Page 1 of 49

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Local Meat Capacity Grant Program

December 20, 2023

On behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) and Environmental Activities Division of the Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC)

Business Center, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), I prepared a 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) to evaluate the environmental consequences 

anticipated to result from implementing the Local Meat Capacity Grant (Local MCap). The Local 

MCap Program is authorized by Section 1001(b)(4) of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) (Pub. L. 

No. 117-2), which funds “loans and grants and other assistance to maintain and improve food and 

agricultural supply chain resiliency.”

The USDA AMS has proposed to fund grants to support independently owned meat and poultry 

processing businesses. These grants will allow AMS to provide additional and more efficient 

processing options for local livestock producers by modernizing, increasing, diversifying, and 

decentralizing meat and poultry processing capacity, including support for rendering.

Since The Local MCap Program is a national program, the geographic scope of this PEA covers the

entire U.S., Given the broad nature of the program, the Environmental Assessment (EA) is 

programmatic (PEA) and is intended to provide full NEPA coverage for activities clearly within the 

scope of the PEA. This PEA also serves as the basis for tiered, site-specific NEPA analysis, when 

additional documentation is required, that will occur prior to implementation of activities with 

possible resource impacts. The PEA was available for public review and comment from October 31st, 

2023, through November 30th, 2023, and was announced through a Notice of Availability published 

in The Federal Register (88 FR 74402). One comment was received and can be found in Appendix C

of the final PEA. The comment was found to be outside the scope of the environmental review. As 

such, no changes were made to the document based on that comment. 

The Notice of Availability of the final PEA and signed FONSI will be published in the Federal Register 

and will be available for public viewing following the announcement at: 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/localmcap for a period of 30 calendar days.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action Alternative will implement the Local MCap Program as outlined in the RFA 

issued on May 8, 2023. AMS will grant about $75 million to eligible applicants who are involved in 

meat and poultry processing, including rendering animal carcasses or byproducts. Eligible applicants 

are Tribes and Tribal Entities, for-profit, non-profit, and State or local government entities. The
Page 2 of 49

applicants’ facilities must be in any of the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District 

of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands. These facilities must be independently and domestically owned, and applicants or 

their designees must hold all required permits, plans and be in compliance with all relevant 

environmental requirements.

Reasons for Finding of No Significant Impact

Programmatic environmental documents analyze impacts on a broad scale, in this case the 

introduction of a new program that will result in subsequent specific actions. Because of the large 

geographic scope and the innovative nature of the Local MCap Grant Program, it is not possible to 

meaningfully predict the location of the site-specific access and improvement activities, nor the 

environmental conditions that exist on those lands. Thus, before implementing projects with 

possible protected resource impacts, a site-specific environmental review will be completed to 

demonstrate that actions are within the scope of the PEA and do not have impacts not already 

analyzed.

In consideration of the analysis documented in the PEA and the reasons outlined in this FONSI, the 

Proposed Action would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. The 

determination is based on the following:

1. All potential beneficial and adverse impacts of implementing the Proposed Action have been 

fully considered within the PEA; no significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

were identified based on this analysis.

2. All projects with potential resource impacts will undergo site-specific environmental reviews. 

The analysis will assess these impacts based on the conditions of each site, including the 

following factors: Cultural Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species, Coastal Barriers, 

Coastal Zone Management Act Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory, National Natural Landmarks, Sole Source Aquifers, Wetlands, Floodplains, 

Important Land Resources, and Environmental Justice.

3. As detailed in the analysis presented in the PEA, the Proposed Action would not significantly 

affect water quality, soils, wetlands, vegetation or wildlife, air quality, climate change, 

socioeconomics, and environmental justice, or other important resources.

4. The Proposed Action would not involve effects to the quality of the human environment that are 

likely to be highly controversial.

5. The Proposed Action would not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects 

and does not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.

6. The Proposed Action does not result in cumulative significant impacts when considered with 

other actions that also individually have insignificant impacts.

7. The Proposed Action does not threaten a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment.

8. Comments received on the PEA did not warrant substantive changes to the alternatives or 

impact analyses, and no controversies were identified.
Page 3 of 49

Determination

In accordance with the NEPA, which implement the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 

found at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, I find the Proposed Action is not a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, no Environmental Impact Statement will be

prepared.

Melissa Bailey

Agricultural Marketing Service

Associate Administrator
Page 4 of 49

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Local Meat Capacity Grant Program

Prepared by the USDA Farm Production and Conservation Business Center 

Environmental Activities Division and the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service

December 20, 2023

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Page 5 of 49

COVER SHEET

Proposed Action: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) has proposed to fund grants to support independently owned meat and poultry processing 

businesses. These grants will help them provide additional and more efficient processing options for 

local livestock producers by modernizing, increasing, diversifying, and decentralizing meat and poultry 

processing capacity, including support for rendering. 

This program will expand processing capacity for small and midsized meat and poultry processors, which 

are particularly vulnerable to disruption. It will also increase capacity and promote competition in the 

meat and poultry processing sector. Based on public input, USDA identified an urgent need to expand 

and diversify meat and poultry processing capacity.

The Local MCap Program is authorized by Section 1001 (b)(4) of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 

(Pub. L. No. 117-2), which funds “loans and grants and other assistance to maintain and improve food 

and agricultural supply chain resiliency”.

Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)

Lead Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

Cooperating Agencies: None

Further Information: Lara Shockey, Natural Resource Specialist

(304) 373-5875

lara.s.shockey@usda.gov

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/localmcap

Comments: This PEA was prepared in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, 

Public Law 91-140, 42 US Code 4321-4347, as amended.

AMS accepted public comments regarding the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment from

October 31st to November 30th. Comments were accepted via email to LocalMCap@usda.gov.

The Notice of Availability (NOA) received a single comment, which was outside the scope of the NEPA 

review. The comment addressed the economic and fiscal aspects of the program and its benefits for 

corporations. The comment can be reviewed in Appendix C below.
Page 6 of 49

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 8

Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 9

1.1.2 Program Administration..................................................................................................... 10

1.5 NEPA Compliance.......................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1 Purpose of Using a Programmatic Environmental Assessment.........................................11

1.3.1 Purpose of the Action........................................................................................................ 12

1.3.2 The Need............................................................................................................................ 12

1.4 Decision To Be Made..................................................................................................................... 13

1.5 Regulatory Compliance................................................................................................................. 13

1.6 Public Involvement and Consultation ........................................................................................... 13

1.7 Organization of PEA ...................................................................................................................... 14

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................... 14

1.8 Alternative A - No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 14

1.9 Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative (Preferred).............................................................. 15

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts............................................................................. 16

1.10 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis............................................................................. 17

1.11 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis ............................................................................ 20

1.11.1 Water Quality................................................................................................................... 20

1.11.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .................................................................... 23

1.11.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 27

1.11.4 Climate Change................................................................................................................ 29

Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 32

1.12 Definition .................................................................................................................................... 32

1.13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions................................................................... 32

1.14 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action .............................................................................. 32

1.15 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .......................................................... 32

Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations...................................................................... 33

1.16 Clean Water Act .......................................................................................................................... 33

1.17 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)...................................................................................... 33

1.18 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)......................................................................................... 34
Page 7 of 49

1.19 Endangered Species Act (ESA) .................................................................................................... 34

1.20 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) ....................................................................................... 35

1.21 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)............................................................................................... 35

1.22 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ................................................................................. 35

1.23 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)............................................................................................. 36

1.24 Wilderness Act............................................................................................................................ 36

1.25 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands ........................................................................ 36

1.26 Executive Order 11998: Floodplain Management...................................................................... 36

1.27 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations..................................................................................... 37

1.28 Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.................................37

1.29 Executive Order 14017: Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains.......................................38

Implementation................................................................................................................................. 38

1.30 Process for Screening Site-Specific Projects ............................................................................... 38

1.30.1 NEPA Screening Flowchart............................................................................................... 40

List of Preparers and Reviewers and Persons and Agencies Contacted................................................ 41

References......................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix A - AMS ENV-A – Environmental Prescreening Worksheet.................................................44

Appendix B - AMS ENV-B – Environmental Screening Worksheet...................................................... 45

Appendix C - Comment Summary....................................................................................................... 47
Page 8 of 49

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

EA Environmental Assessment

ESW Environmental Screening Worksheet

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

GHG Green House Gases

IPaC Information Planning and Conservation

Local MCap Local Meat Capacity 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OO Office of Outreach

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
Page 9 of 49

Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

AMS’ mission is to administer programs that create domestic and international marketing opportunities 

for U.S. producers of food, fiber, and specialty crops. AMS also provides the agriculture industry with 

valuable services to ensure the quality and availability of wholesome food for consumers across the 

country and around the world. The AMS Transportation and Marketing Program currently oversees 20 

grant and agreement programs, providing federal financial assistance to support rural America and the 

Nation’s agricultural sector. 

This document is a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) for the Local Meat Capacity Grant 

Program (Local MCap grants), a new program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). It describes the planned actions of the Local MCap grants

and potential environmental impacts resulting from those actions. The Local MCap grants will support

independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses with funds to provide more and better 

processing options for local livestock producers by modernizing, increasing, diversifying, and 

decentralizing meat and poultry processing capacity, including support for rendering. This program is 

anticipated as a one-time funding opportunity which will not recur annually. 

This PEA has been prepared to streamline the overall Local MCap grant review process. AMS anticipates 

using this PEA to guide decision-making for site-specific actions over the next two to three years. Each 

proposed grant and any associated site-specific actions would be evaluated to determine if its potential 

environmental impacts have been addressed in this PEA. Any activities that fall out the scope of this 

review or have extraordinary circumstance may be further evaluated using a Site-Specific Environmental 

Review Form. The review would be conducted by USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

1.1.1 Background

The Local MCap grants are funded through Section 1001(b)(4) of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 

(Pub. L. No. 117—2), consistent with the purpose of providing “loans and grants and other assistance to 

maintain and improve food and agricultural supply chain resiliency.” Approximately $75 million is 

available under this grant program, subject to appropriations and funds availability. Local MCap is 

administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

Through the funds provided by Section 1001 (b)(4) of ARPA, AMS would award competitive grants to 

eligible applicants that submit high quality proposals that would provide more and better processing 

options for local livestock producers by modernizing, increasing, and diversifying and decentralizing 

meat and poultry processing capacity, including support for rendering. 

As stated in the Request for Applications, AMS will prioritize applications from applicants that engage 

with underserved producers. AMS also encouraged applications that support smaller farms and ranches 

in the region, new and beginning farmers and ranchers, veteran producers and/or underserved 

communities. 
Page 10 of 49

USDA promotes climate-resilient landscapes and rural economic systems, including tools to support 

agriculture, forests, grazing lands, and rural communities. AMS encouraged applicants to consider 

including goals and activities related to mitigating or adapting to climate change in their project’s design 

and implementation.

1.1.2 Program Administration

Local MCap grants will be administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS). Funding will be prioritized by applications that demonstrate engagement with 

and benefit to local livestock producers, including underserved producers.

There are two project types available through Local MCap Grants: 

Processing Expansion Projects will fund grants from $100,000 up to $5 million to increase the processing 

and/or rendering capacity of privately, cooperatively, non-profit, or Tribally held processing facilities as 

described in this PEA. Applications in this project type may request funding for equipment-only projects 

over $250,000 or projects that include equipment purchases and facilities upgrades that create new 

and/or expanded markets for local livestock producers. For funding requests that include building and 

facility upgrades, those can include improvements, re-arrangements, and/or alterations to a facility that 

are required to use a space more effectively and to accommodate new or upgraded equipment and 

processes.

Simplified Equipment-Only Projects will fund smaller grants between $10,000 and $250,000 for 

equipment purchases for meat and poultry processors. The Simplified Equipment-Only option is a Fixed 

Price Grant, meaning it will fund only equipment purchases (and not associated facility upgrades, 

staffing, or other costs), and the amount awarded will be equal to the cost of the equipment up to 

$250,000. No match is required for this grant.

AMS may prioritize applications based on diversity in applicants funded in geographic regions and across 

a variety of species, size of the operation, or (for Processing Expansion Projects only) leveraging 

significant non-Federal financial and technical resources. AMS may also prioritize projects which are 

located within communities that have distressed or at-risk scores on the Distressed Communities Index 

(DCI) developed by the Economic Innovation Group, enhance worker and/or farmer voice through 

cooperative ownership, payment of living wages, the provision of worker training, and/or promotion of 

safe working conditions, and/or enhance local and regional environmental stewardship and climate 

benefits.

1.2 NEPA Compliance

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.), was enacted in 

1970 to establish a national policy for the protection of the environment. It applies to Federal agency 

actions that have the potential to affect the quality of the human environment. It requires Federal 

agencies to conduct a review considering potential environmental impacts through a systematic and 

interdisciplinary approach, including consideration of the natural and social sciences in planning, 

evaluation, and decision-making. Federal agencies are obligated to comply with NEPA regulations 

coordinated by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508). 
Page 11 of 49

These regulations outline the Federal agency’s requirements under NEPA and provide specific 

procedures for preparing environmental documentation to comply with NEPA. 

If the action is subject to NEPA review, then the environmental impacts must be documented at one of 

three levels of NEPA analysis:

1. Applying a categorical exclusion (CE); (AMS does not have a NEPA implementing regulation with 

CEs)

2. Preparing an environmental assessment (EA), and, if appropriate, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI); or

3. Preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD).

1.2.1 Purpose of Using a Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Generally, Federal agencies prepare an EA to determine whether an action would have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human environment (40 C.F.R. 1508.27). One of the overall goals is to provide 

decision makers and the public with information about the potential for impacts due to AMS’s proposed 

action before a final decision is made. Once this process is final, AMS has performed the necessary 

analysis to determine if the effects may be significant. If there is potential for significant impacts, then an

EIS is prepared. If the impacts are not expected to be significant, a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is prepared.

A PEA is necessary because AMS does not have a NEPA regulation with categorical exclusions and is a 

higher, national programmatic level of NEPA compliance. PEAs are broad in scope and may address 

several related actions or projects, an entire program, a broad action, or Federal Financial Assistance 

activities. A PEA is intended to accomplish NEPA compliance by:

1. summarizing the current environmental situation;

2. describing the purpose and need for the activities;

3. identifying alternative actions; and

4. assessing the potential environmental impacts of all alternatives.

Before a Federal agency implements policies, programs, plans, and projects, NEPA requires documented, 

analysis of a hard look at major Federal actions and potential impacts associated with alternatives to the 

action. 

A PEA allows AMS to reduce paperwork and streamline site-specific or project level NEPA reviews to the 

extent an assessment of potential impacts have already been addressed in the PEA. Programmatic 

environmental impact statements and environmental assessments and tiering from other analyses can 

reduce or eliminate redundant and duplicative efforts and effectively address cumulative effects. In this 

case, a PEA may be used to address the impacts of actions, or project types that are similar in nature or 

broad in scope, including cases where cumulative impacts are of concern. For consideration of potential 

impacts from specific actions and/or individual projects, tiering allows an agency to rely largely on the 

analysis of the programmatic NEPA document to address the impacts (Canter, 1996). 
Page 12 of 49

If the project type or impacts are not adequately covered in this PEA, the proposed project would 

require additional NEPA review. Depending upon the degree of the project’s potential impacts, this 

review could involve the preparation of a site-specific environmental review documenting consistency

with the PEAs FONSI or additional support for a categorical exclusion, a supplemental EA tiered from this 

PEA, a new EA, or an EIS. This PEA addresses NEPA compliance at the program level. Evaluation of sitespecific impacts would be addressed during the planning and selection process for each project to 

ensure that any significant environmental issues are identified; that consultation among agencies, other 

area programs, and the public occurs; and that a decision may be made on whether the FONSI, EA, or EIS 

is the appropriate level of analysis. This process is further documented in the implementation chapter 

below (see Chapter 6). 

1.3.1 Purpose of the Action

The purpose of this program is to support independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses 

with funds to provide additional and more efficient processing options for local livestock producers by 

modernizing, increasing, diversifying, and decentralizing meat and poultry processing capacity, including 

support for rendering.

1.3.2 The Need

This program will expand processing capacity for small and midsized meat and poultry processors. Given 

that the meat and poultry processing sector is particularly vulnerable to disruption, increasing capacity 

and promoting competition is a high priority for USDA. Based on public input, USDA identified an urgent 

need to expand and diversify meat and poultry processing capacity; increase producer income; provide 

producers an opportunity to have ownership in processing facilities; create stable, well-paying jobs in 

rural regions; improve worker health, safety, training, and wages for meatpacking jobs; spur 

collaboration among producers and workers; prompt State, Tribal, and private co-investment; and 

provide consumers with more choices.

USDA promotes climate-resilient landscapes and rural economic systems, including tools to support 

agriculture, forests, grazing lands, and rural communities. AMS encouraged applicants to consider 

including goals and activities related to mitigating or adapting to climate change in their project’s design 

and implementation. This program shall assist in accommodating climate-driven shifts for production 

and decrease the vulnerabilities in potential food loss, waste, and diminished food safety. 

The proposed action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the USDA Strategic Plan 2023-2027, 

which include:

• Increasing agricultural opportunities by expanding markets and supporting a competitive 

agricultural system that creates greater access for producers.

• Fostering rural prosperity by investing in rural infrastructure, businesses, services, and housing

• Ensuring USDA programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, with integrity and a focus on 

customer service.

• Building a modern workforce with a culture of service by enhancing employee engagement, 

diversity, inclusion, and performance
Page 13 of 49

1.4 Decision To Be Made

AMS must decide if the proposed action affects the quality of the human environment. If AMS

determines it would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared and signed. Projects entered under Local MCap Grants 

Program would be analyzed individually to determine the need for site-specific environmental reviews. 

1.5 Regulatory Compliance

This PEA has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

(Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508); and AMS Local MCap Grant Program (AMS, 2023). 

The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, and enhance the human environment through well-informed 

Federal decisions. The following non-exclusive list laws and Executive Orders (EOs) apply to actions 

undertaken by Federal agencies and form the basis of the analysis presented in this PEA:

• Clean Air Act (42 USC 85 parts 7401 et seq., 1999)

• Clean Water Act (33 USC 26 parts 1251 et seq., 2000)

• Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended (16 USC 35 parts 1531 et seq., 1988)

• EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (35 Federal Register [FR] 4247, 

1977)

• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations (59 FR 32, 1995)

• National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 300101 et seq., 2014) and associated Section 106 

process (54 USC 306108, 2014)

• EO 13985 Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal Government

• EO 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 19, 2021)

• EO 14017 Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains

• EO 14036 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

• Implementing the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act. 

1.6 Public Involvement and Consultation

Scoping is a process that seeks opinions and consultation from the interested public, affected parties, 

and any agency with interests or legal jurisdiction. Scoping occurs early and is an open process allow for 

input on issues to be addressed in the environmental document. Among other tasks, scoping eliminates 

non-significant issues and focuses on the significant issues for analysis. 
Page 14 of 49

This document was made available for public review and comment on October 31st at the 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/localmcap webpage. A notice of the availability of the 

document was published in a Notice to Trade by the USDA on the same day. An additional notification of 

availability to comment was published in the Federal Register on October 31st. 

1.7 Organization of PEA

This PEA assesses the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on 

potentially affected environmental and economic resources.

• Chapter 1 provides background information, defines the Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action, and identifies the scoping process for this PEA.

• Chapter 2 defines the two alternatives, the No Action and the Proposed Action, as well as those 

alternatives considered but not fully evaluated.

• Chapter 3 includes the Affected Environment (i.e., existing conditions) and defines the 

Environmental Consequences (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) anticipated to result 

from the implementation of each alternative.

• Chapter 4 describes the cumulative impacts of the action. 

• Chapter 5 describes Federal environmental laws and regulations that are likely to apply to 

proposed projects, as well as a description of compliance by the Local MCap Grants Program.

• Chapter 6 outlines how the Local MCap Grant Program would use this PEA for site-specific 

actions.

• Chapter 7 provides the list of individuals and agencies who collaborated to complete the PEA.

• Chapter 8 includes the references utilized in this PEA’s preparation.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This PEA considers two options: The No Action Option, and the Preferred Option (Proposed Action). No 

significant effects on important resources were found during the scoping process. The panel review is 

examining if individual projects are viable, meet the Local MCap Grant Program goals, and address 

environmental compliance needs. More NEPA documentation would be prepared for specific projects if 

they have extraordinary circumstances or are found to be beyond the scope of this programmatic review. 

These documents would be done when the projects are ready for evaluation.

1.8 Alternative A - No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, AMS will not implement or support any programs or initiatives to assist 

independent meat and poultry processors in upgrading their equipment and facilities. This alternative 

would result in the continuation of the current conditions, where many small and medium-sized 

processors face challenges such as low capacity, high operating costs, outdated technology, and limited 

market access. 
Page 15 of 49

1.9 Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative (Preferred)

Under the Proposed Action Alternative AMS will implement the Local Meat Capacity Grant (Local MCap)

program as described in the Request for Applications (RFA) published on May 8, 2023. Under this 

alternative, AMS would award approximately $75 million in grants to eligible applicants, which include 

business entities (regardless of legal structure) engaged in meat and poultry processing, including 

rendering animal carcasses or byproducts. Eligible entities include Tribes and Tribal Entities, for-profit 

entities, non-profit entities, and State or local government entities. Private entities must be 

independently owned and operated, and all applicants must be domestically owned. Additionally, 

applicants’ facilities must be physically located within the 50 States of the United States, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The program has two types of projects:

Processing Expansion Projects: These projects will include equipment purchases and facilities upgrades 

that create new and/or expanded markets for local livestock producers. For funding requests that 

include building and facility upgrades, those can include improvements, re-arrangements, and/or 

alterations to a facility that are required to use a space more effectively and to accommodate new or 

upgraded equipment and processes. The maximum amount of funding for these projects will be $5

million per applicant.

Examples of Processing Expansion Projects include but are not limited to:

• Expanding processing capacities to increase production volumes, process additional meat and 

poultry species, or add new value-added product types;

• Upgrading processing and manufacturing equipment;

• Increasing packaging and labeling capacity;

• Increasing cold storage capacity;

• Improving slaughter and humane handling infrastructure;

• Installation of holding pens or wastewater management systems, or other improvements that do 

not require breaking new ground or constructing new facilities.

Simplified Equipment-Only Projects: These projects will fund only equipment purchases up to $250,000 

per applicant. The equipment must be directly related to increasing the processing capacity or efficiency 

of the facility.

Examples of Simplified Equipment Projects include but are not limited to:

• Smokers

• Sausage makers

• Breaders

The average grant amount is expected to be about $500,000 for Processing Expansion Projects and 

$50,000 for Simplified Equipment-Only Projects.
Page 16 of 49

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions for resources potentially affected by the 

implementation of the Local MCap Grant Program, as well as the potential environmental consequences. 

As a programmatic EA (PEA); this document evaluates the effects of implementing changes to a 

nationwide voluntary program. As such, the geographic scope of the program is extensive and not fully 

defined at this stage of program implementation. Therefore, the utility and availability of modeling and 

quantitative analysis is limited. The potential impacts of implementing the program changes will be 

discussed on a national or regional level, as appropriate. Site-specific environmental reviews would occur 

prior to the implementation of on-the-ground activities, such as facility improvement activities. This PEA 

and any supplemental site-specific environmental reviews will provide the full NEPA coverage for 

activities under Local MCap Grant program. 

Applicants from all states, territories, and freely associated states of the United States can apply for the 

Local MCap program, However, the specific locations of the proposed projects are not yet determined, 

as AMS is still in the process of reviewing the applications. Therefore, this PEA only gives a general 

description of the environmental setting based on the kinds of projects that qualify for funding under 

the program.

The environmental setting for Processing Expansion Projects is assumed to be primarily rural or semirural areas, where most meat and poultry processing facilities are located. These areas typically have low 

population density, agricultural land use, and natural or semi-natural vegetation cover. The 

environmental setting for Simplified Equipment-Only Projects is similar to that of Processing Expansion 

Projects, except that some equipment-only projects may be located in urban or suburban areas, where 

some small-scale or niche meat and poultry processors operate. The program will not fund new 

construction which disturbs soil and is restricted to modifications of existing facilities only.

The environmental analysis for projects that may be funded include the following resources or features:

• Air quality

• Water Quality

• Wetlands

• Floodplains

• Coastal zones

• Groundwater

• Soils

• Vegetation

• Wildlife

• Endangered and threatened species

• Cultural resources

• Socioeconomic conditions and Environmental justice

The baseline conditions and potential impacts of these resources or features are discussed in Chapter 3

of this PEA.
Page 17 of 49

1.10 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) indicate that the lead agency should identify and eliminate from 

detailed study the issues that are not important or that have been covered by prior environmental 

review, narrowing the discussion of these issues in the document to a brief presentation of why they will 

not have a significant effect on the human or natural environment. 

Vegetation and Wildlife. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap Grant program will occur 

either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures where there is little chance 

of encountering wildlife or vegetation. Therefore, the potential for significant adverse impacts on 

wildlife, vegetation, migratory birds from the proposed activities are expected to be negligible. No 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are likely to be affected by the 

proposed activities. The proposed activities will not introduce or spread invasive species or pests. The 

proposed activities will comply with all applicable Federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding 

wildlife and vegetation protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on wildlife and vegetation 

beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing operations in the project 

areas. The program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources related 

to wildlife and vegetation. The program will not conflict with any plans, policies, or programs for the 

conservation of wildlife and vegetation. A site-specific review process for Local MCap Grant Program

activities that may impact species, or their critical habitat will be followed according to chapter 6 of this

PEA.

Cultural Resources. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap Grant program will occur either 

indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures where there is little chance of 

encountering cultural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts on cultural resources from the 

proposed activities will be negligible. No historic properties or traditional cultural properties are likely to 

be affected by the proposed activities. No significant adverse effects on archaeological resources, 

historic buildings or structures, historic landscapes, or other cultural features are anticipated. The 

proposed activities will comply with all applicable Federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding 

cultural resource protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on cultural resources beyond 

those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing operations in the project areas. The 

program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources related to cultural 

resources. The program will not conflict with any plans, policies, or programs for the preservation of 

cultural resources.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on 

cultural resources. No mitigation measures are required or recommended for this resource area. 

However, if any inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are encountered during the implementation 

of the program activities, a site-specific review process will be followed according to chapter 6 of this

PEA.
Page 18 of 49

Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zones. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap Grant program 

will occur either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures where there is 

little chance of impacts to coastal zones or coastal barriers. Therefore, the potential impacts on coastal 

zones or coastal barriers from the proposed activities will be negligible. No significant adverse effects on 

coastal ecosystems, habitats, species, or processes are anticipated. The proposed activities will comply 

with all applicable federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding coastal zone and coastal barrier 

protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on coastal zones or coastal 

barriers beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing operations in the 

project areas. The program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources 

related to coastal zones or coastal barriers. The program will not conflict with any plans, policies, or 

programs for the conservation or management of coastal zones or coastal barriers.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on 

coastal zones or coastal barriers. No mitigation measures are required or recommended for this resource 

area. However, if any inadvertent impacts on coastal zones or coastal barriers are encountered during 

the implementation of the program activities, a site-specific review process will be followed according to 

chapter 6 of this PEA.

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The proposed activities under the AMS Local 

MCap Grant program will occur either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing 

structures where there is little chance of impacts to wild and scenic rivers or nationwide rivers inventory. 

Therefore, the potential impacts on wild and scenic rivers or nationwide rivers inventory from the 

proposed activities will be negligible. No significant adverse effects on river-related values, such as 

scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values are anticipated. The 

proposed activities will comply with all applicable federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding 

wild and scenic river and nationwide river inventory protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on wild and scenic rivers or 

nationwide rivers inventory beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing 

operations in the project areas. The program would not result in any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources related to wild and scenic rivers or nationwide rivers inventory. The program 

will not conflict with any plans, policies, or programs for the preservation or management of wild and 

scenic rivers or nationwide rivers inventory.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on wild 

and scenic rivers or nationwide rivers inventory. No mitigation measures are required or recommended 

for this resource area. However, if any inadvertent impacts on wild and scenic rivers or nationwide rivers 

inventory are encountered during the implementation of the program activities, a site-specific review 

process will be followed according to chapter 6 of this PEA.

Wilderness Areas and National Natural Landmarks. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap 

Grant program will occur either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures 

where there is little chance of impacts to wilderness areas or national natural landmarks. Therefore, the 

potential impacts on wilderness areas or national natural landmarks from the proposed activities will be 

negligible. No significant adverse effects on wilderness character traits or on biological and geological 
Page 19 of 49

resources (such as scenery, habitats, species, or processes) are anticipated. The proposed activities will

comply with all applicable federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding wilderness area and 

national natural landmark protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on wilderness areas and 

national natural landmarks beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing 

operations in the project areas. The program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources related to wilderness areas and national natural landmarks. The program will

not conflict with any plans, policies, or programs for the preservation or management of wilderness 

areas and national natural landmarks.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on 

wilderness areas and national natural landmarks. No mitigation measures are required or recommended 

for this resource area. However, if any inadvertent impacts on wilderness areas and national natural 

landmarks are encountered during the implementation of the program activities, a site-specific review 

process will be followed according to chapter 6 of the PEA. 

Floodplains and Wetlands. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap Grant program will occur 

either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures where there is little chance 

of impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Therefore, the potential impacts on floodplains and wetlands 

from the proposed activities will be negligible. No significant adverse effects on hydrology, soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, or other resources associated with floodplains and wetlands are anticipated. The 

proposed activities will comply with all applicable federal, state, local laws, and regulations regarding 

floodplain and wetland protection.

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on floodplains and wetlands 

beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing operations in the project 

areas. The program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources related 

to floodplains and wetlands. The program would not conflict with any plans, policies, or programs for the 

conservation or management of floodplains and wetlands.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on 

floodplains and wetlands. No mitigation measures are required or recommended for this resource area. 

However, if any inadvertent impacts on floodplains and wetlands are encountered during the 

implementation of the program activities, a site-specific review process will be followed including 

required permits according to chapter 6 of this PEA.

Soils and Other Important Land Resources. The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap grant 

program will occur either indoors or in previously disturbed areas adjacent to existing structures that are 

properly permitted where there is little chance of impacts to soils and other important land resources. 

Therefore, the potential impacts on soils and other important land resources from the proposed 

activities will be negligible. No significant adverse effects on soil quality, quantity, or productivity are 

anticipated. The proposed activities will comply with all applicable federal, state, local laws, and 

regulations regarding soil and land resource protection.
Page 20 of 49

The AMS Local MCap Grant program will not have any cumulative impacts on soils and other important 

land resources beyond those already occurring from existing meat and poultry processing operations in 

the project areas. The program will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources related to soils and other important land resources. The program will not conflict with any 

plans, policies, or programs for the conservation or management of soils and other important land 

resources.

Based on the analysis above, the AMS Local MCap Grant program will have no significant impact on soils 

and other important land resources. No mitigation measures are required or recommended for this 

resource area. However, if any inadvertent impacts on soils and other important land resources are 

encountered during the implementation of the program activities, a site-specific review process will be 

followed according to chapter 6 of this PEA. 

1.11 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis

This section describes the environment that could be affected by implementing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. Aspects of the affected environment described in this section focus on the 

relevant major resources or issues. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be 

implemented. The No Action Alternative would result in the continuation of the current land and 

resource uses in the project area.

1.11.1 Water Quality

Definition of Resource

Surface waters, as defined by The Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, are U.S. waters, including streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands. The 

principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface water resources is the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

The CWA aims to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in the nation’s water to “restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”, CWA Section 101 (a). 

The Clean Water Act was designed to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters and protect 

water quality. There is a permitting process in place to mitigate any negative impacts to water quality. 

Affected Environment

The environmental setting for Processing Expansion Projects is primarily rural or semi-rural areas, where 

most large-scale meat and poultry processing facilities are located. These areas typically have low 

population density, agricultural land use, and natural or semi-natural vegetation cover. The 

environmental setting for Simplified Equipment-Only Projects is similar to that of Processing Expansion 

Projects, except that some equipment-only projects may be located in urban or suburban areas, where 

some small-scale or niche meat and poultry processors operate.

While the Local MCap program will only fund existing meat and poultry processing plant enhancements, 

and therefore will not add new processing facilities; the meat processing industry can generate 

wastewater that contains organic matter, blood, fat, grease, pathogens, and other pollutants that can 

harm the environment and human health if not properly treated. AMS’ RFA stated that all eligible 
Page 21 of 49

applicants are required to have the necessary permits in place, including but not limited to National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate their wastewater discharges to 

surface waters or municipal sewer systems.

The type and number of NPDES permits that slaughterhouses need depend on several factors, such as 

the size and location of the facility, the type and amount of wastewater generated, the method and 

destination of discharge, and the applicable state and Federal regulations. Most states issue NPDES 

permits under primacy for EPA. The EPA retains oversight of the NPDES program and can review, 

comment on, and object to permits issued by primacy states. Some examples of NPDES permits that 

slaughterhouses may need are:

• Direct Discharge Permits: These are permits for facilities that discharge their wastewater directly 

to a water of the United States, such as a stream, lake, or ocean. Direct dischargers must comply 

with the effluent limitations and standards established by the EPA for the Meat and Poultry 

Products (MPP) category under 40 CFR Part 4321. These standards vary depending on the type 

of animal processed (e.g., beef, pork, poultry) and the type of process used (e.g., slaughter, 

further processing, rendering). Direct dischargers must also meet any additional requirements 

imposed by the state or local authorities where they operate.

• Indirect Discharge Permits: These are permits for facilities that discharge their wastewater to a 

publicly owned treatment works (POTW), which is a municipal sewer system that treats 

wastewater before discharging it to a water of the United States. Indirect dischargers must 

comply with the pretreatment standards established by the EPA for the MPP category under 40 

CFR Part 4321. These standards are designed to prevent pollutants from interfering with or 

passing through the POTW. Indirect dischargers must also meet any additional requirements 

imposed by the POTW or the state or local authorities where they operate.

• Stormwater Permits: These are permits for facilities that discharge stormwater runoff from their 

industrial activities to a water of the United States or a POTW. Stormwater runoff may contain 

pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and oil that can degrade water quality 

and harm aquatic life. Stormwater dischargers must comply with the requirements of the NPDES 

stormwater program under 40 CFR Part 1222. These requirements include developing and 

implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies potential sources 

of pollution and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate them. Stormwater 

dischargers must also meet any additional requirements imposed by the state or local 

authorities where they operate.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, AMS would not make funds available under the Local MCap Grant 

Program. 

Under the No Action Alternative, AMS would not undertake or fund grants for the purpose of expanding 

independently owned meat and poultry processing business. This could hamper their ability to upgrade

equipment and facilities, where those investments could result in more efficient technologies with fewer 

impacts on air and water quality. The alternative would also eliminate USDA’s efforts to target 
Page 22 of 49

investments toward meat and poultry processors with smaller-scale projects, with a goal of increasing 

processing availability and variety for local livestock producers. This alternative would not satisfy the 

purpose and need but will be carried forward in the analysis to serve as a baseline against which impacts 

of the Preferred Alternative can be assessed.

Without the access to the Local MCap Grants designed to update existing production facilities to create 

more efficient operations, the possible long-term adverse impacts to water quality exists on a wider 

scope. 

Proposed Action Alternative

Under this alternative there will be increased processing availability and variety for local and regional

livestock producers. The investments funded through this program are expected to expand and diversify 

meat and poultry processing capacity; therefore, they could contribute to efficient and cost-effective 

measures to successfully comply with EPA effluent regulations while also providing consumers with more 

options. AMS also encouraged applications which enhance worker health, safety, and training. This grant 

opportunity will allow facilities to invest in updated equipment and infrastructure improvements, some 

of which may decrease effluent discharge. 

The proposed activities under the AMS Local MCap grant program may result in the discharge of 

pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States. Existing facilities have already obtained 

the necessary permits and proposed projects will require updating those permits, if applicable, 

consistent with the Clean Water Act to address any water quality issues. The NPDES permit program 

aims to protect water resources by addressing point source water pollution. Initiated by the Clean Water 

Act in 1972, the NPDES permit program controls the discharge of pollutants into surface waters by 

imposing effluent limitations to protect water quality. The NPDES permits are issued by states that have 

obtained EPA approval to issue permits or by EPA Regions in states without such approval. The NPDES 

permits specify an acceptable level of a pollutant or pollutant parameter in a discharge (for example, a 

certain level of bacteria), monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that 

the discharge does not hurt water quality or people’s health.

The proposed activities would adhere to the NPDES permitting and the associated requirements, 

minimizing the potential impacts on water quality from the proposed activities. The water quality 

standards, criteria, and designated uses would not be adversely affected. The activities would also 

comply with all relevant laws and regulations that protect water quality at the Federal, state, and local 

levels. 

The program would not cause any additional impacts on water quality beyond those that already occur 

from the existing meat and poultry processing operations in the project areas. The program would not 

involve any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources related to water quality. The program 

anticipates no significant adverse effects on water quality. The activities would conform to all applicable 

laws and regulations that pertain to water quality and have the necessary permits. However, if any

unforeseen impacts on water quality are detected during the implementation of the program activities, a 

site-specific environmental evaluation process will be conducted according to chapter 6 of this PEA.
Page 23 of 49

1.11.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Definition of Resource

Socioeconomics is a branch of economics that studies how social processes affect and are affected by 

economic activity. Socioeconomics considers factors such as income, education, occupation, place of 

residence, ethnicity, and religion, and how they influence the well-being, opportunities, and choices of 

individuals and groups. Socioeconomics also examines how economic policies and practices impact the 

distribution of wealth, power, and resources among different segments of society. A USDA programmatic 

Environmental Assessment should analyze the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed actions and 

alternatives on the affected communities, such as changes in employment, income, production, 

consumption, public services, and quality of life.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental justice aims to ensure that no population 

bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, 

municipal, and commercial operations or from the execution of federal, state, and local laws; 

regulations; and policies. Environmental justice also requires effective access to decision makers for all, 

and the ability in all communities to make informed decisions and take positive actions to produce 

environmental justice for themselves. A USDA Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) should 

evaluate the environmental justice impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives on the affected 

communities, such as potential effects on health, safety, culture, subsistence, and human rights.

Affected Environment

The Local Meat Capacity Grant program will expand and diversify meat and poultry processing capacity; 

increase producer income; provide producers an opportunity to have ownership in processing facilities; 

create stable, well-paying jobs in rural regions; improve worker health, safety, training, and wages for 

meatpacking jobs; spur collaboration among producers and workers; prompt State, Tribal, and private 

co-investment; and provide consumers with more choices.

In its Request for Applications, AMS stated that it may prioritize projects that are in distressed 

community, as defined by the Distressed Communities Index (DCI). The DCI is a tool for measuring the 

comparative well-being of U.S. communities and helps illuminate ground level disparities across the 

country. The seven components of the index are: no high school diploma, housing vacancy rate, adults 

not working, poverty rate, median income ratio, change in employment and change in establishments. 
Page 24 of 49

Figure 1 shows that 14.8% of the United States qualifies as a distressed community based upon the U.S. 

Census reports. 

Figure 1. Distressed Communities in the U.S.
Page 25 of 49

Figure 2 shows the slaughterhouses available throughout the United States per the USDA Food Safety 

Inspection Service. With the availability of the Local MCap Grant program, there may be an increase in

stable, well-paying jobs created in rural regions that may improve the economic success of the 

community. This grant may also improve existing worker health, safety, training, and wages for 

meatpacking jobs.

Figure 2. Lack of Small Cattle Slaughter Facilities in the U.S.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would eliminate the potential for positive socioeconomic impacts on the small and 

medium-sized meat and poultry processing businesses and the communities they depend on. Here examples of 

impacts:

• Under the No Action Alternative, AMS would not provide Local MCap Grant program funds to help the 

small and medium-sized meat and poultry processing businesses upgrade their facilities, equipment, 

technology, and operations. This would limit their ability to improve their efficiency, productivity, quality, 

safety, and profitability, and to meet the increasing demand for local and niche meat products.
Page 26 of 49

• Without the Local MCap Grant program funds, the independently owned meat and poultry processing 

businesses would face more challenges and competition from the larger and more consolidated 

processing plants that have more resources, capacity, and market power. This could result in reduced 

revenues, increased costs, lower profits, and higher risks for the small and medium-sized processors.

• The No Action Alternative would also miss the opportunity to create positive socioeconomic impacts 

that could result from implementing the Local MCap Grant program. The program could enhance the 

viability and sustainability of the independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses by 

helping them improve their infrastructure, technology, and practices. The program could also increase 

the availability and affordability of local and niche meat products for the consumers, especially those in 

underserved areas or markets. The program could also foster more economic development, resilience, 

diversity, and equity in the rural communities that depend on the meat and poultry processing industry.

Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, AMS would make funds available through the Local MCap Grant

Program. Because the program aims to support more and better markets for local and regional livestock 

producers, AMS encouraged processor applicants to engage with such producers, especially small and 

underserved farmers, and ranchers. AMS requested project plans based on the needs of small, underserved, 

and/or local and regional producers, and thoughtful projections of markets for the processed products. The goal 

for this program is to expand and diversify meat and poultry processing capacity; increase producer income; 

provide producers an opportunity to have ownership in processing facilities; create stable, well-paying jobs in 

rural regions; improve worker health, safety, training, and wages for meatpacking jobs; spur collaboration among 

producers and workers; prompt State, Tribal, and private co-investment; and provide consumers with more 

choices. 

The Local Meat Capacity Grant (Local MCap) is a program that supports independently owned meat and poultry 

processing businesses. The program provides funds to modernize, increase, diversify, and decentralize meat and 

poultry processing capacity, including support for rendering. In terms of socioeconomic justice, the program 

aims to provide more and better processing options for local livestock producers. This could potentially lead to 

an increase in local employment opportunities and economic growth. The Local MCap program does not 

explicitly address environmental justice, but it may help reduce the environmental burden on vulnerable 

communities by supporting more efficient and sustainable meat and poultry processing. The program funds 

activities such as upgrading equipment, facilities, and technology, or implementing best practices for food safety 

and quality, which could lead to less resource consumption, waste generation, and pollution.

The Local MCap Grant program encouraged applications which demonstrated positive socioeconomic and 

environmental justice impacts on the independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses and the 

communities they serve. Here are examples of possible impacts:

• The Local MCap Grant program would provide financial assistance to help the small and medium-sized 

meat and poultry processing businesses upgrade their facilities, equipment, technology, and operations. 

This would enable them to improve their efficiency, productivity, quality, safety, and profitability, and to 

meet the increasing demand for local and niche meat products.
Page 27 of 49

• The Local MCap Grant program would also help the independently owned meat and poultry processing 

businesses to compete more effectively with the larger and more consolidated processing plants that 

have more resources, capacity, and market power. This would result in increased revenues, reduced 

costs, higher profits, and lower risks for the small and medium-sized processors.

• The improvement of the independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses would have 

beneficial effects on the communities they serve, especially given AMS’ funding priority for projects that 

are located within the Distressed Communities Index, which are either distressed or considered to be atrisk. These communities could gain an important source of employment, income, tax revenue, and 

economic activity that supports the local farmers, ranchers, retailers, consumers, and other businesses. 

They would also gain access to fresh, local, and diverse meat products that meet their preferences and 

needs.

• The Local MCap Grant program could also promote socioeconomic and environmental justice in the rural 

communities that depend on the meat and poultry processing industry. The program would target the 

locations that have high levels of poverty, unemployment, or economic distress, and that have been 

historically underserved or marginalized by the federal policies or programs. The program could 

therefore enhance the opportunities and choices for the low-income, minority, tribal, or vulnerable 

populations that face disproportionate environmental or health burdens from the meat and poultry 

processing activities. The program would also foster more public participation and engagement in the 

decision-making publication of the Environmental Assessment.

The program anticipates no significant adverse effects and positive impacts are predicted to be slightly beneficial

for Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice beyond those that already occur from the existing meat and 

poultry processing operations in the project areas. However, if any unforeseen impacts on Socioeconomic and 

Environmental Justice are detected during the implementation of the program activities, a site-specific 

environmental evaluation process will be conducted according to chapter 6 of this PEA.

1.11.3 Air Quality

Definition of Resource

Air quality is a vital resource for both the environment and human health. It refers to the condition of the air 

within our surroundings. Good air quality pertains to the degree which the air is clean, clear, and free from 

pollutants such as smoke, dust, and smog among others. But when the air contains these pollutants in large 

amounts, it is of poor quality.

Air quality is monitored by measuring a variety of pollutants known to harm human health and the environment, 

such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. The Air Quality Index 

(AQI) is a tool used to communicate the health risks posed by air pollution levels in a simple and understandable 

way.

Affected Environment

Poor air quality has a significant impact on public health and can lead to increased hospital admissions and a 

range of serious health conditions including heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute 

respiratory diseases including asthma.
Page 28 of 49

Meat processing factories are susceptible to the spread of airborne viruses and microbes due to the temperature 

humidity requirements. This means that airborne viruses can survive longer in the air than in other facilities

(Nicola Walshe 2021). 

Ambient air monitoring in meat processing facilities is a critical aspect of maintaining food safety and quality. 

Ambient air monitoring is the systematic, long-term assessment of pollutant levels by measuring the quantity 

and types of certain pollutants in the surrounding, outdoor air. It is an integral part of an effective air quality 

management system. 

Common air quality problems include HVAC filtration, and low air change rates. High levels of particulates can be 

a reason that airborne microbes such as viruses can survive in the air longer. Using low-quality air filters can 

cause a rise in particulate levels which in turn can increase the spread of viruses.

An air change rate is the changing of an air volume in a room over a specific time-period. Often an increased 

number of air changes is recommended to help dilute the number of airborne microbes in the air.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, AMS would not provide Local MCap Grant program funds to help the 

independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses improve their air quality performance. This would 

eliminate funding incentives to improve the air quality of the areas where these businesses operate, as well as 

on the health and well-being of the workers and the residents. Here are possible impacts of failing to implement 

the Local MCap grant program:

• Without the Local MCap Grant program funds, the small and medium-sized meat and poultry processing 

businesses would have less incentive and capacity to adopt best management practices and technologies 

that can reduce their emissions of air pollutants.

• The existing air quality due to the emissions from the meat and poultry processing activities and its 

concomitant risks for the health and safety of the workers and the residents in the vicinity of these 

facilities would remain unchanged. Exposure to these pollutants can cause respiratory problems, 

cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and premature death. 

• The No Action Alternative would also miss the opportunity to create positive impacts on the air quality 

that could result from implementing the Local MCap Grant program. The program could help the 

independently owned meat and poultry processing businesses to comply with the Federal and state air 

quality standards and regulations that apply to their industry, such as the EPA’s Meat and Poultry 

Products Effluent Guidelines and the Clean Air Act. The program could also encourage the adoption of 

more sustainable and efficient practices and technologies that can lower the emissions of air pollutants 

and greenhouse gases from the meat and poultry processing operations. 

Under the no action alternative, the trajectory of air pollution from small and medium meat and poultry 

processing facilities would remain unchanged. 
Page 29 of 49

Proposed Action Alternative

The AMS Local MCap grant program would have slightly positive impacts on the air quality of the areas where 

the small and medium meat and poultry processing businesses operate, as well as on the health and well-being 

of the workers and the residents. The agency encouraged proposals to develop or install equipment that 

improves air quality and worker safety. Here are examples of these potential impacts:

• The AMS Local MCap grant program would provide financial assistance to help the small and mediumsized meat and poultry processing businesses upgrade their facilities, equipment, technology, and 

operations. This would enable them to adopt best management practices and technologies that can 

reduce their emissions of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, ammonia, volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases. These pollutants can impair the air quality and 

contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, and ozone depletion.

• An improvement of the air quality due to the reduction of emissions from the meat and poultry 

processing activities would benefit the health and safety of the workers and the residents in the vicinity 

of these facilities. Exposure to these pollutants can cause respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, 

cancer, and premature death. 

• The AMS Local MCap grant program would also help the small and medium-sized meat and poultry 

processing businesses to comply with the federal and state air quality standards and regulations that 

apply to their industry, such as the EPA’s Meat and Poultry Products Effluent Guidelines and the Clean Air 

Act. The program would also encourage the adoption of more sustainable and efficient practices and 

technologies that can lower the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the meat and 

poultry processing operations. 

The program anticipates no significant adverse effects and positive impacts are predicted to be slightly 

beneficial for air quality beyond those that already occur from the existing meat and poultry processing 

operations in the project areas. However, if any unforeseen impacts on air quality are detected during the 

implementation of the program activities, a site-specific environmental evaluation process will be conducted 

according to chapter 6 of this PEA.

1.11.4 Climate Change

Definition of Resource

According to the EPA, “climate change refers to changes in global or regional climate patters attributed largely to 

human-caused increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, and certain synthetic chemicals, trap some of the Earth’s outgoing energy, thus retaining 

heat in the atmosphere.” (EPA, 2023) 

The changes of the earth’s climate can be seen in changing temperatures and precipitation patterns, increases in 

ocean temperatures, sea level and acidity, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as changes in the frequency, 

intensity, and duration of extreme weather events. 

Climate change involves longer-term trends, such as shifts toward warmer, wetter, or drier conditions. These 

trends can be caused by natural variability in climate over time, as well as human activities that add greenhouse 

gases to the atmosphere like burning fossil fuels for energy” (EPA, 2022). 
Page 30 of 49

Affected Environment

Climate change presents real threats 

to U.S. agricultural production, forest 

resources, and rural economies. These 

challenges are complex as agriculture 

generates 10% of GHG emissions in 

the U.S. (Figure 3) through sources 

such as the operation of internal 

combustion engines, enteric 

fermentation by livestock, agricultural 

soil management, manure 

management, field burning, and other 

practices. Agricultural activities 

contribute directly to emissions of 

GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(N2O). 

Figure 3. Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2021

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2023). 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021

The meat production industry has been reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the past 5 decades (Figure 4) 

and this Local MCap Grant program is expected to continue this trend at an economically feasible rate for small 

and distressed communities. 

Figure 4. Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use
Page 31 of 49

Environmental Consequences

USDA promotes climate-resilient landscapes and rural economic systems, including tools to support agriculture, 

forests, grazing lands, and rural communities. AMS encouraged applicants to consider including goals and 

activities related to mitigating or adapting to climate change in their project’s design and implementation.

No Action Alternative 

Not implementing the AMS Local MCap grant program to small and medium meat and poultry processing 

businesses could have negative impacts on climate change, as these businesses would not receive funding to 

develop or install equipment that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Here are examples of possible impacts of 

failing to implement the Local MCap grant program:

• Without the AMS Local MCap grant program funds, the small and medium-sized meat and poultry 

processing businesses would have less incentive and capacity to adopt best management practices and 

technologies that can reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. 

• The No Action Alternative would also miss the opportunity to create positive impacts on climate change 

that could result from implementing the AMS Local MCap grant program. The program could help the 

small and medium-sized meat and poultry processing businesses to comply with the federal and state 

climate change policies and regulations that apply to their industry, such as the EPA’s Meat and Poultry 

Products Effluent Guidelines and the Clean Air Act. The program as proposed encourages the adoption of 

more sustainable and efficient practices and technologies that can lower the emissions of greenhouse 

gases from the meat and poultry processing operations. 

Proposed Action Alternative

Implementing the AMS Local MCap grant program to small and medium meat and poultry processing businesses 

could have positive impacts on climate change, as these businesses may opt to use funds for activities which

reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Here are examples of positive 

impacts:

• The AMS Local MCap grant program would provide financial assistance to help the small and mediumsized meat and poultry processing businesses upgrade their facilities, equipment, technology, and 

operations. This funding could enable them to adopt best management practices and technologies that 

can reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. 

These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the Earth’s temperature to rise.

• Where meat and poultry processing facilities invest in such improved technologies, the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions would mitigate the effects of climate change on the environment and society. 

Climate change can cause more frequent and intense extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, 

heat waves, and storms, that can damage crops, infrastructure, and human health. Climate change can 

also alter the patterns of precipitation, temperature, and seasons, that can affect the availability and 

quality of water, soil, and biodiversity. Climate change can also pose risks for food security, as it can 

reduce the productivity and profitability of agriculture and livestock systems.
Page 32 of 49

• The AMS Local MCap grant program would also help the small and medium-sized meat and poultry 

processing businesses to comply with the Federal and state climate change policies and regulations that 

apply to their industry, such as the EPA’s Meat and Poultry Products Effluent Guidelines and the Clean Air 

Act. The program also encouraged proposals which developed or installed equipment that can lower the 

emissions of greenhouse gases from the meat and poultry processing operations, as well as meeting 

other USDA climate action goals. 

The program anticipates no significant adverse effects and positive impacts are predicted to be slightly beneficial 

for climate change beyond those that already occur from the existing meat and poultry processing operations in 

the project areas. However, if any unforeseen impacts on climate change are detected during the 

implementation of the program activities, a site-specific environmental evaluation process will be conducted 

according to chapter 6 of this PEA.

Cumulative Impacts

1.12 Definition 

CEQ regulations stipulate that a cumulative effects analysis be conducted to consider the potential 

environmental impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions.” 

Cumulative effects most likely arise when a relationship exists between a proposed action and other actions 

expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar period. An action which overlaps with or is in proximity 

to other proposed actions would be expected to have more potential for a cumulative effect on the same 

resources than actions that are more geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide, even partially, in 

time tend to have potential for cumulative effects.

1.13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The affected environment for this cumulative impact analysis includes renovation of existing structures with no 

additional ground disturbance. 

1.14 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action

The cumulative total of environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Local MCap Grant 

Program is not anticipated to have any cumulative negative impact to the environment, as the activities are in 

the renovation category. The Local MCap Grant Program is likely to have a cumulative positive impact on the 

environment since the upgrades to existing facilities could result in more energy efficient systems and/or systems 

that reduce effluent discharge. This program has been given approximately $75 million to support a wide range 

of activities to purchase equipment and upgrade facilities. 

1.15 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources which would be involved should an action be implemented. Irreversible and 

irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and the effects that the 

use of these resources has on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction 
Page 33 of 49

of a specific resource that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource 

commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored because of the action. The 

implementation of the Local MCap Grant Program would result in no irreversible or irretrievable resource 

commitments.

Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations

AMS is responsible for ensuring that projects comply with all relevant authorities. Compliance with these 

authorities would result in few, if any, negative environmental, social, and/or economic impacts. Consultation, 

permits, authorities, and actions relative to water quality, endangered, threatened, and protected species, 

historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, and wetland protections are described in Chapter 5 below, 

and would be required as applicable. 

1.16 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was established with the goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Pursuant to this goal, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States (WOTUS) under Section 404 of 

the CWA, which includes adjacent wetlands. Work and structures located in, or that affect, WOTUS, including 

work below the ordinary high-water mark in non-tidal waters, also are regulated by USACE and require permits.

Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which sets 

forth conditions and permitting requirements for point source discharges into WOTUS, including wetlands. In 

most cases, EPA has delegated NPDES authority to the States and Tribes. Point sources of pollution are primarily 

defined as direct discharges into surface waters from pipes, ditches, and channels, but also include CAFO’s and 

construction sites. Nonpoint sources of pollution, such as runoff from an agricultural field, are defined as an 

exclusion to the NPDES program under CWA and are not considered a point source of pollution according to 

CWA.

There are several CWA provisions that address non-point source pollution which are administered by the states 

and Tribes. Section 319 of the CWA requires states and Tribes to identify waters impaired by non-point source 

pollution and adopt a management program. States and Tribes are also required to establish water quality 

standards under Section 303(d) of the CWA and allowable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that meet water 

quality standards. Section 401 of the CWA requires states to certify that Federal permits, such as Section 404 

CWA permits issued by USACE, are not in violation of any state water quality standards. 

Major impacts on water quality are not anticipated, given the individual project funding levels and program 

limitations. Activities performed under the Local MCap Grant Program with extraordinary circumstances may 

require consultation with the USACE and a Section 404 permit or require a Section 402 NPDES permit from the 

state or Tribal authority and undergo an additional level of regulatory review. 

1.17 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages coastal states, Great Lake states, and U.S. territories and 

Commonwealths (collectively referred to as “coastal states” or “states”) to be proactive in managing natural 

resources for their benefit and the benefit of the Nation. The CZMA Federal consistency provision (16 U.S.C. § 

1456 and 15 C.F.R. part 930) provides states with an important tool to manage coastal uses and resources and to 
Page 34 of 49

facilitate cooperation and coordination with Federal agencies. Under the CZMA, Federal agency activities that 

have coastal effects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved enforceable 

policies of a state’s NOAA-approved coastal management program. In addition, the CZMA requires non-federal 

applicants for federal authorizations and funding to be consistent with enforceable policies of state coastal 

management programs.

Activities performed under the Local MCap Grant Program with extraordinary circumstances may require a 

federal consistency review for activities taking place within a state-designated coastal zone management area. 

Each project will be evaluated for consistency with the CZMA, and additional regulatory review will be performed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

1.18 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)

The Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) provides landscape-level conservation benefits for fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources by reducing the intensity of development. CBRA does this by restricting federal funding and 

financial assistance within designated System Units. The CBRS includes 588 System Units, which comprise nearly 

1.4 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. There are also 282 “Otherwise Protected Areas,” a 

category of coastal barriers that are mostly held for conservation and/or recreation purposes that include an 

additional 2.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. Section 6 of the CBRA permits certain federal 

expenditures and financial assistance within the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), but only after 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Activities performed under the Local MCap Grant Program with extraordinary circumstances may require a 

consultation with EPA for activities taking place within a state-designated coastal barrier resource area. Each 

project will be evaluated in accordance with the CBRA, and additional regulatory review will be performed on a 

case-by-case basis.

1.19 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Section 9 of the ESA, as amended, and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption such as by a permit.

Section 7 requires Federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying 

out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Agencies are further required to 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of habitat for such 

species. If AMS proposes to fund or undertake an action that may affect ESA-listed species, it must initiate a 

Section 7 consultation with the Department of the Interior (US Fish and Wildlife Service – FWS) or Commerce 

(NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS). Regulations specify the procedural requirements for these 

consultations (50 Part C.F.R. 402). Federal agencies must determine whether their proposed actions will have no 

effect on threatened and endangered species or whether informal or formal consultations is required with the 

FWS or NMFS. Informal consultation requires that the action agency prepare a Biological Assessment for 

concurrence by the FWS or NMFS.

A formal section 7 consultation results in a Biological Opinion (BO) prepared by the NMFS or FWS. If 

unintentional but not unexpected take of ESA-listed species may result from the action, and it is determined that 
Page 35 of 49

the take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, the BO may include an incidental take 

statement. The incidental take statement specifies the amount or extent of anticipated take that is allowable due 

to the Federal action. It also outlines reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the take, and terms and 

conditions that must be observed when implementing those measures.

AMS has made a no effects determinations regarding ESA species. However, if extraordinary circumstances are 

identified, consultations would be initiated at the earliest planning stage for site-specific environmental 

evaluation consistent with chapter 6 below.

1.20 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)

The FPPA, implemented by NRCS, aims to minimize the impacts Federal programs have on the irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, 

and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently 

used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up 

land.

Activities under the Local MCap Grant Program are already converted and therefore not subject to the FPPA.

1.21 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA protects over 1,000 species of migratory bird species from any attempt at hunting, pursuing, 

wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof, unless permitted by 

regulations (i.e., for hunting and subsistence activities). Additional protection is allotted under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act for the identified species. Compliance with the MBTA does not usually require a 

permit or authorization; however, the FWS is currently working on proposed rulemaking that may impact 

whether permits for certain Federal activities is required.

Generally, activities under the Local MCap are expected to have no adverse impacts on migratory bird species. 

1.22 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, amended in 1992, requires that responsible agencies taking action that may potentially affect 

any property with historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural value that is listed on or eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) comply with the procedures for consultation and comment issued 

by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The responsible agency also must identify properties 

affected by the action that are listed on or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, usually through 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

(THPO).

The Local MCap Grant Program, while unlikely to affect cultural resources, requires associated site-specific 

projects to comply with the NHPA by coordinating with the SHPO, THPOs, or relevant Tribes, when necessary, in 

accordance with Chapter 6 of this PEA.
Page 36 of 49

1.23 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)

The WSRA established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to preserve rivers deemed to have 

outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values. The National Wild and Scenic River System consists of a 

river or river segments that are in free-flowing condition which have been categorized as wild, scenic, or 

recreational. The National Wild and Scenic River System is administered by various land management agencies. 

To ensure continued protection of these waterways, Federal agencies may not provide financial assistance for

projects which would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was designated.

AMS has made a no effects determinations regarding a river or river segments listed under the WSRA, AMS. 

However, if extraordinary circumstances are identified, consultations would be initiated at the earliest planning 

stage for site-specific environmental evaluation consistent with chapter 6 below. 

1.24 Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act established the Wilderness Preservation System to protect and preserve the wilderness 

character of designated areas by prohibiting certain uses, such as timber harvest, new grazing and mining 

activity, or any other kind of development. The Wilderness Preservation System is administered by various land 

management agencies. To ensure the continued wilderness character of designated wilderness areas, Federal 

agencies must consider whether proposed actions will result in an adverse impact on wilderness areas within the 

action area. 

As areas designated as part of the Wilderness Preservation System are Federal lands, it is not anticipated that 

any available Local MCap Grant Program projects would occur within wilderness areas. However, if extraordinary 

circumstances are identified, consultations would be initiated at the earliest planning stage for site-specific 

environmental evaluation consistent with chapter 6 below.

1.25 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands

The purpose of Executive Order (EO) 11990 is to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and 

to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. To meet these objectives, the order 

requires Federal agencies, in planning their actions, to consider alternatives to wetland sites and limit potential 

damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided.

There should be no Local MCap Grant Program activities that will impact a wetland. Should there be any existing 

facility upgrades that are within a wetland area, proper USACE permits will be required prior to project activities. 

Improvement activities under the Local MCap Grant Program are not expected to have more than short-term 

minor adverse impacts on wetlands and can sometimes result in longer term beneficial impacts as individual 

projects may help decrease effluent discharge. 

1.26 Executive Order 11998: Floodplain Management

The purpose of Executive Order (EO) 11998 is to avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires each Federal agency take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 
Page 37 of 49

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Each agency should determine if any actions undertaken 

would occur in a floodplain and evaluate the potential effects of any actions. If an agency has determined to, or 

proposes to, conduct, support, or allow an action to be in a floodplain, then the agency shall consider 

alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplains.

When a Local MCap Grant Program project involves access or improvement activities impacting a floodplain, 

AMS will ensure a floodplain development permit, is obtained.

1.27 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The purpose of Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 is to focus Federal attention on the environmental and human 

health effects of Federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving 

environmental protection for all communities. It directs Federal agencies to identify and address the 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and lowincome populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. AMS complies with EO 12898 by 

reviewing a proposed project to identify the presence of low-income and/or minority populations that could be 

affected by the project. AMS then analyzes if those populations/communities would bear any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the project’s implementation. If AMS determines 

that the proposed project could cause disproportionately high and adverse effects for low-income or minority 

populations, measures to minimize, mitigate, or avoid those impacts would be implemented. 

Activities under the Local MCap Grant Program are not expected to result in disproportionate adverse impacts to 

minority and low-income populations, as an adverse impact would defy the purpose of the program. Further, the 

RFA states AMS will prioritize applications from applicants that engage with underserved producers. AMS also

encouraged applications that support smaller farms and ranches in the region, new and beginning farmers and 

ranchers, veteran producers, and/or underserved communities. Therefore, it is expected that the Local MCap 

Grant Program will have beneficial long-term and short-term impacts to communities with environmental justice 

concerns. 

1.28 Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

The purpose of (E.O.) 14008 builds on and reaffirms actions already taken to place the climate crisis at the 

forefront of this Nation’s foreign policy and national security planning, including submitting the United States 

instrument of acceptance to rejoin the Paris Agreement. In implementing — and building upon — the Paris 

Agreement’s three overarching objectives (a safe global temperature, increased climate resilience, and financial 

flows aligned with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development), the 

United States will exercise its leadership to promote a significant increase in global climate ambition to meet the 

climate challenge.

The Local MCap Grant Program is designed to encourage smaller meat production facilities to upgrade 

equipment, technology, and create more efficient buildings to increase production capacity. These upgrades 

could have the potential to limit GHG emissions and lower effluent discharge. 
Page 38 of 49

1.29 Executive Order 14017: Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains

Executive Order EO 14017 was issued to strengthen the resilience of America’s supply chains for critical products 

and sectors, such as semiconductors, batteries, pharmaceuticals, and minerals. The order directed each 

department in the administration to assess potential supply-chain risks within their jurisdiction and come up 

with strategies to mitigate or overcome these. The order also sought to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing base, 

promote innovation and research, create well-paying jobs, and cooperate with allies and partners who share our 

values.

In response, USDA published a report outlining the risks and resilience of the U.S. agri-food supply chains, as well 

as identifying potential solutions to address vulnerabilities. This report was informed by public comments 

solicited through the Federal Register. Among other vulnerabilities, the report noted that the growing 

concentration of ownership in meat and poultry processing industries has given rise to concerns about market 

power and the potential for excessive price spreads (differences in prices received by farmers for animals and 

paid by consumers for meat products). USDA’s recommendations included diversify critical supply chain 

infrastructure, expanding local and regional programs, and enable more and better markets for producers and 

consumers. The Local MCap Grant Program implements this recommendation in the meat and poultry supply 

chain by funding upgrades to independently owned and operated facilities.

Implementation

Site-specific actions are projects undertaken or funded by AMS through the Local MCap Grant Program that are 

consistent with the categories identified in Section 1.1.3 and the Proposed Action Alternative. AMS anticipates 

using this PEA to guide decision-making for site-specific actions for applications received in response to the 

FY2023 Request for Applications for Local Meat Capacity Grants. For any future funding opportunities considered 

substantially similar, AMS would review the PEA, and relevant environmental concerns, to determine whether 

the PEA’s scope and analysis remain applicable to the program. If the program’s mandate or focus shifts 

substantially during that time, a new PEA may be prepared, or this PEA may require additional environmental 

evaluation to allow evaluation under the existing FONSI.

As site-specific actions are being considered under the Local MCap Grant Program, this PEA would be reviewed 

to determine whether they are within the scope of its analysis. If additional NEPA analysis is warranted for a 

specific decision, it may be tiered from this PEA as appropriate. Consistent with CEQ regulations at 40 C.F.R. 

1508.28, the tiered NEPA documents would incorporate by reference the applicable general discussions in this 

PEA and concentrate solely on the issues specific to the analysis being prepared. 

Site specific environmental analysis would be prepared consistent with CEQ regulations at 40 C.F.R. 1500-1508 if:

• The Local MCap Grant Program is considering an action that is substantially different from the proposed 

action and the changes are relevant to environmental concerns; or

• There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing 

on the proposed action or its impacts. 

1.30 Process for Screening Site-Specific Projects

A PEA cannot be used to avoid or defer the consideration of extraordinary circumstances that may arise from 

individual actions within the program. 
Page 39 of 49

Most projects eligible for the Local MCap program funding are unlikely to affect any protected resources, and 

they can be assessed under the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). However, some extraordinary

cases may need more review.

When it is found that the PEA does not cover the scope or impacts of the proposed action, these are called 

extraordinary circumstances. The agency must do a site-specific analysis that fills in the gaps of this PEA. This 

way, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be valid for the specific site.

Some examples of extraordinary circumstances are:

• Actions that have significant impacts on a resource or issue that were not analyzed in the PEA, such as 

endangered species residing in structures targeted for remodeling, cultural resources discovered in 

previously disturbed areas, or human health concerns not considered.

• Actions to replace waste treatment or septic systems that, due to unforeseen or other circumstances, 

require relocation to areas not previously disturbed to the extent that they will be now.

• Actions that involve new technologies, methods, or locations that were not considered in the PEA.

• Actions that have cumulative effects that were not accounted for in the PEA, such as multiple projects in 

the same area or region over time.

• Actions that have changed substantially since the PEA was completed, such as new information, 

regulations, or public input.

If an extraordinary circumstance is identified, the agency should document the rationale for why the PEA does 

not apply and what level of NEPA analysis is required for the action. The Agency should also consult with relevant 

stakeholders, such as other agencies, Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Service, or the public, to ensure that the 

environmental impacts of the action are adequately addressed in the site-specific environmental evaluation in 

accordance with Chapter 6 of this PEA.
Page 40 of 49

1.30.1 NEPA Screening Flowchart
Page 41 of 49

List of Preparers and Reviewers and Persons and Agencies Contacted

List of Preparers

Name and Title Education and Experience

Jason E. McMillin, Natural 

Resource Specialist, FPAC BC,

Environmental Activities Division

MS Certificate in Energy and Environmental Law, Texas A&M 

University, MS Agriculture Economics, Texas A & M University

BS Agriculture Business & Management, Texas State University

21 Years of experience in preparing environmental documents for 

USDA

Adriana Alcorn, Agricultural 

Program Specialist, Iowa SEC

Compliance Specialist

BA in Criminal Justice, Loras College 

State Environmental Coordinator

7 years of experience in preparing environmental documents for 

USDA

List of Reviewers

Name and Title Education and Experience

Robyn Rose, FPAC BC, Deputy 

Director

Deputy Director for USDA Farm Production and Conservation 

Business Center Environmental Activities Division with 27 years of 

Federal government experience. Ph.D. Entomology.

Betsy Rakola, Associate Deputy 

Administrator

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and 

Marketing Program

Master of Science in Agriculture, Food, and Environment; Tufts 

University 

Mark Abbott, Producer 

Processer Support Branch Chief

Producer Processor Support Branch Chief, USDA Agricultural 

Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program

Emily West, Grants 

Management Specialist

USDA Agricultural Marketing Services, Transportation and 

Marketing Program

Bachelor of Technology; Animal Science, State University of New 

York at Cobleskill
Page 42 of 49

References

American Farmland Trust (AFT). (2018). Greener Fields: California Communities Combating Climate Change. 

American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C. Available: https://s30428.pcdn.co/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/AFT_CA-GrFields-web3_0.pdf. 

Congressional Research Service (CRS). (2021). Racial Equity in U.S. Farming: Background in Brief. Available at: 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46969. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). The National Environmental Policy Act: a study of its 

effectiveness after twenty-five years. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. Available: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/nepa25fn.pdf. 

Economic Research Service (ERS). (2019). Characteristics of principal farm operator households, by limitedresource farm status, 2016. Available: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/48870/table11.xls?v=6191.3. 

Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change [Website]. 

Available: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/frequently-asked-questions-about-climatechange#climate-change. 

Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021. EPA 

430-R-23-002. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-andsinks1990-2021. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force. (2003). The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on 

Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Available: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/report/totaldoc.html. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2017). 2017 Census of Agriculture. Available: 

www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus. 

Plater, Z.J.B., R. Abrams, and W. Goldfarb. (1992). Environmental Law and Policy: A Coursebook on Nature, Law, 

and Society. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

The White House. (2022). Biden-Harris Administration Launches Version 1.0 of Climate and Economic Justice 

Screening Tool, Key Step in Implementing President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative [Press release]. Available: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/11/22/biden-harris-administration-launches-version-1-0-

of-climate-and-economic-justice-screening-tool-key-step-in-implementing-president-bidens-justice40-initiative/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Action Team. (1997). Civil rights at the United States 

department of agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

n.d. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf.

n.d. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2023_LMCG_RFA.pdf.

Agency, Environmental Protection. 2023. Basics of Climate Change. https://www.epa.gov/climatechangescience/basics-climate-change.
Page 43 of 49

—. 2023. Climate Adaptation and EPA's Role. https://www.epa.gov/climate-adaptation/climate-adaptation-andepas-role#:~:text=Definitions,levels%20of%20atmospheric%20greenhouse%20gases.

—. 2023. Greenhouse Gases. https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhousegases#:~:text=Greenhouse%20gases%2C%20such%20as%20carbon,retaining%20heat%20in%20the%20atmosph

ere.

—. 2023. Managing Air Quality- Ambient Air Monitoring. https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-managementprocess/managing-air-quality-ambient-air-monitoring.

Ahammad, Heal, Harry Clark, Hongmin Dong. 2014. "Agriculture, Forestry and." Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United . https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf.

Briefing, White House. 2021. Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promotingcompetition-in-the-american-economy/.

Group, Economic Innovation. 2023. Distressed Communities. https://eig.org/distressed-communities/.

Room, The White House Briefing. 2021. Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-theclimate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.

—. 2023. Fact Sheet: President Biden Signs Executive Order to Strengthen Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Across the Federal Government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-releases/2023/02/16/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-to-strengthen-racialequity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-across-the-federalgovernment/#:~:text=The%20Executive%20Order%20d.

Service, USDA- Agricultural Marketing. 2023. Local Meat Capacity Grant (LocalMCap). 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/localmcap.

—. 2023. "Local Meat Capacity Grants." Fiscal Year 2023 Request for Applications. April 19. 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2023_LMCG_RFA.pdf.

Service, USDA-Agricultural Marketing. 2023. Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity- Technical Assistance. 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/mppta.

USDA-FSIS. 2010. "Mapping Slaughter Availability in U.S." 

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2010/08/23/mapping-slaughter-availability-us.

Air Quality Resources for Professionals | Air | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/air/resources.htm. 

How do I get information about air quality where I live? | Air | CDC. 

https://www.cdc.gov/air/infographics/information-about-local-air-quality.htm.

Air Quality | Air | CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/air/default.htm. 

(Agency, Managing Air Quality- Ambient Air Monitoring 2023)
Page 44 of 49

Appendix

Appendix A - AMS ENV-A – Environmental Prescreening Worksheet
Page 45 of 49

Appendix B - AMS ENV-B – Environmental Screening Worksheet
Page 46 of 49
Page 47 of 49

Appendix C - Comment Summary
Page 48 of 49
Page 49 of 49