giganteus response to tillage and glyphosate. In

Preparation for Weed Technology.

Anderson, E.K., A.G. Hager, T.B. Voigt, and G.A. Bollero, 2009. Herbicide Phytotoxicity and

Eradication Studies in Miscanthus x giganteus. University of Illin o i s at Urbana

Champaign, Illinois Council on Food, and Agricultural Research Special Research

Initiative. January.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2002. Factsheet: The Plant Protection

Act. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.

http://www.aphis.usda.go v/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_ph

proact.pdf

. Accessed July 2009.

Angelini, L.G., L. Ceccarini, N.N. Di Nasso, and E. Bonari, 2009. Comparison of Arundo

donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a Long

- Term Field Experiment in Cent ral

Italy: Analysis of Productive Characteristics and Energy Balance. Biomass and

Bioenergy Vol. 33, pp. 635

- 643.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2011. Air Division.

http:// www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/default.htm . Accessed 31 March 31.

Armstrong, J. 2011. Personal Communication with Scott Coye

- Huhn, Aloterra Energy LLC.

Ohio Seed Improvement Association. 04 April.

Barney, J.N., and J.M. DiTomaso, 2008. Nonnative Species and Bioenergy: Are We

Cultivating the Next Invader? BioScience Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 64

- 70. January.

Barney, Jacob. Identifying the invasive potential of biofuel crops. University of California

–

Davis.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 2**  Beale, C.V., and S.P. Long, 1997. Seasonal Dynamics of Nutrient Accumulation and

Partitioning in the Perennial C 4 - Grasses Miscanthus x giganteus and Spartina

cynosuroides . Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 419

- 428.

Beale, C.V., J.I.L. Morison, and S.P. Long, 1999. Water Use Efficiency of C 4 Perenn ial

Grasses in a Temperate Climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Vol. 96, pp.

103

- 115.

Bellamy, P.E., P.J. Croxton, M.S. Heard, S.A. Hinsley, L. Hulmes, S. Hulmes, P. Nuttall,

R.F. Pywell, and P. Rothery, 2009. The Impact of Growing Miscanthus for Biomass

on Farmland Bird Populations. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 33, pp. 191

- 199.

Beuch, S., B. Boelcke, and L. Belau, 2000. Effect of the Organic Residues of Miscanthus x

giganteus on the Soil Organic Matter Level of Arable Soils. J. Agronomy & Crop

S cience Vol. 183, pp. 111

- 119.

Blanco

- Canqui, H., 2010. Energy Crops and Their Implications on Soil and Environment.

Agronomy Journal Vol. 102, pp.403

- 419. January.

Bradshaw, J.D., J.R. Prasifka, K.L. Steffey, and M.E. Gray, 2010. First report of field

p opulations of two potential aphid pests of the bioenergy crop miscanthus x

giganteus. Florida Entomologist Vol. 93(1), pp. 135

- 137.

Brady, N. and R. Weil. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 11th ed. Prentice

- Hall, Inc.,

Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Burn er, D.M., T.L. Tew, J.J. Harvey, and D.P. Belesky, 2009. Dry Matter Partitioning and

Quality of Miscanthus

, Panicum

, and Saccarum genotypes in Arkansas, USA.

Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 33, pp. 610

- 619.

Cadoux, S., A.B. Riche, N.E. Yates, and J.M. Machet, 2011. Nutrient Requirements of

Miscanthus x giganteus : Conclusions from a Review of Published Studies. Biomass

and Bioenergy pp.1

- 9.

Caslin, B., J. Finnan, and L. Easson, 2010. Miscanthus Best Practice Guidelines.

Agriculture and Food Development Auth ority, Teagasc, and Agri

- Food and

Bioscience Institute.

Christian, D.G., A.B. Riche, and N.E. Yates, 2008. Growth, Yield and Mineral Content of

Miscanthus x giganteus Grown as a Biofuel for 14 Successive Harvests. Industrial

Crops and Products Vol. 28, p p. 320

- 327.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 3**  Christian, D.G., M.J. Bullard, and C. Wilkins, 1997. The Agronomy of Some Herbaceous

Crops Grown for Energy in Southern England. Aspects of Applied Biology Vol. 49,

pp.41

- 51.

Christian, D.G., and A.B. Riche, 1998. Nitrate Leaching Losses Und er Miscanthus Grass

Planted on a Silty Clay Loam Soil. Soil Use and Management Vol. 14, pp. 131

- 135.

Clifton

- Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski, 2000. Overwintering Problems of Newly

Established Miscanthus Plantations can be Overcome by Identifying Genotype s with

Improved Rhizome Cold Tolerance. New Phytologist Vol. 148, No. 2, pp. 287

- 294.

November.

Clifton

- Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski, 2002. Screening Miscanthus Genotypes in Field

Trials to Optimise Biomass Yield and Quality in Southern Germany. Eur opean

Journal of Agronomy Vol. 16, pp. 97

- 110.

Clifton

- Brown, J.C., P.F. Stampfl, and M.B. Jones, 2004. Miscanthus Biomass Production

for Energy in Europe and its Potential Contribution to Decreasing Fossil Fuel Carbon

Emissions. Global Change Biology Vo l. 10, pp. 509

- 518.

Clifton

- Brown, J.C., J. Breuer, and M.B. Jones, 2007. Carbon Mitigation by the Energy

Crop, Miscanthus . Global Change Biology Vol. 13, pp. 2296

- 2307.

Clifton

- Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski, 2002. Screening Miscanthus Genotypes in Fi eld

Trials to Optimize Biomass Yield and Quality in Southern Germany. European

Journal of Agronomy Vol. 16, pp. 97

- 110.

Cosentino, S.L., C. Patanè, E. Sanzone, V. Copani, and S. Foti, 2007. Effects of Soil Water

Content and Nitrogen Supply on the Product ivity of Miscanthus x giganteus Greef ef

Deu. In a Mediterranean Environment. Industrial Crops and Products Vol. 25, pp.

75

- 88.

Danalatos, N.G., S.V. Archontoulis, and I. Mitsios, 2007. Potential Growth and Biomass

Productivity of Miscanthus x giganteus as Affected by Plant Density and N

Fertilization in Central Greece. Biomass an d Bioenergy Vol. 31, pp. 145

- 152.

Davis, A.S, R.D. Cousens, J. Hill, R.N. Mack, D. Simberloff, and S. Raghu. 2010.

Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion ris k. Frontiers in Ecology

and the Environment ; 8(10): 533

- 539.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 4**  Davis, S.C., W. J. Parton, F.G. Dohleman, C.M. Smith, S. Del Grosso, A.D. Kent, and E.H.

DeLucia, 2010. Comparative Biogeochemical Cycles of Bioenergy Crops Reveal

Nitrogen

- Fixation and Low G reenhouse Gas Emissions in a Miscanthus x giganteus

Agro

- Ecosystem. Ecosystems Vol. 13, pp. 144

- 156.

Davis, T. 2011. Personal Communication. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

Air Division. Air Quality Planning. Telephone Interview. Marc h 31.

DiTomaso, J.M., J.N. Barney, and A.M. Fox, 2007. Biofuel Feedstocks: The risk of future

invasions. CAST Commentary, QTA2007

- 1, November 2007.

Dohleman, F.G., and S.P. Long, 2009. More Productive Than Maize in the Midwest: How

Does Miscanthus Do It? Plant Physiology Vol 150, pp. 2104

- 2115. August.

Donnelly, A., D. Styles, J. Fitzgerald, and J. Finnan, 2010. A Proposed Framework for

Determining the Environmental Impact of Replacing Agricultural Grassland with

Miscanthus in Ireland. Global Change Bi ology Bioenergy pp. 1

- 17.

Downs, J. 2011. Personal Communication. Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

Air Pollution Control Program. Monitoring. Telephone Interview. March 31.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental

United Sates. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.

January.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas of

Criteria Pollutants. Pennsylvania.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#PENNSYLVANIA . Accessed 01

April.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. 2005 Emission Inventory for Ohio.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/pm/docs/2005_ei_ohio.xls . Accessed 05 April 2011.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 2010. EPA Office of Water: 303(d) Listed Impaired

Waters NHD Dataset. http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html#303(d) Listed

Impaired Waters . Accessed March 2011.

Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 2009. What is a Watershed? Watersh eds.

http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm . Accessed March 2011.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 2008. 303(d) List.

http ://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/303d.htm Accessed Mach 2011.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 5**  Ercoli, L., M. Mariotti, A. Masoni, and E. Bonari, 1999. Effect of Irrigation and Nitrogen

Fertilization on Biomass Yield and Efficiency of Energy Use in Crop Production of

Miscanthus . Field Crop s Research Vol. 63, pp.3

- 11.

Fargione, Joe, 2010. Is bioenergy for the birds? An evaluation of alternative future bioenergy

landscapes. PNAS Vol. 107 (44), pp. 18745

- 18746.

Fernado, A.L, Duarte, M.P, Boleo, S. and Mendes, B., 2010. Environmental impact

as sessment of energy crops cultivation in Europe. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. Vol. 4,

pp. 594

- 604.

Fernando, A.L., V. Godovikova, and J.F.S. Oliveira, 2004. Miscanthus x giganteus :

Contribution to a Sustainable Agriculture of a Future/Present. Oriented Bio material

Materials Science Forum Vol. 455

- 456, pp. 437

- 441.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. Algae

- Based Biofuels: A

Review of Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Countries.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/aquaticbiofuels/docs/0905_FAO_Review_Pap

er_on_Algae

- based_Biofuels.pdf . Accessed January 2010.

Gordon, D.R., K.J. Tancig, D.A. Onderdonk, and C.A. Gantz, 2011. Assessing the Invasive

Potential of biofuel Species Proposed for Florida and the United States Using the

Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 35, pp. 74

- 79.

Hansen, E.M., B.T. Christensen, L.S. Jensen, and K. Kristensen, 2004. Carbon

Sequestration in Soil Beneath Long

- Term Miscanthus Plantations as Determined by

13 C Abundance. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 26, pp. 97

- 105.

Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, A.F. Miguez, J.A. Juvik, V. Lozovaya, J. Widholm, O.A.

Zabotina, G.F. Mcisac, M.B. David, T.B. Voigt, N.N. Boersma, and S.P. Long, 2010.

Miscanthus: A Promising Biomass Crop. Advances in Botanical Research Vol. 56,

pp. 75

- 137.

Heaton, E.A., J. Clifton

- Brown, B. Voigt, B. Jones, and S.P. Long, 2004. Miscanthus for

Renewable Energy Generation : European Union Experience and Projections for

Illinois. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Vol. 9, pp. 433

- 451.

Hodkinson, T.R., and S. Renvoize, 2001. Nomencla ture of Miscanthus x giganteus

( Poaceae ). Kew Bulletin Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 759

- 760.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 6**  James, L.K., S.M. Swinton, and D. Pennington. 2009. Profitability of Converting to Biofuel

Crops. Michigan State University Extension. Extension Bulletin E

- 3084. Dece mber.

http://bioenergy.msu.edu/economics/E3084.pdf

, and

http://bioenergy.msu.edu/economics/miscanthus.xls . Accessed 06 March 2011.

Jezkowski, S., K. Glowacka, Z. Kaczmarek, 2011. Variation on Biomass Yield and

Morphological Traits of Energy Grasses from the Genus Miscanthus During the First

Years of Crop Establishment. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 35, pp. 814

- 821.

Jodl, S., A. Eppe l

- Htz, and K. Marzini, 1998. Examination of the Ecological Value of

Miscanthus Expanses

- Faunistic studies. Biomass for Energy and Industry; Proc 10 th

EU Bioenergy Conference, Wuzbury, Germany Carmen Publishers, Rimpar,

Germany pp. 48

- 53.

Jørgensen, U., 2 011. Benefits Versus Risks of Growing Biofuel Crops: the Case of

Miscanthus . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability pp. 324

- 330.

Jørgensen, U., and H.

- J. Muhs. Miscanthus Breeding and Improvement. pp. 68

- 85.

Kahle, P., S. Beuch, B. Boelcke, P. Leinweber, and H.R. Schulten, 2001. Cropping of

Miscanthus in Central Europe: Biomass Production and Influence on Nutrient and

Soil Organic Matter. European Journal of Agronomy Vol. 15, pp. 171

- 184.

Lewandowski, I., J.C. Clifton

- Brown, J.M.O. Scurlock, and W. Huisman, 2000. Miscanthus:

European Experience with a Novel Energy Crop. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 19,

pp. 209

- 227.

Lewandowski, I., and A. Heinz, 2003. Delayed Harvest of Miscanthus

- Influences on

Biomass Quantity and Quality and Environmental I mpacts of Energy Production.

European Journal of Agronomy Vol. 19, pp. 45

- 63.

Lewandowski, I., J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Lindvall, and M. Christou, 2003. The Development

and Current Status of Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses as Energy Crops in the US

and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 25, pp. 335

- 361.

Linde

- Laursen, I.B., 1993. Cytogenetic Analysis of Miscanthus ‘Giganteus’, an Interspecific

Hybrid. Hereditas Vol. 119, pp. 297

- 300. June.

Love, B.J., and A.P. Nejadhashemi, 2011. Water Quality Impact Assessment of Large

Scale Biofuel Crops Expansion in Agricultural Regions of Michigan. Biomass and

Bioenergy pp. 1

- 17.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 7**  Low, T., and C. Booth, 2007. The Weedy Truth About Biofuels. Invasive Species Coun c il.

October.

McIsaac, G.F., M.B. David, and C.A. Mi tchell, 2010. Miscanthus and Switchgrass

Production in Central Illinois: Impacts on Hydrology and Inorganic Nitrogen Leaching.

Journal of Environmental Quality Vol. 39, pp. 1790

- 1799.

MFA Oil Biomass LLC. 2011. Confidential Project Area Proposal Aurora , Missouri.

MFA Oil Biomass LLC. 2011. Confidential Project Area Proposal Columbia, Missouri.

MFA Oil Biomass LLC. 2011. Confidential Project Area Proposal Paragould, Arkansas.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Air Pollution Control Pro gram. National

Ambient Air Quality Standard Area Boundary Designations.

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/naaqsboundarydesignations.htm . Accessed 31

March 31.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) . 1999. Grassland Birds NRCS Fish and

Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 8. ftp://ftp

fc.egov.usda.gov/WHMI/WEB/pdf/GRASS1.pdf

. Accessed 6 October 2008.

Neuki rchen, D., M. Himken, J. Lammel, U. Czypionka

- Krause, and H.W. Olfs, 1999. Spatial

and Temporal Distribution of the Root System and Root Nutrient Content of an

Established Miscanthus Crop. European Journal of Agronomy Vol. 11, pp. 301

- 309.

Ng, T.L., J.W. Eheart, X. Cai, and F. Miguez, 2010. Modeling Miscanthus in the Soil and

Water Assessment Tool 9SWAT) to Stimulate Its Water Quality Effects As a

Bioenergy Crop. Environmental Science Technology Vol. 44, pp. 7138

- 7144.

Ohio Department of Natural Resourc es (ODNR) . 2011a Species A to Z Guide. Ohio

Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/species_a_to_z/Species GuideIndex/tabid/6491/Def

ault.aspx . Accessed 28 March 2011.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) . 2011b. Wetland History. Department of

Natural Resources.

http:/ /www.ohiodnr.com/dnap/wetlands/history/tabid/1001/Default.aspx

.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)

. 2011. Division of Air Pollution Control.

NAAQS Attainment Status. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/general/naaqs.aspx on.

Accessed 01 April

.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 8**  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2010. Clean Data Request. 01 April.

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/SIP/annual.aspx . Accessed 05 April 2011.

Pimentel, D., and J. Krummel, 1987. Biomass Energy and Soil Erosion: Assessment of

Resource Costs. Biomass Vol. 14, pp. 15

- 38.

Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Daehler, A.S. Davis, R.N. Wiedenmann, D. Simberloff, and

R.N. Mack, 2006. Adding Biofuels to the Invasive Species Fire? Science Vol. 313,

pp. 1742. September.

Ramsey, J., and D.W. Schemske, 1998. Pathways, Mechanisms, and Rates of Polyploid

Formation in Flowering Plants. A nnu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. Vol. 29, pp.467

- 501.

Richter, G.M., A.B. Riche, A.G. Dailey, S.A. Gezan, and D.S. Powlson, 2008. Is UK Biofuel

Supply from Miscanthus Water

- Limited? Soil Use Management Vol. 24, pp. 235

-

245.

Sage, R., M. Cunningham, A.J. Haughton, M .D. Mallott, D. Bohan, A. Riche, and A. Karp,

2010. The environmental impacts of biomass crops: use by birds of miscanthus in

summer and winter in southwestern England. The International Journal of Avian

Science. Vol. 152, pp. 487

- 499.

Schwarz, H., P. Lie bhard, K. Ehrendorfer, and P. Ruckenbauer, 1994. The Effect of

Fertilization on Yield and Quality of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’. Industrial

Crops and Products Vol. 2, pp. 153

- 159.

Seaber, P. R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp, 2007. Hydrologic Unit Ma ps. U.S. Geological

Survey, Water Supply Paper 2294. March. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2294/

.

Accessed March 2011.

Smeets, E.M.W., I.M. Lewandowski, and A.P.C. Faaij, 2009. The Economical and

Environmenta l Performance of Miscanthus and Switchgrass Production and Supply

Chains in a European Setting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol. 13,

pp. 1230

- 1245.

Somerville, C., H. Youngs, C. Taylor, S.C. Davis, and S.P. Long, 2010. Feedstocks for

Lignocel lulosic Biofuels. Science Vol. 329, pp. 790

- 792. August.

Spencer, J.L., and S. Raghu, 2009. Refuge or Reservoir? The Potential Impacts of the

Biofuel Crop Miscanthus x giganteus on a Major Pest of Maize. PLoS One Vol. 4,

No. 12, pp. 8336.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 9**  Stullu, L., S. Cadoux, M. Preughomme, M

- H. Jeuffroy, and N. Beaudoin, 2011. Biomass

Production and Nitrogen Accumulation and Remobilisation by Miscanthus x

giganteus as Influenced by Nitrogen Stocks in Belowground Organs. Field Crops

Research Vol. 121, pp. 381

- 391.

St yles, D., and M.B. Jones, 2007. Energy Crops in Ireland: Quantifying the Potential Life

Cycle greenhouse Gas Reductions of Energy

- Crop Electricity. Biomass and

Bioenergy Vol. 31, pp. 759

- 772.

Taylor, David, “Re: Need HEL data for OH and PA.” 29 March 2011. Email

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. National Population Estimates.

http://www.census.gov/popest/national/national.html . Accessed May 2009

U . S. of Agriculture (USDA), 2011e. USDA Agricult ural Projections to 2010. Office of the

Chief Economist, Long term

- Projections Report OCE

- 2011

- 1. February 2011.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS), 2011 . Farm

Household Economics and Well

- Being: Farm Household Income. February.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

. Economic Research Service (ERS)

. 2011. Farm

Income and Costs: 2011 Farm Sector Income Forecast. February.

http://www .ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/nationalestimates.htm . Accessed

March 2011.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). 2008. Rural

America at a Glance, 2008 edition, Economic Information Bulletin 40.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB40/EIB40.pdf . Accessed July 2009.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

. Farm Service Agency (FSA)

. 2011 . Conservation

Program.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=rns

- css

.

Accessed March 2011.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farm Services Agency (FSA). 2011a.

Conservation Reserve Program Monthly Summary, February. Washington, D.C.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/feb2011crpstat.pdf

.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farm Services Agency (FSA). 2011b. Biomass

Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) Final Rule Provisions. Washington, D.C.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Int ernet/FSA_File/bcapoctrules.pdf

.**REFERENCES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **7**

**- 10**  U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farm Services Agency (FSA). 2010. Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Biomass Crop Assistance

Program (BCAP). Washington, D.C.

U . S. Department of Agricul ture (USDA). Farm Service Agency (FSA)

. 2003. Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Conservation Reserve

Progra m (CRP). Washington, D.C.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

200 9. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data Vol. 1,

Geographic Area Series, Part 51, pp. 1

- 739.

U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

.

2011b. Ohio 11

- Digit Watershed Boundaries.

U

. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

, Ohio. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2007. Soil Survey of Ashtabula County,

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/OH 007/0/Ashtabula.pdf

. Accessed

March 2011.

U . S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

. 2011. Water Resources of the United States,

Hydrologic Unit Maps. United States Geological Survey.

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html

. Accessed March 2011.

U . S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2011. Hydrologic Unit Maps. Water Resources of the

United States. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html Accessed March 2 011.

U . S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2010a. National Hydrography Dataset.

ftp://nhdftp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/States/ . Accessed March 2011.

U . S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2010 b . Estimated Use of Water in the United States, 2005

. 

### http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html . Accessed March 2011

.

Vanloocke, A., C.J. Bernacchi, and T.E. Twines, 2010. The Impacts of Miscanthus x

giganteus Production on the Midwest US Hydrologic Cycle. Glob al Change Biology

Bioenergy Vol. 2, pp. 180

- 191.

Zub, H.W., S. Arnoult, M. Brancourt

- Hulmel, 2011. Key Traits for Biomass Production

Identified in Different Miscanthus Species at Two Harvest Dates. Biomass and

Bioenergy Vol. 35, pp. 637

- 651.**PREPARERS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **8**

**- 1**  

## 8 PREPARERS

Name Organization Experience Project Role

Rae Lynn Schneider Integrated

Environmental

Solutions, LLC 10 years Project

Management,

Project Review

M.P.P, Public Policy, Harvard

University, 2001

B.S., Rangeland Ecology &

Management, Texas A&M

University, 1997

Katelyn Kowalczyk Integrated

Environmental

Solutions, LLC 2.5 years Affected

Environment,

Environmental

Consequences B.S.

, Environmental Science,

Stephen F. Austin State

University, 2008

Ransley Welch Integrated

Environmental

Solutions, LLC 6 years GIS Analysis and

Map Generation

M.S. , Geoarchaeology and

GIS, University of North Texas,

2008

B.A., Anthropology, University

of North Texas, 2002

Kimberly Suedkamp Wells ENVIRON 10 years Mitigation and

Monitoring Plan

Ph.D., Fisheries and Wildlife

Sciences, University of

Missouri, 2005

M.S., Fisheries and Wildlife

Ecology, Oklahoma State

University, 2000

B.S., Renewable Natural

Resources, University of

Arizona, 1998

Heather Smith

B.S. Natural Resource

Management, Grand Valley

State University, 2007 ENVIRON 4 years

GIS support**PREPARERS**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **8**

**- 2**  Name Organization Experience Project Role

Scott Coye

- Huhn

J.D. Environmental Law,

University of Cincinnati Law

School, 2004

M.S. W. Social Work, St. Louis

University, 1998

S.W. Social Work, Xavier

University, 1992 Aloterra Energy

LLC 16 years

Project Sponsor,

Mitigation and

Monitoring Plan,

Environmental

Consequences

Gene Garrett University of

Missouri 30 years Environmental

Consequences

Ph.D., Forest Ecology,

University of Missouri, 1970

M.S., Forest Silviculture,

Southern Illinois University,

1966

B.S., Forestry, Southern Illinois

University, 1965

Rich Pyter Consultant for

Aloterra Energy

LLC 8 years Environmental

Consequences

M.S

. , University of Illinois at

Champaign

- Urbana, Natural

Resources and Environmental

Sciences, 2007

B.S., University of Illinois at

Champaign

- Urbana,

Environmental Geology, 2003**PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **9**

**- 1**  

## 9 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED

Name Organization/Agency

**Responsible Agency Officials**

Brandon Willis Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency,

Conservation and Environmental Programs Division,

Washington D.C.

Martin Lowenfish Associate Director, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm

Service Agency, Conservation and Environmental

Programs Division, Washington D.C.

Matthew Ponish National Environmental Compliance Manager , U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency,

Conservation and Environmen tal Programs Division,

Washington D.C.

**Federal Agencies Contacted** 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service Adam Davis, Ecologist, Global Change and

Photosynthesis Research Unit, IL

Seth Dabney

Richard Lowrance, Research Ecologist, GA

John Sadler, Research Leader,, Cropping

Systems and Water Quality Research Unit, MO

USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection

Service Neil Hoffman, Special Assistant to the Deputy

Administrator

USDA, Forest Service Joseph Carbone, Assistant Director , Ecosystem

Management Coordination

- NEPA

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation

Service Philip Barbour, PhD , Wildlife Biologist

Steve Brady, PhD , Team Leader, National

Wildlife Technology Development Team

John Englert, National Plants Materials Specialist

Matt Harrington, Natio nal Environmental

Coordinator

C. Wayne Honeycutt, PhD , Deputy Chief for

Science and Technology

Norm Widman, National Agronomist

USDA, Rural Development Linda Rogers, Deputy Director, Program Support

Staff

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10 Washington, D.C.

Boston, MA

New York, NY

Philadelphia, PA

Atlanta, GA

Chicago, IL

Dallas, TX

Kansas City, KS

Denver, CO

San Francisco, CA

Seattle, WA**PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **9**

**- 2**  Name Organization/Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 9 Portland, OR

Albuquerque, NM

Fort Snelling, MN

Atlanta, GA

Hadley, MA

Denver, CO

Anchorage, AK

Washington, D.C.

**State Agencies Contacted**

State of Arkansas Terry Griffin, Assistant Professor, University of

Arkansas

Randy Young, Director, Arkansas Natural

Resources Commission

State of Missouri Dennis Baird, Deputy Director of Agriculture

Don Day, University of Missouri Extension

Cerry Klein, Sustainable Advantage Director,

University of Missouri

Sara Parker Pauley, Director, Department of

Natural Resources

Steve Wyatt, Vice Provost for Economic

Development, University of Missouri

State of Ohio David Marrison, County Extension Director, Ohio

State University Extension

– Ashtabula County

**Local Officials and Interested Parties**

Brian Anderson, Executive Director, Growth

Partnership of Ashtabula County, OH

John Armstrong, Manager, Ohio Seed

Improvement Association, OH

Dale Arnold, Director, Energy Policy of Ohio

Farm Bureau Federation, OH

J. Mike Brooks, President, Regional Economic

Development, Inc. MO

Paula Hertwig Hopkins, Assistant City Manager,

City of Columbia, MO

Blake Hurst, President, Missouri Farm Bureau

Federation , MO

Tad Johnson, Director, Columbia Water and

Light, Columbia, MO

Bob McDavid, Mayor, City of Columbia, MO

Sue McGowan, Director, Paragould Regional

Chamber of Commerce, Paragould, AR

John Palo, Director, Conneaut Port Authority, OH

Sean Ratican, Exec utive Di rector, Ashtabula

County Port Authority , OH

Jeff Roskam, Kansas Alliance for Biorefining and

Bioenergy, KS

Tony Stonecypher, City Manager, City of Aurora,

MO

Shannon Walker, Director Aurora Chamber of

Commerce, Aurora, MO**PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **9**

**- 3**  Name Organization/Agency

Randy Zook, CEO, Arkansas State Ch amber of

Commerce, AR

**Political Officials**

Senator Roy Blunt

Senator John Boozman

Senator Sherrod Brown

Representative Rick Crawford

Representative Steven C. LaTourette

Senator Claire McCaskill

Senator Mark Pryor**PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED** 

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  **9**

**- 4**  This Page Intentionally Left Blank**APPENDICES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  

## APPENDICES**APPENDICES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  This Page Intentionally Left Blank**APPENDICES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  

## APPENDIX A

– Ohio Seed Improvement Association Data Summary for Giant

Miscanthus**APPENDICES**

**DRAFT**

**- Environmental Assessment Giant Miscanthus Establishment and Production**  This Page Intentionally Left BlankFrom: John Armstrong [mailto:armstrong@ohseed.org]

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:17 AM

To: Scott Coye-Huhn

Subject: RE: IMPORTANT -please read and respond/call

Dear Scott:

Your statement below is correct. More specifically, what I have done is to monitor the flower

unit of OSIA’s M. x giganteus selection for pollen and seed production by observation and microscopic

examination. To date neither pollen or seed has been produced. The extruded anthers of the flower unit

have been shriveled in appearance and similar to what we see with male sterile seed corn inbred lines.

In addition, I have observed no volunteer seedlings emerging in observation plot areas adjacent to the

M. x giganteus selection.

Furthermore, the following technical references provide additional comment regarding the

invasive issue:

1. CAST Commentary, QTA2007

‐ 1, November 2007, “Biofuel Feedstocks: The Risk of

Future Invasions”, p. 5.

2. Lewandowski, I., J. C. Clifton

‐ Brown, J.M.O. Scurlock, and W. Huisman. 2000.

Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy

19:209

‐ 227.

Best regards.

John Armstrong, Sec./Mgr.

Ohio Seed Improvement Association

61650 Avery Road P.O. 477

Dublin, Ohio 43017

Ph. 614

‐ 889

‐ 1136

Fax: 614

‐ 889

‐ 8979

Email: armstrong@ohseed.org

*************************************************************************************

From: Scott Coye-Huhn [mailto:scoyehuhn@aloterraenergy.com]

Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 11:25 AM

To: John Armstrong

Subject: IMPORTANT -please read and respond/call

Importance: High

Are you comfortable with the statement below? They are basing that on your observations in your 3

year study.

The primary potential impacts of giant miscanthus establishment are expected to be the

potential for the hybrid to produce fertile seed and thus spread beyond the extent of the

propagation or planting acres. Based on third-party independent verification by the OSIA (OSIA2010), the likelihood of giant miscanthus producing fertile seed and spreading beyond the

enrolled fields is expected to be low. Additional weed risk assessments conducted on giant

miscanthus compared to other potential bioener gy crops such as giant reed, switchgrass

( Panicum virgatum ), Eucalyptus species, and Jatropha (i.e., a deciduous succulent plant) have

concluded the risk of invasiveness in the United State is low (Barney and DiTomaso 2008,

Gordon et al. 2011). In the event, giant miscanthus does escape, eradication studies indicate

spring tillage followed by glyphosate application was successful in eliminating 95 percent of

aboveground biomass after the first application (Anderson et al. 2011).

Scott Coye-Huhn

Director of Business Development

Aloterra Energy LLC

8000 Research Forest Drive, Suite 115-176

The Woodlands, Texas 77382

713-412-5311