31610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1470 

RIN 0578–AA43 

Conservation Stewardship Program 

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 2301 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(2008 Act) amended the Food Security 

Act of 1985 to establish the 

Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP). On July 29, 2009, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

published an interim final rule for CSP 

with a 60-day public comment period. 

On September 21, 2009, the public 

comment period was extended 30 days. 

NRCS is publishing a final rule that 

addresses the comments received on the 

interim final rule and makes other 

minor adjustments to improve clarity of 

the rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: The rule is 

effective June 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief, 

Financial Assistance Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5237 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250; 

Telephone: (202) 720–1845; Fax: (202) 

720–4265; or e-mail 

CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 

(FR Doc. 93–24523, September 30, 

1993), this final rule is an economically 

significant regulatory action since it 

results in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. The 

administrative record is available for 

public inspection at the Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Room 5242 South 

Building, Washington, DC 20250. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

NRCS conducted an economic analysis 

of the potential impacts associated with 

this program. A summary of the 

economic analysis can be found at the 

end of the Regulatory Certifications 

section of this preamble and a copy of 

the analysis is available upon request 

from Dwayne Howard, Branch Chief, 

Financial Assistance Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Room 

5237 South Building, Washington, DC 

20250 or electronically at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/ 

under the CSP Rules and Notices with 

Supporting Documents title. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NRCS has determined that the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 

applicable to this final rule because 

NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, 

or any other provision of law, to publish 

a notice of proposed rulemaking with 

respect to the subject matter of this rule. 

Environmental Analysis 

Availability of the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). A 

programmatic environmental 

assessment was prepared in association 

with the CSP interim final rule. The 

analysis determined that there was not 

a significant impact to the human 

environment and as a result an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

not required to be prepared (40 CFR part 

1508.13). The EA and FONSI were 

available for review and comment for 30 

days from the date the interim final rule 

was published in the Federal Register. 

For this final rulemaking, the agency 

has determined that there are no new 

circumstances or significant new 

information that has a bearing on 

environmental effects which warrant 

supplementing the previous EA and 

FONSI. The proposed changes 

identified in this final rule are 

considered minor changes that should 

be implemented for the program. The 

majority of these changes are 

administrative or technical or 

corrections to the regulation. 

Copies of the EA and FONSI may be 

obtained from Matt Harrington, National 

Environmental Coordinator, Ecological 

Sciences Division, Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6151 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250. 

The CSP EA and FONSI are also 

available at the following Internet 

address: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

programs/Env_Assess. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

NRCS has determined through a Civil 

Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) that the 

interim final rule discloses no 

disproportionately adverse impacts for 

minorities, women, or persons with 

disabilities. The final CRIA provides 

responses to the interim final rule’s 

CRIA comments. The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Office of Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR), 

Office of Compliance, Policy, and 

Training (formally the Office of 

Adjudication and Compliance) worked 

with NRCS in the initial preparation of 

the proposed interim final rule and 

CRIA. Based on these preliminary 

meetings and their review, it was 

determined there was no adverse 

impact. The OASCR concurred with the 

CRIA for the proposed final rule. 

The data presented indicates 

producers who are members of the 

protected groups have participated in 

NRCS conservation programs at parity 

with other producers. Extrapolating 

from historical participation data, it is 

reasonable to conclude that NRCS 

programs, including CSP, will continue 

to be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. Outreach and 

communication strategies are in place to 

ensure all producers will be provided 

the same information to allow them to 

make informed compliance decisions 

regarding the use of their lands that will 

affect their participation in USDA 

programs. CSP applies to all persons 

equally regardless of their race, color, 

national origin, gender, sex, or disability 

status. Therefore, the CSP rule portends 

no adverse civil rights implications for 

women, minorities, and persons with 

disabilities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Section 2904 of the 2008 Act provides 

that the promulgation of regulations and 

the administration of Title II of the 2008 

Act, which contain the amendments 

that authorize CSP, will be made 

without regard to chapter 35 of Title 44 

of the U.S.C. also known as the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, 

NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or 

estimated paperwork burden associated 

with this interim final rule. 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

NRCS is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act, which requires 

government agencies, in general, to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. To better accommodate 

public access, NRCS has developed an 

online application and information 

system for public use. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of 

this final rule are not retroactive. The 

provisions of this final rule preempt 

State and local laws to the extent that 

such laws are inconsistent with this 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31611 

final rule. Before an action may be 

brought in a Federal court of competent 

jurisdiction, the administrative appeal 

rights afforded persons at 7 CFR parts 

614, 780, and 11 must be exhausted. 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 

Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 

Section 304 of the Department of 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 

Public Law 103–354, requires that a risk 

assessment be prepared in conjunction 

with any notice of proposed rulemaking 

for a major regulation. Pursuant to 

section 2904 of the 2008 Act, NRCS is 

promulgating this final rule, and 

therefore, a risk assessment is not 

required. However, risks associated with 

the final rule have been assessed 

pursuant to the analysis prepared in 

compliance with Executive Order 

12866. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

NRCS assessed the effects of this 

rulemaking action on State, local, and 

tribal governments, and the public. This 

action does not compel the expenditure 

of $100 million or more by any State, 

local, or tribal governments, or anyone 

in the private sector; therefore, a 

statement under section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

is not required. 

Executive Order 13132 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

USDA has determined that this final 

rule conforms with the Federalism 

principles set forth in the Executive 

Order, would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States, and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities on the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

USDA concludes that this final rule 

does not have Federalism implications. 

Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. NRCS has assessed the 

impact of this final rule on Indian tribal 

governments and concluded that this 

final rule will not negatively affect 

Indian tribal governments or their 

communities. The rule neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments nor preempts tribal 

law. However, NRCS plans to undertake 

a series of at least six regional tribal 

consultation sessions before December 

30, 2010, on the impact of NRCS 

conservation programs and services on 

tribal governments and their members to 

establish a baseline of consultation for 

future actions. Reports from these 

sessions will be made part of the USDA 

annual reporting on Tribal Consultation 

and Collaboration. NRCS will respond 

in a timely and meaningful manner to 

all tribal governments’ requests for 

consultation. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

Section 2904(c) of the 2008 Act 

requires that the Secretary use the 

authority in section 808(2) of title 5 

U.S.C., which allows an agency to forgo 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 usual 

congressional review delay of the 

effective date of a regulation if the 

agency finds that there is a good cause 

to do so. NRCS hereby determines that 

it has good cause to do so in order to 

meet the congressional intent to have 

the conservation programs authorized or 

amended by Title II in effect as soon as 

possible. Accordingly, this rule is 

effective upon filing for public 

inspection by the Office of the Federal 

Register. 

Section 2708 of the 2008 Act 

Section 2708, ‘‘Compliance and 

Performance,’’ of the 2008 Act added a 

paragraph to section 1244(g) of the Food 

Security Act of 1985 Act entitled, 

‘‘Administrative Requirements for 

Conservation Programs,’’ which states 

the following: 

‘‘(g) Compliance and performance.— 

For each conservation program under 

Subtitle D, the Secretary will develop 

procedures— 

(1) To monitor compliance with 

program requirements; 

(2) To measure program performance; 

(3) To demonstrate whether long-term 

conservation benefits of the program are 

being achieved; 

(4) To track participation by crop and 

livestock type; and 

(5) To coordinate activities described 

in this subsection with the national 

conservation program authorized under 

section 5 of the Soil and Water 

Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 

U.S.C. 2004).’’ 

This new provision presents in one 

place the accountability requirements 

placed on the agency as it implements 

conservation programs and reports on 

program results. The requirements 

apply to all programs under Subtitle D, 

including the Wetlands Reserve 

Program, Conservation Security 

Program, Conservation Stewardship 

Program, Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program, Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP), Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) (including 

the Agricultural Water Enhancement 

Program), Wildlife Habitat Incentive 

Program (WHIP), and Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed initiative. These 

requirements are not directly 

incorporated into these regulations 

which set out requirements for program 

participants. However, certain 

provisions within these regulations 

relate to elements of section 1244(g) of 

the Food Security Act of 1985 Act and 

the agency’s accountability 

responsibilities regarding program 

performance. NRCS is taking this 

opportunity to describe existing 

procedures that relate to meeting the 

requirements of section 1244(g) of the 

Food Security Act of 1985, and agency 

expectations for improving its ability to 

report on each program’s performance 

and achievement of long-term 

conservation benefits. Also included is 

reference to the sections of these 

regulations that apply to program 

participants and that relate to the 

agency accountability requirements as 

outlined in section 1244(g) of the Food 

Security Act of 1985. 

Monitor compliance with program 

requirements. NRCS has established 

application procedures to ensure that 

participants meet eligibility 

requirements and follow-up procedures 

to ensure that participants are 

complying with the terms and 

conditions of their contractual 

arrangement with the government and 

that the installed conservation measures 

are operating as intended. These and 

related program compliance evaluation 

policies are set forth in agency guidance 

(Conservation Programs 

Manual_440_Part 512 and Conservation 

Programs Manual _440_Part 508) 

(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

The program requirements applicable to 

participants that relate to compliance 

are set forth in these regulations in 

§ 1470.6 ‘‘Eligibility requirements,’’ 

§ 1470.21 ‘‘Contract requirements,’’ 

§ 1470.22 ‘‘Conservation stewardship 

plan,’’ and § 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation 

activity operation and maintenance.’’ 

These sections make clear the general 

program eligibility requirements, 

participant obligations for implementing 

a conservation stewardship plan, 

contract obligations, and requirements 

for operating and maintaining CSPfunded conservation activities. 

Measure program performance. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–62, Sec. 1116) 

and guidance provided by Office of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The exception to this is the CRP; since 1987 the 

NRI has reported acreage enrolled in CRP. 

2Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2006. 

Final Report from the Blue Ribbon Panel 

Conducting an External Review of the US 

Department of Agriculture Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water 

Conservation Society. This review is available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/. 

Management and Budget Circular A–11, 

NRCS has established performance 

measures for its conservation programs. 

Program-funded conservation activity is 

captured through automated field-level 

business tools, and the information is 

available to the public at 

http://ias.sc.egov.usda.gov/PRSHOME/. 

Program performance is also reported 

annually to Congress and the public 

through the annual performance budget, 

annual accomplishments report, and the 

USDA Performance Accountability 

Report. Related performance 

measurement and reporting policies are 

set forth in agency guidance 

(GM_340_401 and GM_340_403) (http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

The conservation actions undertaken 

by participants are the basis for 

measuring program performance; 

specific actions are tracked and reported 

annually, while the effects of those 

actions relate to whether the long-term 

benefits of the program are being 

achieved. The program requirements 

applicable to participants that relate to 

undertaking conservation actions are set 

forth in these regulations in § 1470.21 

‘‘Contract requirements,’’ § 1470.22 

‘‘Conservation stewardship plan,’’ and 

§ 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation activity 

operation and maintenance.’’ These 

sections make clear participant 

obligations for installing, adopting, 

improving, maintaining, and managing 

conservation stewardship activities 

which in aggregate result in the program 

performance that is reflected in agency 

performance reports. 

Demonstrating the long-term natural 

resource benefits achieved through 

conservation programs is subject to the 

availability of needed data, the capacity 

and capability of modeling approaches, 

and the external influences that affect 

actual natural resource condition. While 

NRCS captures many measures of 

‘‘output’’ data, such as acres of 

conservation practices, it is still in the 

process of developing methods to 

quantify the contribution of those 

outputs to environmental outcomes. 

NRCS currently uses a mix of 

approaches to evaluate whether longterm conservation benefits are being 

achieved through its programs. Since 

1982, NRCS has reported on certain 

natural resource status and trends 

through the National Resources 

Inventory (NRI), which provides 

statistically reliable, nationally 

consistent land cover/use and related 

natural resource data. However, lacking 

has been a connection between these 

data and specific conservation 

programs.1 In the future, the interagency 

Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

(CEAP), which has been underway since 

2003, will provide nationally consistent 

estimates of environmental effects 

resulting from conservation practices 

and systems applied. CEAP results will 

be used in conjunction with 

performance data gathered through 

agency field-level business tools to help 

produce estimates of environmental 

effects accomplished through agency 

programs, such as CSP. In 2006 a Blue 

Ribbon panel evaluation of CEAP 2

strongly endorsed the project’s purpose 

but concluded ‘‘CEAP must change 

direction’’ to achieve its purposes. In 

response, CEAP has focused on 

priorities identified by the panel and 

clarified that its purpose is to quantify 

the effects of conservation practices 

applied on the landscape. Information 

regarding CEAP, including reviews and 

current status, is available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ 

NRI/ceap/. Since 2004 and the initial 

establishment of long-term performance 

measures by program, NRCS has been 

estimating and reporting progress 

toward long-term program goals. The 

NRI and assessment and the 

performance measurement and 

reporting policies are set forth in agency 

guidance (GM_290_400, GM_340_401, 

and GM_340_403) (http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

Demonstrating the long-term 

conservation benefits of conservation 

programs is an agency responsibility. 

Through CEAP, NRCS is in the process 

of evaluating how these long-term 

benefits can be achieved through the 

conservation practices and systems 

applied by participants under each of its 

programs. The CSP program 

requirements applicable to participants 

that relate to producing long-term 

conservation benefits are located in 

§ 1470.21 ‘‘Contract requirements,’’ 

§ 1470.22 ‘‘Conservation stewardship 

plan,’’ and § 1470.23 ‘‘Conservation 

activity operation and maintenance.’’ 

These requirements and related program 

management procedures supporting 

program implementation are set forth in 

agency guidance (Conservation 

Programs Manual 440_Part 512 and 

Conservation Programs Manual 

_440_Part 508). 

Coordinate these actions with the 

national conservation program 

authorized under the Soil and Water 

Resources Conservation Act (RCA). The 

2008 Act reauthorized and expanded on 

a number of elements of the RCA related 

to evaluating program performance and 

conservation benefits. Specifically, the 

2008 Act added a provision stating: 

‘‘Appraisal and inventory of resources, 

assessment and inventory of conservation 

needs, evaluation of the effects of 

conservation practices, and analyses of 

alternative approaches to existing 

conservation programs are basic to effective 

soil, water, and related natural resources 

conservation.’’ 

The program, performance, and 

natural resource and effects data 

described previously will serve as a 

foundation for the next RCA, which will 

also identify and fill, to the extent 

possible, data and information gaps. 

Policy and procedures related to the 

RCA are set forth in agency guidance 

(GM_290_400 and GM_130_402) 

(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

The coordination of the previously 

described components with the RCA is 

an agency responsibility and is not 

reflected in these regulations. However, 

it is likely that results from the RCA 

process will result in modifications to 

the program and performance data 

collected, to the systems used to acquire 

data and information, and potentially to 

the program itself. Thus, as the 

Secretary proceeds to implement the 

RCA in accordance with the statute, the 

approaches and processes developed 

will improve existing program 

performance measurement and outcome 

reporting capability and provide the 

foundation for improved 

implementation of the program 

performance requirements of section 

1244(g) of the Food Security Act of 

1985. 

Economic Analysis—Executive 

Summary 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, NRCS 

conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis 

(CEA) of the CSP as formulated for the 

interim final rule. 

This CEA describes how CSP 

financial assistance and technical 

assistance are made available to farmers 

and ranchers who agree to install and 

adopt additional conservation activities; 

and improve, maintain, and manage 

conservation activities in place in 

accordance with CSP’s objectives. The 

CEA compares the impact of these 

activities in generating environmental 

benefits with program costs. Many of 

these improvements can produce 

beneficial impacts concerning onsite 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31613 

3An impact could be expected in cases where 

CSP funds activities that lead to large increases of 

certain environmental services and goods where 

those markets are beginning to get started. 

4 Given the wide set of possible initial resource 

conditions and conservation activities likely to be 

adopted, it is not possible to ascertain whether (or 

to what extent) CSP payments offset expected costs 

to producers in adopting new activities or past 

activities. 

resource conditions (such as conserving 

soil) and significant offsite 

environmental benefits (such as cleaner 

water, improved air quality, and 

enhanced wildlife habitat). 

The environmental outcomes 

expected to be generated by 

enhancement activities are based on 

extrapolations of the environmental 

outcomes that have been studied and 

associated with many traditional NRCS 

conservation practices. While the 

outcomes from many traditional 

conservation practices have been 

assessed, the impacts generated from 

these enhancements are not as well 

studied. In conducting economic 

analyses where benefits are not well 

understood or difficult to measure, but 

activity costs are available, the 

traditional benefit-cost analysis is 

generally replaced with a CEA, the 

approach used for both this assessment 

and the interim final rule. 

In considering alternatives for 

implementing CSP, NRCS followed the 

legislative intent to establish a clear and 

transparent method to determine in an 

open and participatory process, 

potential participants’ current and 

future levels of conservation 

stewardship in order to gauge their 

environmental impacts and compare 

them. Because CSP is voluntary, the 

program is not expected to impose any 

obligation or burden upon agricultural 

producers and nonindustrial private 

forestland (NIPF) owners who choose 

not to participate.3

Congress authorized the enrollment of 

12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year 

(FY) for the period beginning October 1, 

2008, through September 30, 2017. For 

FY 2009 through FY 2012, CSP has been 

authorized 51,076,000 acres (4 years 

multiplied by a 12,769,000 acre program 

cap per year). 

Total program costs for CSP are 

shown in Table 1. Full participation is 

assumed for each of the 4 years CSP is 

offered, and the duration of each 

contract is 5 years. Total costs include 

only costs to the government.4

Cumulative program costs for four 

program ranking periods are estimated 

to be $2.990 billion in constant 2005 

dollars, discounted at 7 percent. At a 3 

percent discount rate, program costs 

increase to $3.520 billion in constant 

2005 dollars. 

The information in Table 1 highlights 

the cumulative impacts of four ranking 

periods and 5-year contracts. Each signup creates a commitment of $229.842 

million for 5 years. Participants in the 

initial ranking period receive payments 

through FY 2014; participants in the last 

ranking period receive payments 

through FY 2017. The largest outlays of 

program funds occur in FY 2013 and FY 

2014 and then begin to taper off as 

contracts from the first and later ranking 

periods end. 

TABLE 1—TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS OF CSP, FY 2010 TO FY 2017 

Yearly cost 1

(million $) 

GDP price 

deflator 2

(chained, 

2005=100) 

Yearly cost in 

constant 

dollars 1

(million $) 

Discount 

factors 

for 3% 

Present value 

of costs¥3% 

(million $) 

Discount 

factors 

for 7% 

Present value 

of costs¥7% 

(million $) 

FY10 ............................. 229.842 108.5 211.836 0.9709 205.666 0.9346 197.978 

FY11 ............................. 459.684 110.1 417.515 0.9426 393.548 0.8734 364.674 

FY12 ............................. 689.526 111.3 619.520 0.9151 566.949 0.8163 505.713 

FY13 ............................. 919.368 113.1 812.881 0.8885 722.234 0.7629 620.143 

FY14 ............................. 919.368 115.6 795.301 0.8626 686.034 0.7130 567.039 

FY15 ............................. 689.526 118.1 583.849 0.8375 488.965 0.6663 389.043 

FY16 ............................. 459.684 120.7 380.848 0.8131 309.665 0.6227 237.173 

FY17 ............................. 229.842 123.4 186.258 0.7894 147.034 0.5820 108.404 

Total ...................... 4596.840 ........................ 4008.008 ........................ 3520.093 ........................ 2990.166 

1 Congress set a maximum acreage limit of 12,769,000 acres and a national average payment rate of $18 per acre. 

2 USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019. Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared by the Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee. Long-term Projections Report OCE–2010–1, page 15. 

Methodology Employed in This Study 

Many conservation practices have 

been extensively studied, but similar 

studies pertaining to enhancement 

activities have not been conducted. We 

do not have sufficiently detailed, sitespecific information on existing 

conservation practices and 

environmental outcomes. As a result, 

estimation of a true baseline of 

environmental conditions before and 

after CSP implementation is not 

possible. 

The methodology employed in this 

final assessment is the same 

methodology applied in the interim 

final rule except that data from the 

initial CSP ranking period are 

substituted for the representative farm 

and environmental data. Although 

instructive in identifying possible 

outcomes of different formulations of 

CSP, actual enrollment and contract 

data are necessary to provide a fuller 

assessment of CSP outcomes. A relative 

comparison of results from the interim 

final rule and the final rule was also 

conducted to identify differences 

between predicted and actual outcomes, 

determine why differences were 

observed, and make recommendations, 

when necessary, to improve CSP’s cost 

effectiveness. This comparison should 

not be used beyond its stated purpose 

because of different data sets in the two 

analyses. 

CSP and the Conservation 

Measurement Tool 

CSP is a challenging program given its 

purpose, statutory mandates, 

assessments of existing and future 

conservation activities and their 

associated conservation indices, 

allocation of program funds and acres 

across States, and price setting. The 

following are key elements about CSP 

and the conservation measurement tool 

(CMT). 

(a) NRCS allocated acreage for 

enrollment across States according to 

each State’s proportion of the Nation’s 

agricultural land base. 

(b) NRCS State offices created ranking 

pools, selected three to five priority 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5 ‘‘* * * the Secretary shall rank applications 

based on * * * (E) the extent to which the actual 

and anticipated environmental benefits from the 

contract are provided at the least cost relative to 

other similarly beneficial contract offers.’’ 

6For CSP ranking period one, payment rates are 

$0.0605 for every cropland conservation 

performance point, $0.0329 for pasture, $0.0120 for 

rangeland, and $0.0164 for NIPF. 

7To avoid enrolling too many acres or spending 

more than the $230 million available for this first 

ranking period, NRCS initially allocated 95 percent 

of the 12.769 million acres. As enrollment 

progressed, NRCS allocated the remaining acres. 

resource concerns for every pool, and 

allocated acres and program dollars 

from the national office across the pools. 

(c) A national team of NRCS cropland, 

pastureland, rangeland, and forest land 

specialists developed sets of questions 

by land use category to identify 

conservation activities already applied 

to the land and the associated level of 

stewardship by assigning conservation 

performance points. The team also 

identified additional enhancements for 

increasing stewardship and assigned 

conservation performance points to the 

additional enhancements. NRCS’ 

Conservation Practice Physical Effects 

methodology was used in both of these 

instances to assign performance points. 

Conservation performance points earned 

by land use should be viewed as 

‘‘environmental indices.’’ 

(d) NRCS developed a CMT to 

determine eligibility by verifying that 

minimum stewardship thresholds were 

met, estimating conservation 

performance from existing and 

additional activities, and ranking 

applications. 

(e) NRCS field staff tested the 

questions and the CMT and made 

suggestions that improved CMT’s use. 

(f) During the initial ranking period, 

NRCS assisted producers in completing 

their resource inventories in the CMT 

and determining program eligibility. 

Eligible applicants identified additional 

activities—enhancements and 

traditional conservation practices—they 

were willing to adopt. Each applicant’s 

resource inventory and additional 

activities recorded in the CMT earned 

conservation performance points per 

acre by land use. 

(g) Every application was ranked 

within a pool according to the sum of 

four equally weighted ranking factors. 

The maximum ranking score is 1,000; 

the minimum zero. NRCS selected 

applications for enrollment beginning 

with the highest ranked one and worked 

down the ranked list until a pool’s 

funding limit or acreage limit was 

reached. A fifth ranking factor came into 

play as a ‘‘tie breaker’’ when two or more 

applications were ranked equally. When 

this situation occurred, the application 

that minimized the cost to government 

was selected.5 The four equally 

weighted ranking factors are below: 

(1) Ranking factor one measures the 

existing level of conservation 

stewardship for priority resource 

concerns at the time of enrollment. 

(2) Ranking factor two measures the 

degree that new conservation activities 

improve priority resource concern 

conditions. 

(3) Ranking factor three measures the 

number of priority resource concerns 

the applicant agrees to meet during the 

contract period. 

(4) Ranking factor four measures the 

degree that new conservation activities 

improve other resource concern 

conditions. 

(h) CSP payment per land use equals 

conservation performance points per 

acre multiplied by acres multiplied by 

the land use payment rate. Total 

payment per contract equals the sum of 

the individual land use payments.6

(i) The four policy options used in the 

interim final rule are also used in the 

final rule to identify tradeoffs among the 

policy options, especially changes in 

program acres, conservation 

performance points, program costs, and 

implications with respect to CSP’s 

acreage and funding constraints. 

Detailed descriptions of CSP, CMT, 

ranking period results, and CEA 

analysis can be found in the main body 

of the report and the appendices. 

Analysis 

Results of this analysis show that CSP 

participation was high across the nation. 

As of December 1, 2009, NRCS had 

classified 15,015 applications as 

eligible. These applications involved 

slightly more than 20.8 million acres, 

close to double CSP’s maximum 

allowable of 12.179 million acres.7

Some concerns were raised regarding 

participation in ranking pools. No 

applications were received in 250 of the 

693 pools created for CSP. NRCS found 

that the majority of these pools were 

established specifically for conservation 

access by beginning farmers or ranchers 

and socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers. All eligible applications were 

preapproved in 303 ranking pools 

because allotted acreage and funding 

allocations were not fully committed. 

The remaining 140 pools accounted for 

slightly more than 86 percent of eligible 

acres, making them highly competitive. 

More than 80 percent of the eligible 

applicants across all land uses were 

already meeting and frequently 

exceeding minimum stewardship levels 

on five of the eight resource concerns. 

Applicants in the initial CSP ranking 

period appear to be practicing 

stewardship at a fairly high level. As a 

result, one would expect to see 

conservation performance points earned 

for existing activities to be higher than 

performance points earned for 

additional activities. Summary data 

from pre-approved applications in the 

initial ranking period confirm this 

expectation. Existing conservation 

performance points amounted to 61 

percent of total points awarded 

nationally. This 61–39 percent split 

between existing and additional 

conservation performance points carried 

directly over into payments, with 63 

percent of projected $142.6 million in 

financial assistance tied to existing 

activities. 

The policy options described and 

analyzed using representative farm and 

environmental data in the interim final 

rule indicated that CSP outcomes could 

be fine-tuned at the national level by 

changing the relative importance of the 

ranking factors. Based on that analysis, 

policy option 1 (four ranking factors 

were weighted equally) was selected 

and used for the initial CSP ranking 

period. Because three of the four 

ranking factors are linked directly to 

additional activities, an equal weighting 

scenario places considerable importance 

on additional activities—enhancements 

and traditional conservation practices— 

proposed to be applied over a 5-year 

period. The expectation was that the 

highest ranked applications would 

include substantially more additional 

conservation activities than lower 

ranked applications. One of the other 

policy options might be used to 

influence the mix between existing and 

additional activities after reviewing 

actual CSP enrollment. 

The five policy options and their 

reported acreage and program costs by 

land use are summarized in Table 2. 

Policy option 1 represents the actual 

CSP ranking period where the ranking 

factors are equally weighted. Analyses 

conducted for policy option 2 (ranking 

factor 1 receives 5 times the weight— 

62.5 percent—of the other ranking 

factors), policy option 3 (ranking factor 

2 receives 5 times the weight—62.5 

percent—of the other ranking factors), 

policy option 4 (ranking factor 3 

receives 5 times the weight—62.5 

percent—of the other ranking factors), 

and policy option 5 (ranking factor 4 

receives 5 times the weight—62.5 

percent—of the other ranking factors) 

did not appreciably change the 

percentage splits between existing and 

additional performance points and 

funding. Though acres and costs shifted 

among the different land uses, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31615 

impact on total program costs and costs 

per acre suggests that policy options 2 

through 5 did not substantially change 

the current distributions of funds and 

acres under policy option 1, which was 

used for the initial CSP ranking period. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACREAGE AND COSTS BY LAND USE AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR CSP SIGN-UP ONE

Policy Option 

Cost 

per 

acre 

Acres funded in program a Total program cost b

Crop 

land Pasture Range land NIPF Total2 Crop 

land Pasture Range land NIPF Total 

(millions of acres) ($ millions) 

No CSP ................................... N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

.................................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 14 .30 38 .90 9 .96 180 .48 

PO–1 ....................................... $14.82 4 .833 0 .797 5 .529 1 .019 12 .179 117 .308 6 9 3 6 

.................................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 14 .33 39 .16 9 .68 176 .16 

PO–2 ....................................... 14.79 4 .570 0 .792 5 .568 0 .985 11 .914 112 .988 2 2 7 9 

.................................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 14 .36 37 .08 9 .36 171 .47 

PO–3 ....................................... 14.66 4 .752 0 .786 5 .204 0 .951 11 .694 110 .659 4 3 7 2 

.................................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 14 .36 38 .41 9 .86 177 .85 

PO–4 ....................................... 14.88 4 .726 0 .773 5 .452 1 .004 11 .955 115 .581 8 5 6 0 

.................................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 13 .83 36 .13 9 .32 179 .46 

PO–5 ....................................... 15.27 4 .949 0 .757 5 .097 0 .950 11 .753 120 .171 6 7 1 5 

aFor this analysis, the CSP acreage cap is 12.179 million acres including the 10 percent allocated to NIPF. This was the initial allocation distributed to States shortly after closure of the initial CSP ranking period. b Includes financial and technical assistance. 

NRCS noticed some large operations 

fell just below the cutoff line in many 

of the pools for policy option 1, the 

actual ranking period. These operations 

moved up the ranked list and effectively 

prevented the distribution of the full 

amount of acres under the other policy 

options. Their impact can be seen by 

examining the total acres in Table 2. 

In examining the summaries of 

conservation performance points and 

costs per point, the agency reached a 

similar conclusion regarding the 

effectiveness of policy options 2 through 

5 in changing the emphasis of CSP 

between existing and additional 

activities (see Table 3). The relatively 

insignificant changes in total 

conservation performance points and 

dollars per point suggest that significant 

changes in the ranking process yield few 

tangible results in practice. A closer 

examination of the applications show 

considerable shifting of the applications 

in terms of rankings, but few of the 

applications that were ranked low 

during the actual ranking period moved 

up the list to the level of approval. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE POINTS AND COST PER POINT FOR CSP POLICY OPTIONS

Existing 

activities 

Additional 

activities Total points 

Dollars per point 

Additional 

activities 

All 

activities 

(millions of conservation performance points) ($) 

No CSPa .......................................................... Indeterminate N/A N/A N/A N/A 

PO–1 ................................................................ 3,960 2,488 6,448 0.0573 0.0221 

PO–2 ................................................................ 3,964 2,368 6,332 0.0590 0.0220 

PO–3 ................................................................ 3,779 2,502 6,281 0.0564 0.0225 

PO–4 ................................................................ 3,920 2,398 6,319 0.0587 0.0223 

PO–5 ................................................................ 3,790 2,481 6,271 0.0576 0.0228 

aAssumes CSP is not available to landowners. Data are not available to assess this situation. 

b Indeterminate. 

Other possible reasons were identified 

to explain why the ranking process 

produced such minor shifts in 

conservation performance points and 

funding between existing and additional 

activities. Applicants, for example, who 

were addressing a State’s priority 

resource concerns received more 

ranking points than applicants who 

chose to address fewer priority resource 

concerns. As part of the policy analysis, 

it became apparent that ranking factor 3 

moved closely with ranking factor 1. A 

recommendation in the conclusions and 

recommendations section breaks this 

relationship with ranking factor 1, 

making it strictly a factor that awards 

ranking points based on proposed new 

activities that assist producers in 

meeting minimum stewardship levels of 

priority resource concerns. 

Another possible reason is the CMT 

and how activities and conservation 

performance points are assigned. An 

additional reason is the ranking process 

itself. Modifications to account for these 

two reasons are detailed in the 

recommendations. 

The results reported above and other 

secondary results from the analysis of 

eligible applications and preapproved 

contracts in CSP’s initial ranking period 

substantiate many of the initial CEA 

findings reported in the interim final 

rule. One primary finding was that the 

policy constraints on the program posed 

serious challenges for the model 

developers. It is obvious that these 

constraints will pose similar challenges 

in implementing this program. In 

particular, achieving the national 

annual acreage enrollment goal at the 

designated average costs per acre 

mandated in legislation will be a 

challenge given the heterogeneity of 

producers’ initial resource conditions 

and demand for enhancements. This 

cautionary observation held true in the 

initial ranking period and appears to be 

a major concern in subsequent ranking 

periods. 

Second, the annual contract limit of 

$40,000 per contract imposed by the 

interim final rule influences program 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

outcomes. CSP gains program acreage 

when large operations, 13.8 percent of 

the preapproved contracts in the first 

ranking period, hit the maximum 

annual payment limit and remain 

enrolled. Costs per acre for the program 

decrease because program funding is 

spread over more acres. As predicted 

though, CSP’s acre constraint of 12.769 

million acres becomes the controlling 

factor because of the acres linked to the 

large operations. Though NRCS received 

an apportionment of $229,842,000, the 

financial assistance portion cannot be 

fully spent because the acreage 

constraint was met for the initial CSP 

ranking period. Furthermore, NRCS 

offices incur technical assistance costs 

associated with these additional acres, 

regardless if the acres are capped for 

payment. 

Third, the policy options that were 

part of the CEA in the interim final rule 

proved useful in the final assessment. 

The different policy scenarios 

reinforced the fact that CSP outcomes 

depend to a large extent on the 

applications submitted for enrollment. 

The policy scenarios also contributed to 

a better understanding of how the 

ranking factors were defined and 

implemented. 

Finally, program design and adaptive 

program management are critical in 

satisfying the mandated constraints of 

this program. The model results of the 

CEA used in the interim final rule 

showed that caution must be used in 

setting land use payment rates. This is 

due to the changing land use 

compositions and conservation 

performance outcomes that resulted 

under each alternative policy option. 

Such changes could be expected in 

subsequent ranking periods and alter 

the acreage and conservation 

performance points produced. Such 

changes would need to be included in 

the calculation of appropriate land use 

payment rates that conform to the CSP 

statute, particularly the $18 per acre 

national program cost constraint. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

As part of the 2008 Act, Congress 

created the CSP and instructed the 

Secretary of Agriculture to develop a 

program that compensates a producer 

for ‘‘* * * installing and adopting 

additional conservation activities; and 

improving, maintaining, and managing 

conservation activities in place at the 

operation of the producer at the time the 

contract offer is accepted by the 

Secretary.’’ Producers must also meet 

minimum stewardship levels before 

they become eligible for CSP. Acreage, 

budget, a national average price of $18 

per acre, and a maximum annual 

payment of $40,000 per contract 

established in the interim final rule also 

complicate program implementation. 

The CSP as currently implemented 

received more than enough applications 

to make it a competitive program. Of the 

15,015 eligible applications, 10,743 

were preapproved for enrollment, and 

those selected were the highest ranked 

eligible applications. The preapproved 

applications resulted in 61–39 percent 

split in conservation performance points 

and 63–37 percent split in program 

payments between existing and 

additional activities, respectively. The 

acreage constraint limited the ability of 

NRCS to distribute all the funds 

provided by Congress. 

Though little guidance is given on a 

suitable split of financial assistance 

funds between existing and additional 

conservation activities, preliminary 

analysis indicates that the initial CSP 

ranking period attracted practicing 

conservationists. Almost every 

applicant met the stewardship threshold 

requirement at the time of application. 

More than 80 percent of the applicants 

were meeting five resource concerns at 

time of application. The $40 thousand 

cap per contract and the requirement 

that all acres of an operation must be 

enrolled impacted CSP. The acreage 

constraint became the limiting factor 

because 1,487 (13.8 percent) 

preapproved applications exceeded the 

cap, but their acres were counted, 

making it impossible for NRCS to 

distribute all the funds. 

A total of five policy options were 

developed as candidates for improving 

CSP’s overall cost effectiveness at the 

national level. These policy options are 

directly tied to CSP’s ranking process. 

Under policy option 1, the four ranking 

factors are equally weighted. In the 

remaining options, each ranking factor 

is separately weighted five times more 

important than the other factors. Based 

on the interim analysis, the ranking 

process recommended and implemented 

for the first CSP sign-up was policy 

option 1. This translated into an 

effective weighting scheme of 25 

percent for existing activities and 75 

percent for additional activities. 

For the most part, these policy 

options exhibited their intended 

impacts. With each change in the 

weights assigned to the ranking factors, 

ranking scores changed, and 

applications moved up and down in 

ranking based on their mix of existing 

and additional conservation activities 

and whether priority resource concerns 

were being targeted. With five times the 

weight assigned to ranking factor 1 

(policy option 2), for example, NRCS 

observed applications with many 

existing practices earning more ranking 

points than applications with fewer 

existing practices and applications with 

similar additional activities. When 

weights were assigned to ranking factors 

that captured additional activities, 

NRCS observed the opposite. 

Applications with many additional 

activities ranked higher than 

applications with a similar complement 

of existing activities and applications 

with fewer additional activities. Overall, 

policy options 2 through 5 did not yield 

substantially different changes in 

conservation performance points and 

financial assistance between existing 

and additional activities. Analysis of the 

data suggests that this initial CSP 

ranking period attracted practicing 

conservationists. NRCS expects future 

ranking periods to be more 

representative of the larger agricultural 

sector as others learn about CSP and the 

remaining population of practicing 

conservationists yet to enroll declines 

with each ranking period. 

There is insufficient evidence of 

improved cost effectiveness to replace 

policy option 1 with any of the other 

options. Prior to CSP ranking period 

two, NRCS will review key program 

components—eligibility requirements, 

minimum stewardship levels, 

conservation activities and conservation 

performance points, CMT, and ranking 

factor specifications—and make any 

necessary modifications. In addition, 

NRCS will investigate other ranking 

factor processes, additional ranking 

criteria, and separate prices for existing 

and additional conservation 

performance points. As data becomes 

available and is analyzed from each new 

ranking period, NRCS will make 

necessary changes to improve CSP’s cost 

effectiveness. 

Discussion of Program 

The 2008 Act amended the Food 

Security Act of 1985 to establish the 

CSP and authorize the program in fiscal 

years 2009 through 2012. The CSP 

statute provides that the Secretary will 

carry out a stewardship program to 

encourage producers to address resource 

concerns in a comprehensive manner by 

(1) undertaking additional conservation 

activities, and (2) by improving, 

maintaining, and managing existing 

conservation activities. On July 29, 

2009, NRCS published an interim final 

rule for CSP with a 60-day public 

comment period. On September 21, 

2009, the public comment period was 

extended 30 days. 

NRCS explained in the preamble of 

the interim final rule, that it will 

provide financial and technical 

assistance to eligible producers to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31617 

conserve and enhance soil, water, air, 

and related natural resources on their 

land. Eligible lands include cropland, 

grassland, prairie land, improved 

pastureland, rangeland, NIPF, 

agricultural land under the jurisdiction 

of an Indian tribe, and other private 

agricultural land (including cropped 

woodland, marshes, and agricultural 

land used for the production of 

livestock) on which resource concerns 

related to agricultural production could 

be addressed. 

The NRCS State Conservationist, in 

consultation with the State Technical 

Committee and local working groups, 

will focus program impacts on natural 

resources that are of specific concern for 

a State, or the specific geographic areas 

within a State. Applications will be 

evaluated relative to other applications 

addressing similar priority resource 

concerns to facilitate a competitive 

ranking process among applicants who 

face similar resource challenges. The 

program is national in scope, and 

participation is voluntary. 

CSP provides participants with two 

possible types of payments: (1) Annual 

payments will be offered through splitrate payments; one payment for 

installing and adopting additional 

activities, and one for improving, 

maintaining, and managing existing 

activities. This payment structure is 

different from the annual payments 

offered for contracts selected in the 2009 

enrollment period. Contracts selected in 

the 2009 enrollment period will receive 

an annual payment that combines the 

conservation performance from 

additional and existing conservation 

activities. Annual payments may also 

include compensation for on-farm 

research and demonstration activities or 

pilot testing, and (2) Supplemental 

payment for the adoption of resourceconserving crop rotations on cropland. 

The 2008 Act directed the 

development of the CMT to estimate the 

level of environmental benefit to be 

achieved by a producer in implementing 

conservation activities. NRCS 

successfully implemented the CMT 

during its first sign-up. The CMT 

effectively evaluated the stewardship 

threshold requirements, estimated 

conservation performance, generated a 

ranking score, and calculated 

conservation performance payment 

points. Preliminary data analysis 

showed the CMT fairly evaluated 

conservation performance on different 

sizes and types of operations, across 

different land uses, for all regions of the 

country. Although the tool performed 

well, NRCS recognized that 

improvements were necessary to 

improve clarity of the questions being 

asked of clients. Therefore, NRCS 

assembled a team of technical experts to 

analyze the questions in the CMT that 

could be misunderstood, identify those 

needing adjustment, and provide 

recommendations to the Chief. 

NRCS designed the program to 

recognize excellent stewards and deliver 

valuable new conservation on every CSP 

contract. The agency developed 

multiple program features to enable it to 

realize this objective, including: 

(1) Bundling enhancements to 

encourage participants to address 

additional resource concerns in a more 

comprehensive manner. NRCS updated 

its enhancement list and adopted the 

concept of bundling for the second 

ranking period. Certain enhancements 

will be offered as ‘‘bundles.’’ The 

bundling concept enables participants 

and the nation to realize conservation 

benefits from the synergy that results 

when activities are implemented as a 

system. Participants who elect to bundle 

enhancements receive a positive 

adjustment in their ranking score and 

payments. 

(2) Calculating payments based on a 

process that considers conservation 

performance points rather than just 

acres. Each conservation activity has a 

performance value. Basing payments on 

conservation performance points rather 

than a rate per acre enables participants 

to influence their payment rates 

according to the type and number of 

conservation activities they are willing 

to adopt. 

(3) Placing a higher value on 

payments for additional activities versus 

existing activities through split-rate 

payments. For contracts selected for 

enrollment during the first ranking 

period, NRCS provided participants 

with an annual payment. Although the 

single annual payment was calculated 

giving consideration to both new and 

existing activities, participants could 

not readily distinguish the value of each 

since the participant received one 

payment. For the second and future 

application ranking periods, NRCS 

intends to calculate payments for 

additional conservation activities at a 

higher payment rate than existing 

activities with the goal of providing a 

majority of payments to compensate 

producers for implementing additional 

conservation. In the initial ranking 

period, 63 percent of the payments were 

attributed to existing conservation 

activities. NRCS believes this higher 

payment for additional conservation 

performance will encourage producers 

to apply additional activities and serve 

to maximize net additional 

environmental benefits as much as 

possible beyond the current 63:37 ratio. 

(4) Requiring the adoption of 

additional conservation activities to 

earn annual payments. To earn annual 

payments for an eligible land use, a 

participant must schedule, install, and 

adopt at least one additional 

conservation activity on that land-use 

type. Eligible land-use types that fail to 

have at least one additional 

conservation activity scheduled, 

installed, and adopted will not receive 

annual payments. 

(5) Implementing a State allocation 

process that considers the extent and 

magnitude of conservation needs 

associated with agriculture production. 

The State allocation process will 

consider natural resource data from 

sources like the NRI related to the 

nation’s major resources concerns, 

including water quality and quantity, 

soil quality, air quality, and wildlife 

habitat. 

(6) Developing contract renewal 

criteria that require new conservation 

activities. In order to renew a contract 

after the initial contract period, 

participants will need to expand the 

degree, scope, and comprehensiveness 

of conservation activities by meeting an 

expanded stewardship threshold 

requirement and agreeing to adopt 

additional activities during the renewal 

period. 

In establishing the measures and 

methodologies NRCS will use to 

monitor program performance, the 

agency believes the CMT will assist in 

measuring outcomes. The conservation 

performance the CMT estimates is 

measured in terms of relative physical 

effects; they are not true environmental 

benefits. However, the CMT 

performance estimates are a step 

forward from output measures, like 

acres of conservation practices, used by 

former programs. NRCS acknowledges 

challenges, but intends to pursue the 

use of CEAP results with CMT 

performance data to help produce 

meaningful estimates of environmental 

effects accomplished through CSP. 

NRCS received numerous comments 

on CSP as it relates to organic farming, 

including that the regulations and 

overall design of the program should 

include specifically organic 

conservation activities, as well as 

ensuring that all conservation activities 

rewarded under the program include 

appropriate variations relevant to 

organic farms where the standard 

conservation practice may be 

inappropriate for organic systems; 

organic crop and livestock systems 

should be recognized for their 

environmental benefits. 

Since organic producers have adopted 

a number of conservation measures that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

have significant environmental benefits, 

CSP provides opportunities for their 

participation. The NRCS document 

entitled ‘‘The Conservation Stewardship 

Program’s Contribution to Organic 

Transitioning’’ highlights how CSP can 

be used by organic producers. The 

questions in the CMT are designed to 

assess conservation outcomes on the 

land. As such, the questions do not 

specifically distinguish between organic 

and non-organic producers. However, in 

most instances organic producers 

should score very well in the CMT by 

the use of cover crops, perennials, 

diverse rotations, and limited use of 

pesticides. In addition, CSP offers a 

number of enhancements targeted 

specifically at organic producers. 

NRCS takes seriously its 

responsibilities related to providing 

conservation opportunities to organic 

producers. The agency is working to 

ensure its field office staffs have 

adequate training to work with organic 

farmers. Individual States conducted 

numerous training sessions on 

conservation planning with organic 

producers. A national teleconference on 

organic certification has been 

conducted, and plans are in place to 

work with several private organic 

groups to provide training to NRCS 

State specialists on organic farming 

systems. 

Summary of Initial Ranking Period 

NRCS began accepting program 

applications for the initial ranking 

period on August 10, 2009. The cut-off 

for the initial ranking period was 

September 30, 2009. 

Each application was evaluated for 

basic eligibility criteria: applicant 

eligibility, land eligibility, and the 

stewardship threshold requirement. To 

meet the stewardship threshold 

requirement, an applicant must meet or 

exceed the threshold level for at least 

one resource concern at the time of the 

application, and at least one priority 

resource concern by the end of the 

contract period. 

NRCS assisted applicants with 

completing a resource inventory of their 

operation using the CMT. The CMT 

estimates conservation performance to 

determine if the application meets the 

minimum stewardship threshold 

requirement. Conservation performance 

points estimated by the CMT are also 

used to determine application ranking 

scores and contract payment levels. 

The conservation performance 

ranking score is used to determine the 

priority of funding for an applicant. 

Applicants will be funded starting with 

the highest score and working down the 

list until acres are exhausted. The 

conservation performance ranking score 

is based on five factors: 

(1) The level of conservation 

treatment on priority resource concerns 

at the time of application. 

(2) The degree to which treatment on 

priority resource concerns increases 

conservation performance. 

(3) The number of priority resource 

concerns to be treated to meet or exceed 

thresholds by the end of the contract. 

(4) The extent to which other resource 

concerns will be addressed to meet or 

exceed stewardship thresholds by the 

end of the contract. 

(5) A tie-breaker factor is used in the 

event that application ranking scores are 

similar. The application that represents 

the least cost to the program will be 

given higher priority. 

To reach CSP’s authorized annual 

acreage enrollment limit of 12,769,000 

acres, NRCS allocated acreage to States 

based primarily on each State’s 

proportion of eligible land. Within 

States, NRCS pre-approved applications 

for funding based on ranking scores and 

funding pool acreage allocations. As of 

December 1, 2010, over 10,700 

applications were pre-approved for 

program participation. 

Preliminary analysis of the initial 

ranking period provided NRCS with 

some key findings. 

(a) Producer interest in CSP was high. 

During the initial ranking period, NRCS 

received over 21,000 applications on an 

estimated 33 million acres from across 

the Nation including the Caribbean and 

Pacific Island areas. In general, 

applicants were diverse in terms of size 

of operation, land use type, and 

geographical location. Rangeland was 

the land use most offered for program 

consideration (51 percent of acres), 

followed by cropland (37 percent), NIPF 

(7 percent), and pastureland (5 percent). 

(b) Water quality (89 percent of 

pools), plants (85 percent pools), 

wildlife (77 percent pools), soil quality 

(nearly 70 percent of pools) were the top 

priority resource concerns identified in 

the funding pools by the States. 

(c) Eligible applicants share a 

common characteristic—they are 

excellent stewards of the land. In fact, 

80 percent of applicants met five 

resource concerns at the time of 

application. Conservation performance 

payment points from existing activities 

equaled 63 percent of the total points 

generated. This dominance of practicing 

land stewards in the initial ranking 

period limited the agency’s ability to 

change the relative weights on the 

factors in the ranking process and 

substantially alter the distribution of 

conservation performance payment 

points between existing and additional 

activities. Future sign-ups will likely 

draw applicants from the larger 

agricultural community where the level 

of stewardship may be lower, thus 

giving additional activities a larger role 

in the ranking of applications. 

Discussion of Comments and 

Regulatory Changes 

NRCS solicited comments on the CSP 

interim final rule from July 29, 2009, 

through October 28, 2009. The original 

comment period ended on September 

28, 2009, but was extended through 

October 28, 2009, to enable the public 

to submit comments throughout the 

program’s first enrollment period. NRCS 

received 208 letters representing 208 

individual signatures. The total number 

of letters received includes five 

identical duplicate letters and eight 

letters from eight individuals submitting 

more than one unique letter. A total of 

1,534 comments were assessed during 

the content analysis process. 

In addition to requesting public 

comment in general on the rule and the 

environmental analysis, NRCS sought 

comment on the following specific 

issues: 

Ranking Factors—NRCS requested 

input on the appropriate weighting of 

the five ranking factors that are intended 

to maximize environmental benefits 

while maintaining consistency with the 

statutory purposes of the program. 

Payments—Setting the annual 

payment rates represented a significant 

challenge for NRCS. In addition to 

managing the program within the 

national average rate of $18 per acre, the 

2008 Act also provides an acreage 

enrollment limit of 12,769,000 acres for 

each fiscal year. To address these 

constraints, NRCS used the first ranking 

period as a payment discovery period to 

arrive at a uniform payment rate per 

conservation performance point by 

eligible land use type. NRCS requested 

public comment on ways to address 

program acreage and payment 

constraints, refine the payment 

approach, and make annual payments 

more consistent and predictable. 

Additionally NRCS sought public 

comment on the proper distribution of 

CSP annual payments between payment 

for additional activities and payment for 

existing activities. 

Contract Renewal Criteria—Section 

1470.26 in the interim final rule 

provided that NRCS will permit contract 

renewals to foster participant 

commitment to increased conservation 

performance. NRCS sought public 

comment on the contract renewal 

criteria. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31619 

State Allocations—NRCS requested 

comments on the factors used to allocate 

acres to States. 

Stewardship Threshold—NRCS 

requested input on whether meeting the 

stewardship threshold on one resource 

concern and one priority resource 

concern is adequate, or if that number 

should be greater. 

Wildlife as Priority Resource 

Concerns—NRCS requested comments 

on whether or not at least one of the 

priority resource concerns should 

specifically be identified to address 

wildlife habitat issues. 

The topics that generated the greatest 

response include 1470.7 Enhancements 

and Conservation Practices, 1470.20 

Application and Ranking, and 1470.24 

Payments. 

The public comments are addressed 

by section number. The CSP regulation 

is organized into three subparts: Subpart 

A—General Provisions; Subpart B— 

Contracts; and Subpart C—General 

Administration. Below is a summary of 

the comments received for each section 

and the agency response. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Section 1470.1 Applicability 

A total of 16 comments were received. 

This section sets forth the purpose, 

procedures, and requirements of CSP. 

The subject of the comments varied 

considerably. Commenters offered 

thoughts and ideas regarding the intent 

of the program, program goals, and 

whether CSP appeals to new farmers or 

small farmers using CSP in coordination 

with other Farm Bill programs, organic 

production, local food sources, and 

education and training. 

NRCS received four comments in 

support of the program intent. 

Commenters expressed that this 

program is an improvement over the 

Conservation Security Program from the 

perspective of fairness in measuring 

sustainability and as a tool that has the 

possibility of being an agent of change, 

making agriculture more sustainable 

and coexisting, or as a part of essential 

ecosystems; the new CSP holds 

tremendous potential to make a 

significant contribution to assisting 

farmers, ranchers, and private forest 

landowners in solving some of the 

nation’s most pressing environmental 

problems. A third identified that 

implementation in all States is critical 

to maximizing the program’s potential; 

the fourth commented that the program 

is long overdue—both farms and the 

environment will benefit from the 

program. Some commenters expressed 

that CSP should be available for small 

farmers. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. NRCS 

agrees that CSP can make a significant 

contribution in assisting farmers, 

ranchers, and private forest landowners 

with their conservation efforts 

regardless of the size of the operation, 

production type, or land use. 

Comments 

Three commenters expressed thoughts 

related to program goals. One 

commenter expressed that sustainability 

is related to not only soil conservation 

and crop yields but also an ecological 

responsibility. CSP goals should include 

helping farmers in similar farming 

systems become more sustainable. One 

commenter supported the organic 

production assistance as long as the 

conservation priorities and 

requirements for air, water, soil, and 

wildlife are being met. The third 

commenter advised that NRCS should 

follow the intent of the law. The 

statutory purpose of CSP is 

comprehensive resource management 

with emphasis on producers improving 

or adding additional conservation 

activities to their operation. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. NRCS 

determined the regulation aligns with 

the commenters recommendations. 

Section 1470.1, paragraph (d) identifies 

that NRCS will provide program 

participants financial and technical 

assistance for the conservation, 

protection, and improvement of soil, 

water, and other related natural 

resources. By addressing resource 

concerns in a comprehensive manner, 

farming systems will become more 

sustainable. 

NRCS is following the program’s 

intent provided for in statute. The 

statute directs the Secretary to carry out 

a CSP to encourage producers to address 

resource concerns in a comprehensive 

manner by: 

(a) Undertaking additional 

conservation activities; and 

(b) Improving, maintaining, and 

managing existing conservation 

activities. 

Comments 

NRCS received concerns about CSP 

only reaching those who already 

participate in conservation programs, as 

well as a recommendation for more 

levels of conservation in the categories 

in both the CMT and enhancement list. 

While the overall score may not allow 

a lower conservation threshold to enter 

a contract under current acreage 

limitations, demand for the program and 

ecological benefits to the public could 

drive an increase in legislative acreage 

and funding levels. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. NRCS 

disagrees that the CSP only reaches 

farmers who currently use conservation 

programs. NRCS conducts outreach to 

all producers without limiting 

participation because of size or type of 

operation or previous participation in 

conservation programs. The level of 

producer interest for the initial ranking 

period demonstrates that the program is 

attractive to all producers who are 

willing to install new or improve, 

maintain, or manage existing 

conservation systems. 

It is clear by the establishment of the 

stewardship thresholds in the CSP 

statute that CSP is to be delivered to 

lands that have existing conservation 

measures addressing at least one 

resource concern and must meet one 

priority resource concern by the end of 

the contract period. NRCS places no 

priority on existing conservation 

measures having been previously 

installed under USDA or other 

conservation programs. NRCS will 

continue to provide planning assistance 

to other cost-share programs for 

beginning resource stewards and those 

not approved for CSP. As producers 

improve their environmental 

performance they may have their 

application re-evaluated in subsequent 

ranking periods. 

NRCS agrees that demands for the 

program and ecological benefits may 

influence the authorized acreage and 

funding levels. 

Comments 

Four commenters expressed 

recommendations related to CSP being a 

working lands program. The 

commenters largely want the program to 

be targeted to the needs of working 

agriculture lands and their operators 

and improving the land for the next 

generation. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. The 

program rules and ranking process focus 

on conservation activities on working 

lands. In addition, the majority of the 

conservation activities available through 

the program are specifically targeted to 

working lands. 

Comments 

NRCS received comments related to 

placing particular focus, attention, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

weight, and publicity on programs that 

increase local food that is grown using 

local resources. 

NRCS Response 

Although NRCS welcomes new ideas 

related to working with small farms, 

local food production, and improving 

the resource conditions on these farms, 

no change is made to the rule in 

response to these comments. In 

recognition of the importance of the 

locally grown movement to the nation’s 

food producers, the program offers an 

enhancement specifically for locally 

grown and marketed farm products for 

those interested in improving their 

resource stewardship and selling 

produce through local markets. 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

clarify that CSP can be used in a 

coordinated manner with all other Farm 

Bill conservation programs to address 

resource concerns in a comprehensive 

manner. This approach is consistent 

with the Managers’ Report that 

encourages NRCS to use other 

conservation programs to assist 

landowners in achieving conservation 

objectives. The rule should clarify that 

enrollment in other conservation 

programs, such as EQIP and WHIP, does 

not exclude producers from CSP, and 

these programs can be used in 

conjunction with CSP to address 

resource concerns provided that 

producers do not receive duplicate 

payments on the same acres. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS promotes the use of other 

programs to address resource concerns 

in a comprehensive manner. The agency 

allows applicants to identify other 

practices they are willing to implement 

to meet resource concerns that they are 

not currently meeting. These additional 

practices could be cost-shared through 

other NRCS programs if the practices are 

not being compensated through CSP. In 

addition, NRCS encourages producers 

that are not currently eligible for CSP to 

contact their NRCS office or visit the 

Web site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

programs/ to find out about other 

conservation programs that can assist 

them on meeting their conservation 

needs. To address the concerns by the 

public, NRCS amends the rule in 

paragraph 1470.7 by adding paragraph 

(c) to read, ‘‘CSP encourages the use of 

other NRCS programs to install 

conservation practices that are required 

to meet the agreed-upon stewardship 

thresholds, but the practices may not be 

compensated through CSP.’’ 

Comments 

One commenter offered that there is a 

need for expert education and training 

and close CSP implementation scrutiny. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to this comment. NRCS agrees 

that its employees and clients need to be 

well informed about this program and 

that it needs to monitor operations to 

ensure the program is being applied 

consistently across the country. To 

address the educational component of 

the comment, NRCS made available to 

the public detailed documentation 

explaining program processes, payment 

rate establishment, CMT matrixes, 

questions, and scoring calculations. 

Documentation can be found at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/ 

csp.html. In addition, NRCS conducted 

a series of demonstrations and 

informational meetings for internal and 

external customers. 

Section 1470.2 Administration 

Comments 

A total of 35 comments were received 

on section 1470.2, ‘‘Administration.’’ 

This section describes the roles of NRCS 

at the national and State levels. Most of 

the comments related to acreage 

enrollment levels and historically 

underserved producers. However, a few 

comments were received related to signup administration, and one comment 

related to pollinators. 

One commenter expressed the need 

for NRCS to ensure policies are being 

implemented consistently across field 

offices. The commenter identified that 

the farmers they work with noted clear 

variability between county offices in the 

interpretations of various aspects of 

CSP, both in answering CMT questions 

and the application of conservation 

practices and enhancement activities. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the need for 

consistency in implementing this 

program. NRCS will ensure training of 

field office staff on a continuous basis 

to ensure quality program delivery. 

Sign-Up Periods 

Comments 

Four comments were received related 

to sign-up periods; the commenters are 

concerned about the timing of the signup, urging NRCS to choose sign-up 

periods carefully and avoid closing 

ranking periods and farm evaluations 

during busy times of the year for 

farmers, such as spring planting and fall 

harvest. NRCS received inquiries 

regarding whether allocated acres will 

be transferred to other States if they are 

not used, and how the rankings are 

created other than the electronic tool 

available only to NRCS personnel; and 

one commenter expressed that 

agriculture funds are not intended just 

for an ever shrinking group who are 

growing certain commodities. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes that having a signup at a time that is suitable to its clients 

is critical for the success of the program. 

Therefore, NRCS offers a continuous 

sign-up which allows producers to 

submit their application at any time. 

NRCS is fine-tuning the CMT design so 

it can be used to evaluate applications 

accepted throughout the continuous 

sign-up period, allowing for 

applications to be ready for evaluation 

in advance of an announced sign-up and 

funding cycle. NRCS will make every 

effort to enable those interested in 

applying for the program to have ample 

time to do so. 

Regarding the need for information 

about ranking, ranking pools within 

States were established based on 

geographic area boundaries. Each State 

identified, with review and input from 

the State Technical Committee, a 

minimum of three and a maximum of 

five priority resource concerns for each 

geographic area. The priority resource 

concerns selected for each ranking pool 

are used on three out of the four ranking 

factors, thereby ensuring that program 

dollars are addressing the critical 

resource concerns for each State ranking 

pool area. Priority resource concerns 

rank higher than non-priority resource 

concerns. 

In any fiscal year, acres allocated to a 

State that are not enrolled by a date 

determined by the Chief, may be 

reallocated with associated financial 

and technical assistance funds to 

another State for use in that fiscal year. 

The CMT is the only approved tool to 

determine the relative conservation 

physical effects of conservation 

activities on natural resource concerns 

and energy to estimate the existing 

conservation performance levels and the 

additional conservation performance 

improvement to be achieved by an 

applicant. The tool is currently Web 

based and linked to the NRCS Programs 

Contracting Software. There is no way 

to make the tool available to the public 

at this time. However, it is NRCS’ 

intention to move the tool to a Web 

environment where it can be accessible 

by the public. Until these adjustments 

are complete, NRCS will provide 

producers with a hard copy of the 

questions that may be used to evaluate 

their applications if requested. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31621 

NRCS disagrees that program funds 

are targeted to a small select group. The 

CSP is a nationwide program open to all 

eligible producers regardless of the type 

of crops that are grown. Payments 

through CSP are not subsidies, but 

rather a contract payment for providing 

environmental benefits from 

maintaining existing conservation 

activities and adopting new 

conservation activities. CSP is not 

limited to commodity producers and is 

‘‘operation size’’ neutral in its 

application ranking. 

Comments 

One commenter requested 

clarification on how NRCS arrived at its 

policy option findings by evaluating in 

its decisionmaking matrix both the 

computerized-modeling formula and the 

key statutory-policy phrase ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable.’’ 

NRCS Response 

The policy option findings that were 

reported in the benefit-cost analysis 

were generated using a model that 

incorporated most of the CSP’s program 

constraints, as well as using secondary 

data on the characteristics of potential 

participants and a prototype of the 

CMT. The CMT was not complete when 

the analysis was done. The objective of 

the analysis was to estimate the 

direction of change in program 

outcomes given certain policy options— 

not to predict with certainty what future 

program enrollment and outcomes 

would be. In that analysis, any 

outcomes that involved violations in the 

program constraints were reported, even 

though care was taken so as to meet 

them ‘‘to the maximum extent 

practicable.’’ 

Acreage Enrollment Levels 

Comments 

Twenty-two comments were received 

relaying the same message; the entire 

acreage designated by Congress should 

be available over the life of the Farm 

Bill. NRCS also received comments that 

it should decrease its administrative 

costs. The conservation stewardship 

plan will clearly be an important 

integral part of any contract, but the 

plan development and oversight costs 

must be balanced with the 

implementation costs borne by the 

participating farm operator. One 

commenter recommended a new 

paragraph (4) be added to 1470.2(c) to 

stipulate that NRCS will develop and 

make available the organic crosswalk; 

one commenter recommended NRCS 

change paragraph 1470.2(c)(1) by 

inserting ‘‘each year’’ immediately prior 

to ‘‘to determine enrollments.’’ In 

paragraph (d) insert after ‘‘$18 per acre’’ 

the following words directly from the 

statute: ‘‘During the period beginning on 

October 1, 2008, and ending on 

September 30, 2017.’’ 

NRCS Response 

NRCS conducted an analysis using 

the Cost of Programs Model to 

determine the funds needed to promote 

and deliver the CSP. In addition, real 

time application data was used to 

establish the national payment rates to 

determine the distribution of financial 

assistance to meet program constraints. 

The CSP presents a significant shift in 

how NRCS delivers and provides 

conservation program payments. Under 

CSP, participants are paid for 

conservation performance. Therefore, it 

is inappropriate to compare a traditional 

program like EQIP with CSP. 

NRCS does not agree that additional 

direction related to providing assistance 

for organic production is necessary. The 

statute provides that outreach and 

technical assistance are available to 

specialty crop and organic producers 

and their ability to participate in the 

program. Additionally, the program 

offers activities for the transition to 

organic cropping and organic grazing 

systems. 

To achieve the conservation goals of 

CSP, NRCS will: 

(1) Make the program available 

nationwide to eligible applicants on a 

continuous application basis with one 

or more ranking periods to determine 

enrollments. One of the ranking periods 

will occur in the first quarter of each 

fiscal year, to the extent practicable; and 

(2) To add clarity to the regulation, 

NRCS will amend paragraph 1470.2(d) 

to read as follows: During the period 

beginning on October 1, 2008, and 

ending on September 30, 2017, NRCS 

will, to the maximum extent practical: 

(1) Enroll in CSP an additional 

12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year, 

and (2) Manage CSP to achieve a 

national average rate of $18 per acre, 

which includes the costs of all financial 

and technical assistance, and any other 

expenses associated with program 

enrollment and participation. 

Historically Underserved Populations 

Comments 

Several comments were received 

related to historically underserved 

producers with the majority of the 

concerns directed to socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and 

beginning farmers or ranchers. One 

commenter expressed that the CRIA is 

incomplete and appeared to overstate 

conclusions. Additional analysis is 

necessary, as is implementation of 

transparency and accountability 

provisions in section 14006 of the Farm 

Bill. Another commenter recommended 

NRCS require and conduct reviews in 

each State to address anticipated needs 

as well as gaps in participation in 

specific programs by federally 

recognized Indian tribes and by socially 

disadvantaged and other historically 

underserved producer groups by race, 

gender, and ethnicity. A third 

commenter expressed that NRCS must 

have a methodology for informing 

socially disadvantaged producers of the 

reasons for the refusal of a CSP contract. 

Another requested that NRCS ensure the 

set-asides for socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers and beginning 

farmers or ranchers are swiftly and 

thoroughly implemented. One 

commenter requested sections 1470.2(e) 

and 1470.20(1)(3) be revised to establish 

that the 5 percent set-aside for 

beginning farmers or ranchers and for 

socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers be target floors, not ceilings. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has standard procedures to 

formally inform all applicants of the 

reasons they were not awarded a CSP 

contract. Along with the determination, 

applicants are offered appeal rights. 

This agency policy can be found in the 

Conservation Program Contracting 

Manual, Part 512 located at http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ 

RollupViewer.aspx?hid=25932. 

CSP policy provides that each State 

set aside a minimum of 5 percent of 

their State acre allocation for these 

ranking pools. To add clarity and 

provide flexibility to set aside more than 

5 percent, NRCS moved the language 

related to ranking pools for these groups 

by deleting the text in 1470.2(e) and 

adding text in 1470.4(b) to read as 

follows: Of the acres made available for 

each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 

to carry out CSP, NRCS will use, as a 

minimum: (1) 5 percent to assist 

beginning farmers or ranchers, and (2) 5 

percent to assist socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers. Paragraph (b) has 

been redesignated as paragraph (c) and 

amended for clarity to read ‘‘In any 

fiscal year, allocated acres that are not 

enrolled by a date determined by NRCS, 

may be reallocated with associated 

funds for use in that fiscal year under 

CSP.’’ 

Section 1470.3 Definitions 

Comments 

Thirty-eight comments were received 

on section 1470.3, ‘‘Definitions.’’ This 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

section sets forth definitions for terms 

used throughout this regulation. 

Agriculture Land 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

insert ‘‘including energy’’ after 

‘‘agricultural products.’’ 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is retaining the definition in the 

interim final rule to be consistent with 

other NRCS programs. Crops for 

producing energy are included in the 

term agricultural products. Although 

NRCS is retaining the definition for 

consistency and clarification purposes, 

NRCS adds the following text to the end 

of the definition: ‘‘Agriculture lands may 

also include other land and incidental 

areas included in the agricultural 

operation as determined by NRCS. 

Other agricultural lands include 

cropped woodland, marshes, incidental 

areas included in the agriculture 

operation, and other types of 

agricultural land used for production of 

livestock.’’ 

Agriculture Operation 

Comments 

One commenter responded that the 

definition is inconsistent with the 

statute, which reads ‘‘eligible land shall 

include all acres of an agricultural 

operation of the producer, whether or 

not contiguous, that is under the 

effective control of the producer at the 

time the producer enters into a 

stewardship contract.’’ There is a 

conflict between the words ‘‘under 

effective control * * * for the term of 

the proposed contract’’ vs. ‘‘under 

effective control * * * at the time the 

producer enters into a stewardship 

contract.’’ 

One commenter expressed support for 

the definition in the interim final rule 

because it allows landowners to 

participate. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees that the definition of 

agriculture operation needs to be 

consistent with the intent of the statute. 

Therefore, NRCS amends the definition 

of agricultural operation and adds a 

definition for effective control to clarify 

that control of the land is needed from 

the time the producer enters the 

stewardship contract and for the 

required period of the contract. 

Agricultural operation means all 

agricultural land and other land, as 

determined by NRCS, whether 

contiguous or noncontiguous: 

(1) Which is under the effective 

control of the applicant, and 

(2) Which is operated by the applicant 

with equipment, labor, management, 

and production or cultivation practices 

that are substantially separate from 

other operations. 

Effective control is defined to mean 

the possession of the land by 

ownership, written lease, or other legal 

agreement and authority to act as 

decisionmaker for the day-to-day 

management of the operation both at the 

time the applicant enters into a 

stewardship contract and for the 

required period of the contract. 

Beginning Farmer or Rancher 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

change the definition of beginning 

farmer or rancher to make it conform to 

the definition of socially disadvantaged 

farmer or rancher with respect to 

entities. In both cases, entities in which 

at least 50 percent ownership in the 

farm business is held by the target 

population should qualify. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to this comment. NRCS retains 

the agency’s official definition that was 

published in the interim final rule to be 

consistent with other USDA and NRCS 

programs. 

Conservation Planning 

Comments 

One commenter requested the 

definition be revised to bring it into 

accord with statute concerning 

conservation planning, including the 

addition of conservation planning in the 

conservation activities definition, the 

contract definition, and the payments 

section. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS did not include conservation 

planning as part of the conservation 

activities to be compensated because the 

producer will not incur any cost for 

planning. The CSP delivery model 

necessitates a conservation stewardship 

plan prior to contract obligation. 

Therefore, the plan must precede the 

contract for which payment is granted. 

The authorizing language provides that 

payments will not be provided for 

conservation activities for which there 

is no cost incurred or income forgone. 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to this comment. 

Conservation Activities 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

change the definition to include 

enhancements and a change to the 

enhancement definition to incorporate 

environmental quality and to explicitly 

include the management and 

maintenance of existing enhancements 

and the adoption of new enhancements. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the definition in the statute 

includes agricultural drainage systems 

and that the wording may promote 

wetland drainage. The commenter 

encouraged NRCS to utilize other 

conservation programs such as those 

available through the continuous 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

(buffers, filter strips, etc.) to achieve 

priority resource concerns such as water 

quality. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS retains the current definition to 

be consistent with the language in the 

legislation. NRCS does not feel it is 

appropriate to add the program purpose 

to the definition of conservation 

activities. 

NRCS acknowledges the concern 

related to the language in the statute 

that may promote wetland drainage. 

NRCS addressed this concern by 

offering two agricultural drainage water 

management enhancements with 

specific criteria to manage existing 

drainage system to reduce the potential 

for water quality problems from 

drainage water and to manipulate 

systems for wildlife habitat benefits. 

The program promotes buffers, filter 

strips, and other vegetative practices to 

address water quality concerns as well 

as other natural resources. 

Conservation Practice 

Comments 

NRCS received a recommendation 

that it amend the definition to include 

‘‘commonly used to meet a specific need 

in planning and carrying out soil and 

water conservation programs, including 

wildlife management and forest health 

for which standards and specifications 

***’’ The NRCS conservation practice 

standards not only address soil and 

water conservation but also wildlife 

habitat management and forest health. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the comment and 

amends the definition to read as 

follows: Conservation practice means a 

specified treatment, such as a structural 

or vegetative practice or management 

technique, commonly used to meet a 

specific need in planning and carrying 

out conservation programs for which 

standards and specifications have been 

developed. Conservation practices are in 

the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide 

(FOTG), Section IV, which is based on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31623 

the National Handbook of Conservation 

Practices. 

Enhancements 

Comments 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

change the definition for 

‘‘enhancements’’ to read ‘‘a type of 

activity and the associated 

infrastructure and equipment installed 

and adopted to treat natural resources 

and improve conservation 

performance.’’ 

NRCS Response 

No change is made to the rule in 

response to this comment. NRCS is 

retaining the current definition of 

enhancements. The definition provides 

that enhancements are a type of 

conservation activity used to treat 

natural resources and improve 

conservation performance. This 

includes, by implication, the 

‘‘infrastructure and equipment’’ 

necessary for an enhancement. In many 

cases enhancements are management 

actions that do not require equipment or 

infrastructure. 

Management Measure 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

insert ‘‘or conservation system’’ after 

‘‘conservation practice.’’ 

NRCS Response 

No change has been made to the rule 

in response to this comment. NRCS 

retains the current definition of 

management measure. A conservation 

system could be considered a 

management measure. 

Nonindustrial Private Forest Land 

Comments 

NRCS received four comments on the 

definition of NIPF. One commenter 

supports the definition as written in the 

interim final rule. Another commenter 

requested NRCS remove or qualify the 

phrase ‘‘or is suitable for growing trees’’ 

to preclude the planting of trees in 

places that will further diminish habitat 

for at-risk species. A third commenter 

requested clarification on the overlap 

that exists between forest land and 

incidental forest lands on agricultural 

operations by defining incidental forest 

lands under the agricultural land 

definition. A fourth commenter 

requested the ‘‘agriculture land’’ and 

‘‘agricultural operation’’ definitions be 

updated to include NIPF. 

NRCS Response 

The 2008 Act provides the definition 

of NIPF which is applicable to all Title 

2 conservation programs, including 

CSP; therefore, NRCS keeps the current 

definition as provided in the interim 

final rule. 

NRCS is preventing an overlap 

between NIPF and incidental forest land 

by not allowing incidental forest land to 

be included in an agricultural operation 

contract for program payments. 

However, if an applicant designates the 

forest land for funding consideration, 

then it will be considered as a 

component of the operation and will be 

offered as separate application. 

Resource-Conserving Crops 

Comments 

NRCS received a significant number 

of comments on the definition of 

resource-conserving crops. Seventeen 

commenters requested that the 

definition specifically require a 

perennial grass, legume, or legume-grass 

mixture for use as a forage, seed for 

planting, or green manure to be part of 

the rotation. A number of these 

commenters also expressed that 

rotations that include only crops eligible 

for Farm Bill commodity subsidies 

should not qualify as resourceconserving. 

Although one commenter supported 

the definition of resource-conserving 

crop and the use of supplemental 

payments for implementing resourceconserving crop rotations, many more 

were critical. Critical comments 

included the concern that a commodity 

crop rotation with ‘‘high’’ residue is not 

a sufficiently effective practice; NRCS 

should return to the strong definition 

used for the 2005 CSP interim final rule 

to ensure that farmers are being paid for 

significant environmental benefits; 

NRCS has chosen to allow the simplest 

of rotations, some of which result in no 

or close to no conservation benefits and 

are simply standard, production-related 

rotations; definition fails to meet the 

intent of the Farm Bill managers who 

‘‘do not intend for the Secretary to pay 

for no-till or other common practices 

that have no cost to the producers; and 

fix the definition so that it clearly 

rewards complex rotations that deliver 

significant environmental benefits and 

so that farmers implementing rotations 

rightly merit the supplemental 

payments. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has evaluated all comments 

received on the definition of ‘‘resourceconserving crop’’ and revises the 

definition to read as follows: resourceconserving crop means a crop that is 

one of the following: (1) A perennial 

grass, (2) a legume grown for use as 

forage, seed for planting, or green 

manure, (3) a legume-grass mixture, and 

(4) a small grain grown in combination 

with a grass or legume, whether interseeded or planted in rotation. 

Section 1470.4 Allocation and 

Management. 

Section 1470.4, ‘‘Allocation and 

management,’’ addresses national 

allocations and how the proportion of 

eligible land will be used as the primary 

means to distribute CSP acres and 

associated funds among States. NRCS 

received three comments on allocations 

in general and seven comments on State 

allocations. 

General Comments 

One commenter requested allocations 

be conducted fairly by not being skewed 

towards large farms or established 

players. The commenter also requested 

a landscape management perspective be 

employed to maximize public benefit at 

the lowest cost per watershed. 

Another commenter requested that 

NRCS work with other Federal agencies, 

including the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

State natural resource agencies to 

identify the relative extent and 

magnitude of particular conservation 

needs associated with agricultural 

production in each State. The States 

with the greatest conservation needs 

should be prioritized, but their ranking 

should still be contingent on factor (ii), 

the degree to which implementation of 

CSP will impact the natural resource 

needs. 

A third commenter questioned why, 

on page 37503 (table 1), the NIPF 

component (approximately 1.269 

million acres) was not included in the 

analysis and whether or not the absence 

of that information would influence the 

choice of policy options. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The 

regulatory text and the process for 

determining State allocations is not 

skewed toward large farms. The State 

acre allocations are based on each 

State’s proportion of eligible acres to the 

number of eligible acres in all States and 

other consideration of funds, as 

determined by the Chief. NRCS used the 

2003 NRI and 2007 Agricultural Census 

(AK, HI, Guam, and PR) data to 

determine the percent of agricultural 

lands (cropland, pastureland, and 

rangeland) per State. The National 

Woodland Owner Survey, 2006, from 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Forest 

Inventory Analysis data was utilized to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

determine the percent of NIPF per State. 

Once those values were established, the 

percentages were applied against the 

available agricultural lands (cropland, 

pastureland, and rangeland) for CSP 

which is 11,492,100 and against the 

1,276,900 for NIPF, providing an 

equitable acreage allocation based on 

the national values. NRCS will also give 

consideration to conservation needs and 

the degree to which CSP 

implementation impacts those needs in 

future year’s allocations. 

NRCS is incorporating the actual data 

for all applicants from the initial 

ranking period in the final CEA. 

Although the initial CEA tried to control 

for the absence of NIPF, this final 

analysis will explicitly account for the 

exact acreage and budget outlays 

associated with NIPF. It is expected that 

the final CEA will be greatly improved 

with this additional information. 

State Allocations—Comments 

Supporting the State Allocation Process 

Two commenters expressed support 

for the acreage allocation system used to 

determine the acres available for each 

State in the first sign-up period and in 

the regulation. The one commenter 

opined that the acreage allocation 

process worked very well and requested 

the process be continued for the life of 

the program. The other commenter 

expressed that the allocation factors 

established by section 1238(b)(2)(A) and 

(B) of the Farm Bill and section 

1470A(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of the rule are 

important for ensuring CSP does the 

most it can to drive environmental 

improvement. These factors can and 

should be emphasized by NRCS in 

making acreage allocations to States. 

Another commenter expressed basic 

agreement with the interim final rule on 

allocations but urged sparing use of the 

additional considerations beyond the 

States’ proportion of eligible land. The 

commenter urged NRCS to make only 

modest adjustments, if any, in the 

allocations to take into account the 

discretionary additional considerations. 

In the near term, any such modest 

adjustments should be based on both a 

clear and convincing need and on the 

proven effectiveness of the State in 

delivering the program. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will explore other 

considerations for future sign-up 

periods. 

Other Comments 

NRCS received a comment that CSP is 

a premier working-lands platform for 

rice producers with the many attendant 

waterfowl and other wildlife benefits 

they provide to fulfill the CSP enhance 

and conserve requirements. For this 

reason, it is essential that rice producing 

States be allocated sufficient CSP acres 

that recognize their rice-related 

conservation benefits and provide an 

opportunity for rice producers’ 

meaningful participation. In addition to 

the Farm Bill mandating a primary 

State-acreage allocation method, it also 

calls for consideration of other factors, 

which should be evaluated when CSP 

rice-producing State allocations are 

determined. 

One commenter urged NRCS to 

emphasize factors (2)(i) and (2)(ii) from 

section 1470.4 of the rule (‘‘the extent 

and magnitude of the conservation 

needs associated with agricultural 

production in each State,’’ and ‘‘the 

degree to which implementation of the 

program in the State is, or will be, 

effective in helping producers address 

those needs’’). 

One commenter recommended, in 

1470.4(b), when a State does not use 

acres reserved for socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers those 

acres be reallocated to other States with 

higher demand for the program. 

NRCS Response 

The State acre allocations are based 

on a formula that evaluates each State’s 

proportion of eligible acres to the 

number of eligible acres in all States 

along with consideration of the extent 

and magnitude of the conservation 

needs associated with agriculture 

production in each State. NRCS amends 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) to clarify that this 

determination will use science-based 

resource factors that consider regional 

and State-level priority ecosystem areas. 

This ensures equitable acreage 

allocation. Additionally, NRCS amends 

1470.4(b) to provide that State 

Conservationists allocate acres to 

ranking pools, to the extent practicable, 

based on the same factors the Chief uses 

in making State allocations. 

Additionally, allocated acres that are 

not enrolled in any fiscal year by a date 

set by the Chief, may be reallocated with 

associated funds for use in that fiscal 

year. 

The text related to reserving acres for 

beginning farmers or ranchers, and 

socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers is located in paragraph (c) and 

reallocating unused acres are found in 

paragraph (d). NRCS amends the new 

paragraph (d) to read, ‘‘In any fiscal year, 

allocated acres that are not enrolled by 

a date determined by NRCS may be 

reallocated with associated funds for 

use in that fiscal year under CSP. As 

part of the reallocation process, NRCS 

will consider several factors, including 

demand from applicants, national and 

regional conservation priorities, and 

prior-year CSP performance in States. 

Section 1470.5 Outreach Activities. 

This section describes how NRCS will 

establish special program outreach 

activities at the national, State, and local 

levels. Nine comments were received 

related to outreach activities for CRP 

lands, organic producers, and NIPF 

landowners. The comments are 

categorized in alphabetical order based 

on topic. 

Conservation Reserve Program Lands 

Comments 

Several comments were received 

related to the eligibility provision for 

the CRP land. Six commenters 

recommended NRCS allow CRP 

participants to apply for CSP in the last 

year of the CRP contract. Additionally, 

the requirement that any farmable acres 

must have been farmed in 4 of the last 

6 years is troubling. This provision 

leaves any land previously enrolled in 

CRP, but recently expired from the 

contract, completely ineligible for the 

program. One commenter suggests at the 

very least allow any acres classified as 

highly erodible to be eligible for CSP. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The 

program’s authorizing language states 

that land enrolled in CRP is not eligible 

for enrollment in the program. There is 

an exception for land that has not been 

farmed 4 of the last 6 years. The statute 

provides that the requirement will not 

apply if the land has previously been 

enrolled in CRP. 

Comments 

One commenter encouraged NRCS to 

include language in section 1470.5 

clarifying that expiring CRP lands 

should be targeted by NRCS. The 

commenter recommends that NRCS 

provide guidance on how producers 

will be encouraged to protect 

conservation values on expiring CRP by 

enrolling in CSP. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the natural resource 

benefits the nation has realized on CRP 

lands and is considering options for 

those producers with expiring CRP 

lands. However, NRCS is addressing 

this issue in policy rather than in the 

rule. Rather than targeting CRP lands 

specifically, NRCS considers the 

importance of maintaining land in 

conserving uses such as grassland and 

plans to spread this message through 

outreach and public announcements. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31625 

Nonindustrial Private Forest Land 

Comments 

NRCS received comment that it 

should work with other Federal and 

State agencies and non-governmental 

organizations that can assist them with 

outreach to forest landowners. 

Additionally, NRCS should conduct 

expanded outreach to this group of 

landowners since many NIPF 

landowners have not traditionally 

participated in USDA cost-share 

programs and are unfamiliar with the 

application process. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees that many NIPF 

landowners have not traditionally 

participated in USDA conservation 

programs. NRCS encouraged State 

Conservationists to partner with other 

agencies and non-governmental 

organizations to ensure NIPF 

landowners were aware of the program. 

Some examples of efforts that States 

made to reach out to NIPF landowners 

were partnering with Small Woodland 

Owners Association, USFS, State 

Department of Forestry, and 

representatives from other local 

organizations. Some States provided 

training and promotional materials to 

each organization so they could provide 

accurate CSP information to their 

respective clients. Eight percent of the 

acres enrolled during the initial sign-up 

were NIPF. 

Organic and Transitioning Farmers 

Comments 

NRCS received a few comments 

related to organic production. 

Comments included encouraging 

participation by organic and 

transitioning farmers; fully develop and 

implement, in close coordination with 

the National Organic Program, the CSP 

‘‘organic crosswalk;’’ ensure outreach to 

organic and transitioning farmers by 

providing materials that are farmerfriendly and that account for the 

specific requirements of organic systems 

under the National Organic Program 

rule and how those requirements 

overlap with CSP; and seek to conduct 

outreach through avenues that organic 

and transitioning farmers use and 

access, which often are different from 

the information avenues that most 

conventional farmers use. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made in the rule in 

response to the comments. NRCS is 

encouraging participation of organic 

producers by conducting special 

outreach efforts to this group. During 

the initial CSP sign-up period, outreach 

efforts were conducted in 17 States 

targeting organic farming organizations, 

groups, and individuals. Many States 

have representation on the State 

Technical Committee from organic 

organizations offering their views on 

how conservation programs are 

implemented within a State. State 

Conservationists have been encouraged 

to outreach to organic farmers, and 

NRCS will continue these efforts as we 

move forward with the program into the 

future. 

Other 

Comments 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

conduct outreach programs to help 

make farmers and ranchers aware of the 

importance of providing habitat for 

managed and native bees and technical 

resources and available assistance. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS conducts outreach activities to 

a wide audience to promote the program 

and the benefits of addressing resource 

concerns in a comprehensive manner. 

CSP offers several opportunities to 

address pollinator habitat through 

questions in the CMT and 

enhancements. NRCS will consider 

additional outreach and publicity efforts 

to make producers aware of the 

opportunities to address pollinator 

habitat through CSP. No changes are 

made to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

Section 1470.6 Eligibility 

Requirements 

Comments 

Section 1470.6, ‘‘Eligibility 

requirements,’’ sets forth the criteria for 

determining applicant and land 

eligibility. NRCS received numerous 

comments on this section. One 

commenter expressed that a 

participant’s personal details and 

proprietary operational information 

must be protected at all times by the 

Department. 

NRCS Response 

Information about applicants is 

generally not released to the public 

because individual privacy rights must 

be protected. The Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy 

Act, section 2004 of the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and 

section 1619 of the 2008 Act permit the 

government to withhold certain 

information. Refer to GM–120, Part 408, 

Subpart C, FOIA and Privacy Act, for 

NRCS policy regarding FOIA and the 

Privacy Act. The following information 

about conservation program contract 

applicants may not be released: Names, 

Addresses, Telephone Numbers, Social 

Security or tax identification numbers, 

and amount of Federal funds requested. 

The 2008 Act does not impede the 

sharing of information between and 

among USDA agencies. However, 

information may only be shared with 

Federal agencies outside of USDA for 

specific purposes under a cooperative 

program, but not for general regulatory 

or enforcement purposes. Aggregate or 

statistical information about 

applications may be described in news 

releases, Web sites, and other tools used 

to inform the public. 

When an applicant becomes a 

participant, additional information is 

available for release. The following 

information about participants may be 

released through a FOIA request: 

Names, limited address (State, city, or 

county), and conservation program 

contact obligation amount. Additional 

restrictions about the release of address 

information apply to some corporate 

and nonprofit business types. For more 

information, consult the NRCS General 

Manual GM–120, Part 408. 

Comments 

The other comments are discussed by 

the following categories: Applicant 

eligibility, operator of record 

requirements, control of land, land 

eligibility—general, land eligibility— 

agricultural operation, land eligibility— 

NIPF, and ineligible land. 

Applicant Eligibility 

Comments 

A number of respondents expressed 

concerns about overarching Farm Bill 

eligibility requirements such as the 

treatment of landlords and tenants, 

Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) 

provisions, and actively engaged in 

farming determinations handled 

through the Farm Service Agency (FSA). 

One commenter requested NRCS 

coordinate closely with FSA. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is coordinating closely with 

FSA regarding FSA’s rules for legal 

farming arrangements. NRCS recognizes 

FSA responsibility in maintaining farm 

records and intends on utilizing these 

records, to the extent practicable, as a 

basis for program participation. 

However, NRCS will ensure that 

producers who would have an interest 

in acreage being offered receive fair 

treatment which NRCS deems to be 

equitable. NRCS may refuse to enter into 

a contract when there is a disagreement 

among joint applicants seeking 

enrollment as to an applicant’s 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

eligibility to participate in the contract 

as a tenant. 

Comments 

NRCS received a comment that it is 

important when making AGI 

determinations that the current Internal 

Revenue Service rules governing income 

allocation apply. Accountants and other 

tax professionals are aware of these 

rules and knowledgeable when using 

them to make the necessary allocation 

amounts to spouses and other members 

of an entity. The Farm Bill provides an 

extensive list of income sources 

considered to be farm income for 

purposes of the farm AGI calculation. 

One area that is not specifically 

addressed is the categorization of wages 

earned from a farming corporation or 

other entity. Many times, partners or 

members of an entity receive a salary 

from the operation rather than or in 

addition to a distribution. NRCS should 

state clearly that this income is 

considered farm income for AGI 

purposes. 

NRCS Response 

The 2008 Act provides very specific 

AGI information applicable to all 

current Farm Bill programs. AGI 

clarification applicable to all Farm Bill 

programs is found in 7 CFR 1400.500. 

Comments 

NRCS received a comment urging the 

agency to factor into AGI determinations 

the fact that the Internal Revenue 

Service arbitrarily limits annual losses a 

producer can claim to $300,000 if the 

producer receives Farm Bill benefits, 

which if left unaddressed, could 

underestimate the extent of a producer’s 

losses while exaggerating AGI, unfairly 

resulting in program ineligibility. 

One commenter expressed that FSA 

‘‘actively engaged in farming’’ rules 

should apply. These rules include crop 

share landlords and tenants as actively 

engaged, but reduce the ability of 

absentee investors to benefit and reduce 

the opportunity to create ‘‘paper’’ farms 

whose only purpose is to enable the 

beneficiary to collect payments in 

excess of the payment limit through 

well established payment limit 

avoidance devices that will not be 

captured by direct attribution. A 

reference to the actively engaged in 

farming rules applying to CSP should be 

added between paragraphs (g) and (h) in 

1470.24. In addition, the definition of 

‘‘producer’’ in 1470.2 should be 

modified to say ‘‘actively engaged in 

agricultural production or forest 

management’’ instead of just ‘‘engaged.’’ 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. NRCS is 

legally obligated to offer the program to 

everyone meeting eligibility. To apply 

for the program, the applicant must be 

the operator of the land in the FSA 

record system. An operator who is 

accepted and subsequently enrolled in a 

contract may include additional 

participants on their contract who may 

be landowners or others having control 

of the land enrolled in the contract and 

are included in the FSA record system. 

Such participants need to meet AGI 

requirements as well as Highly Erodible 

Land provisions and Swampbuster 

provisions. All participants included in 

a contract that receive funding will by 

law, be limited to the payment 

limitations set forth in the statute and 

the rule. 

Comments 

Two commenters requested NRCS 

establish reasonable procedures for 

reporting all members of a legal entity. 

NRCS Response 

It is FSA’s responsibility to maintain 

customer records, including member 

information. FSA has forms available for 

entities to use to provide their member 

information; therefore, it is not 

necessary for NRCS to establish 

additional procedures. NRCS may 

obtain a copy of this information if 

needed. No changes are made to the rule 

in response to this comment. 

Operator of Record in FSA Records 

Comments 

Nine comments were received on this 

topic. The commenters generally 

expressed dissatisfaction with the 

requirement that the applicant must be 

the operator of record in the FSA 

system. In their view, the requirement 

unfairly precludes certain legitimate 

producers or landowners from 

participating. 

NRCS Response 

The policy related to operators’ 

results from a finding from the 2006 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

CSP audit that identified NRCS failed to 

detect improper identification of 

producers’ agricultural operations. OIG 

recommended that NRCS complete 

ongoing coordination with FSA to 

utilize their existing data to 

independently verify applicant 

information for similar programs 

implemented in the future. However, 

NRCS recognizes this is a significant 

concern and amends paragraph 

1470.6(a), Eligible applicant, to read as 

follows. 

‘‘To be an eligible applicant for CSP, 

a producer must be the operator in the 

FSA farm records management system. 

Potential applicants that are not in the 

FSA farm records management system 

must establish records with FSA. 

Potential applicants whose records are 

not current in the FSA farm records 

management system must update those 

records with FSA prior to the close of 

the ranking period to be considered 

eligible. NRCS may grant exceptions to 

the ‘‘operator of record’’ requirement for 

producers, tenants, and owners in the 

FSA farm records management system 

that can demonstrate to the satisfaction 

of NRCS they will operate and have 

effective control of the land for the term 

of the proposed contract.’’ This change 

is not retroactive, and therefore, will not 

apply to the 2009 applications or 

participants. Paragraph 1470.6(a)(1) is 

deleted and subsequent paragraphs are 

redesignated accordingly. The new 

paragraph (a)(1) is revised to remove the 

requirement that the producers have 

‘‘documented control’’ and to add a 

requirement that they have ‘‘effective 

control.’’ 

Control of Land 

Comments 

NRCS received multiple comments on 

this requirement. Commenters 

expressed dissatisfaction with the 

requirements that a producer must show 

control of the land for 5 years. NRCS 

received a comment recommending it 

work to the fullest extent allowed under 

the CSP statute to include rental acres 

in the program. Not doing so would 

mean that most modern commercial 

operations would be effectively 

excluded from CSP and the 

conservation incentives the program 

provides. It could be a significant 

administrative burden for both 

producers and NRCS personnel to 

modify the CSP contracts annually to 

accommodate changes in leased 

landowners. One commenter 

recommends that it be optional for a 

producer to enter leased land into the 

CSP. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS considers it a sound business 

practice to enter into contracts where 

the land will remain under contract for 

the full contract period. However, NRCS 

does recognize the need for flexibility to 

address those situations where operators 

have oral leases or other similar 

arrangements. Therefore, NRCS will 

modify its policy to remove the 

requirement for documented assurance 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31627 

from the owner that the tenant will have 

control and will accept operator selfcertification of control of the land for 

the contract period. Applicants who 

utilize the self-certification process will 

be subject to an annual review and 

verification process to confirm they 

maintain control throughout the 

contract period. In situations where 

operators do not anticipate having 

control of the land for the required 

period, such operators would not have 

effective control of that land and such 

land would not be considered part of 

their agriculture operation. NRCS does 

not expect applicants to project the 

unknown (e.g., health, death, business 

failures, etc.); as long as applicants 

believe they will have the necessary 

control at the time of enrollment and for 

the required period of the contract, they 

are eligible. 

Land Eligibility 

Comments 

Five respondents recommended that 

NRCS accept managed grazing land as 

cropland so it qualifies for a higher 

payment, ranks higher, and can support 

some enhancements not available in the 

pasture category. Operators who use 

cropland as pasture should be rewarded, 

not penalized by a lower CSP payment; 

one commenter felt the program should 

enable those who harvest wind to 

participate by expressing if the 

respondent grew crops to make biofuels 

they could participate; if they harvest 

wind they cannot; and one commenter 

requested NRCS implement the program 

in a size neutral manner. Producers of 

all sizes and descriptions are involved 

in cotton production and should have 

equal opportunities to access 

conservation programs. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS does not want to establish 

policy that may have an unintended 

consequence of encouraging producers 

to convert pastureland to cropland. 

Therefore, NRCS is establishing a 

‘‘pastured cropland’’ program 

designation to provide a more accurate 

payment rate due to higher forgone 

income costs associated with 

maintaining a grass-based livestock 

production system on land suitable for 

cropland. The existing activity payment 

rate for pastured cropland will be higher 

than the pastureland rate. All technical 

assessments and determinations are 

completed as pastureland. Since the 

details regarding payment rates are not 

included in the regulation, no changes 

are made to the rule. 

CSP does recognize wind power used 

to power agricultural operations on the 

farm through the CMT and 

enhancements offered by the program. 

However, land that is used solely for 

wind production does not meet the CSP 

definition of agricultural land as no 

‘‘agricultural products or livestock’’ 

would be produced on the land. 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. 

Comments 

Two commenters requested NRCS 

clarify that the Conservation Security 

Program contracts may be eligible for 

CSP. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS retains the requirement that 

land enrolled in the Conservation 

Security Program is not eligible. After 

the Conservation Security Program 

contract expires, the land becomes 

eligible. 

Comments 

One commenter requested 

clarification of the term ‘‘other lands.’’ 

The commenter requested NRCS 

identify what this term entails and what 

are the standards for demonstrating 

appropriate level of conservation on 

these lands that will determine 

eligibility and compliance. The rule 

itself is somewhat concerning in that it 

specifies that these areas must not have 

readily observable erosion or point 

sources of contamination such as 

gullies, manure runoff, or pesticide 

runoff. It is important to note that 

‘‘agriculture storm water runoff’’ is not a 

point source and is allowed by Federal 

law under the Clean Water Act. The 

commenter encourages NRCS to revisit 

this element to make sure the standard 

of conservation sought on these lands is 

not a hindrance to farmer participation 

or conflicts with Federal law, 

particularly since payments will not be 

administered for practices on these 

lands. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the concerns with 

using the words ‘‘point source’’ and will 

strike that language from procedures for 

assessing ‘‘Other lands.’’ ‘‘Other lands’’ 

must be free from readily observable 

erosion, gullies, manure runoff, 

pesticide runoff, or other similar 

environmental concerns for the 

applicant to be eligible for the program. 

Agricultural Operations 

Comments 

NRCS received a comment urging 

USDA to provide clear, detailed 

guidance about how it would 

implement ‘‘substantially separate’’ 

provisions to enable prospective 

applicants to determine if they would be 

able to participate on the business 

model their operation uses. 

NRCS Response 

The regulation identifies factors that 

will be used by applicants to determine 

whether operations are ‘‘substantially 

separate.’’ Factors include equipment, 

labor, management, and cultivation or 

production practices. NRCS intends to 

clarify how these factors are used in 

procedures and guidance for producers. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that the 

goal in the final rule is to make CSP 

simple and easy for CSP to be of real, 

concrete, and practical assistance to 

farmers struggling to deal with their real 

and immediate conservation and 

environment (needs); another expressed 

concern about treatment of eligible acres 

‘‘agricultural operations’’ and rented 

land in the context of CSP contract 

requirements that are viewed to be 

unnecessarily restrictive and limiting; 

NRCS also was questioned about 

whether there is a statutory requirement 

that requires all of an applicant’s 

operation to be covered by a contract. 

Section 1238E of the Food Security Act, 

as amended by the 2008 Act, says only 

that eligible land ‘‘shall include all acres 

of an agricultural operation of a 

producer, whether or not contiguous, 

that are under the effective control of 

the producer at the time the producer 

enters into a stewardship contract’’ 

(§ (b)(3)). While all such acres may be 

‘‘eligible,’’ there is no requirement that 

the applicant enroll all these eligible 

acres as the rule requires. If this 

language does not require the entire 

operation to be enrolled, we encourage 

NRCS to strike this requirement from 

the rule and instead adopt a more 

flexible approach that is fully reflective 

of the program’s objective to provide 

comprehensive solutions working from 

a conservation systems’ approach. 

Another commenter recommends that 

NRCS require an operator to enroll a 

sufficient quantity and type of acres 

from the producer’s operation to ensure 

that their operation’s potential 

contribution to the area’s resource and 

priority resource concerns can be 

properly addressed. This is not a fixed 

percentage of an operation, and it 

cannot be established in a one-size-fitsall approach. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS retains the requirement for the 

agricultural operation from section 

1238E, i.e., eligible land will include all 

acres of an agricultural operation 

whether or not contiguous, that are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

under the effective control of the 

producer at the time they enter a 

stewardship contract, and operated by 

the producer with equipment, labor, 

management, and production or 

cultivation practices that are 

substantially separate from other 

agricultural operations, as determined 

by the Secretary. NRCS gives producers 

the opportunity to enroll owned land 

and rented ground for which they have 

effective control. NRCS amended 

paragraph 1470.6(b) to provide 

clarification that a participant may 

submit an application(s) to enter into 

additional contract(s) for newly 

acquired eligible land, which would 

than compete with other applications in 

a subsequent ranking period. 

Nonindustrial Private Forest Land 

Comments 

NRCS received comments both in 

favor of and opposed to the agency 

policy of separating out NIPF in the 

enrollment process, so that forest land 

will be ranked and enrolled separately. 

One commenter encourages NRCS to 

develop a way to track NIPF within 

their ProTracts system so that producers 

with both NIPF and agricultural lands 

are not required to file two applications. 

By special rule no more than 10 

percent of acres enrolled nationally in 

any fiscal year may be NIPF ownerships. 

This model potentially provides a larger 

contract payment to the landowner, but 

by the total enrollment calculation may 

overstate the benefits. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS determined it is necessary to 

maintain forest land applications 

separate to be able to meet the 

legislative requirement of enrolling no 

more than 10 percent of the annual 

acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal 

year in NIPF. NRCS chooses to retain 

the process established. 

Section 1470.7 Enhancements and 

Conservation Practices 

Comments 

Forty-six comments were received on 

section 1470.7, ‘‘Enhancements and 

conservation practices.’’ This section 

identifies that a participant’s decisions 

describing the additional enhancements 

and conservation practices to be 

implemented under the CSP contract. 

The list of comments reflects the large 

selection of potential enhancements. 

The public provided input on managed 

grazing, pesticide management, energy, 

innovative practices, wildlife, forest 

management, and organic production. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS received numerous 

recommendations on innovative 

enhancements. NRCS is open to 

suggestions for additional 

enhancements on all land uses and 

welcomes innovative ideas for 

consideration. However, the program 

constraints limited how the financial 

assistance funds could be used. In order 

to achieve a national average rate of $18 

per acre, enhancement activities 

emphasize management-based actions 

rather than structural practices. It is 

NRCS’ intention that recommended 

changes and improvements will be 

incorporated in future ranking periods. 

New enchancement ideas will be 

evaluated and incorporated as time 

permits for future ranking periods. No 

changes are made to the rule in response 

to the comment. 

Comments 

One commenter recommends NRCS 

require cover crops and rotational 

grazing, rather than rewarding 

uninterrupted commodity crops that rob 

the soil. 

NRCS Response 

Program requirements to implement 

specific conservation activities would 

eliminate some farmers from eligibility 

for CSP. Instead, CSP recognizes there 

are many paths to conservation 

stewardship and asks questions in the 

CMT and offers enhancements that 

cover this spectrum. In addition, there 

are five enhancements available to 

producers that encourage the use of 

cover crops to manage nitrogen, breakup soil compaction, and improve biodiversity. The resource-conserving crop 

rotation is another way CSP promotes 

crop diversity that includes grass and 

legume. 

Comments 

NRCS received criticism that the list 

of potential enhancements is long and 

exhaustive, and it will benefit potential 

program participants to know the 

ranking of each enhancement for both 

conservation performance effectiveness 

and relative cost. The commenter 

assumes that these rankings are, in turn, 

used in the CMT, and as such, the 

rankings reflected in this document 

should be subject to review and 

modification by the State Technical 

Committee to fully reflect that State’s 

needs and priorities. 

NRCS Response 

The conservation values for each 

enhancement are posted on the NRCS 

Web site. NRCS welcomes input and 

thoughts on the relative value of each 

enhancement, but NRCS retains the 

right to make final decisions on the 

technical and resulting environmental 

impact of each enhancement. NRCS will 

continue to improve the development of 

information related to the CMT. NRCS 

recognizes the success of the program is 

dependent on a thorough understanding 

of resource needs and producer 

commitments, prior to entering a 

contract. Further, NRCS is looking at 

options to adjust the choices available 

by ranking pool, State, or region. 

Comments 

One commenter urged NRCS to 

consider offering enhancement practices 

for forest land that are innovative or not 

offered by other USDA programs, and to 

strongly consider potential 

environmental benefit when offering 

practices and ranking applications. The 

commenter recommended specific 

enhancements, some of which are 

already on the CSP enhancement list. 

NRCS Response 

The NIPF land enhancements are 

currently under review with changes in 

number of enhancements and scope to 

be completed before the next ranking 

period. NRCS will evaluate the 

enhancements recommended and will 

make its determinations public when 

changes, if applicable, are complete. 

The recommendations do not require a 

change to the rule. 

Comments 

NRCS received a recommendation 

that section 1470.7 be rewritten and retitled to include both new 

enhancements and conservation 

practices to be implemented under a 

contract, as well as existing 

enhancements and conservation 

practices to be actively managed and 

maintained under a contract. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS chooses to retain the current 

information in section 1470.7 as this 

section is intended to address additional 

conservation activities to be adopted 

through CSP. Section 1470.23 deals 

with maintenance and management of 

existing activities. 

Comments 

Two commenters expressed that 

enhancements should reflect that 

commitment to flexibility and 

continuous improvement should allow 

for reasonable adaptation and 

modification during the life of the 

contract. Two commenters requested 

new enhancements be added to the 

toolbox of offerings as new conservation 

technologies are developed. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31629 

One commenter recommended 

allowing landowners 3 years to adopt 

forest enhancements, including forest 

stewardship plans which should be 

encouraged. 

NRCS Response 

The program has mechanisms in place 

to accommodate changes in operations 

during the life of the contract. The 

program allows change to the schedule 

or installed enhancements by allowing 

enhancements to be substituted as long 

as the conservation performance 

determined by NRCS is equal or better 

than the conservation performance 

offered at enrollment. In addition, a 

participant will not be considered in 

violation of the contract for failure to 

comply with the contract due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

participant. 

CSP rules require that all 

enhancements be adopted by the third 

year of the contract. No changes are 

made to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended a 

thorough review of all CSP 

enhancements before the next ranking 

period and appropriate steps taken to 

improve benefits to fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

One commenter was opposed to 

implementing new practices through 

CSP. The commenter expressed that if 

farmers are interested in adopting new 

practices, they should be encouraged to 

apply for funding for the new adoption 

under EQIP instead. 

NRCS Response 

The program’s statutory language 

provides that the term conservation 

activities mean conservation system, 

practices, or management measures that 

are designed to address a resource 

concern. 

Comments 

One commenter identified an interest 

in farmers that transition to a lower 

carbon footprint of production, 

including increasing soil carbon using 

managed intensive grazing systems, 

reduced tillage, and reduced pesticide 

use while another proposed a new 

category encompassing many of the CSP 

enhancements to help some of the 

endangered species, pollinators, and 

wildlife that are being pushed out by 

increasing housing developments. This 

should include inclusion and priority of 

biodiversity enhancing and organic 

farming practices. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the merit of these 

conservation measures, and they are 

currently reflected in the CMT questions 

and enhancements offered through the 

program. 

Innovative Enhancements 

Comments 

NRCS received multiple suggestions 

of practices and activities to add to the 

list of enhancements. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS conducted a thorough review of 

all CSP enhancements for all land uses, 

as well as evaluated the 

recommendations from the public. As a 

result, NRCS updated its enhancement 

list and adopted a new concept for the 

second ranking period related to the 

selection and implementation of 

enhancements. Certain enhancements 

will be offered as ‘‘bundles’’ while others 

will be offered individually. The 

bundling concept enables participants 

and the nation to realize conservation 

benefits from the synergy that results 

when activities are implemented as a 

system. For example, NRCS established 

a Sustainable Ag Bundle that includes 

enhancements for locally grown and 

marketed farm products, water quality, 

soil quality and plants, and beneficial 

insects. 

The environmental benefits of each 

bundle will be reflected in the score and 

the resulting payment level. NRCS 

amended the rule in 1470.7(c) to make 

known the ability to incorporate 

bundled enhancements in the 

stewardship plan. 

Comments 

Another commenter requested NRCS 

provide clarity on the development and 

regular review of incentives for Socially 

Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers, 

Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, and 

Limited Resource Farmers or Ranchers, 

and Indian Tribes. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP does not provide incentive 

payments for historically underserved 

individuals. However, NRCS policy 

requires State Conservationists to 

address access to program enrollment 

for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers or 

Ranchers and Beginning Farmers or 

Ranchers through the establishment of 

special ranking pools. In addition, 

Indian tribes are exempt to payment 

limitation per legislation as stated in 

section 1238G(g) of the Statute. 

Comments 

NRCS should view the development 

of new technologies and management 

strategies in an entrepreneurial manner 

that fosters the addition of beneficial 

new activities as they are developed. 

New enhancements should be added to 

CSP’s toolbox of offerings as new 

conservation technologies are developed 

in order to accelerate the adoption of 

conservation technologies with positive 

environmental benefits that will address 

societal needs. 

One commenter noted that continued 

funding of large scale farms and 

conventional practices seems like others 

are continuing to get resources while 

innovators get nothing. Small scale 

farms are increasing across the country 

and at the same time, more CSA 

orientated marketing continues to spiral 

upwards as well. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the value of small 

scale farms as well as large farms. As a 

result, the scoring and ranking system 

used for CSP is size neutral. No change 

is made to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

Conservation Practices and ResourceConserving Crop Rotation 

Comments 

Two commenters recommended that 

cover crops that best hold the soil in 

place whether legumes or perennial 

grasses with the least disruption causing 

erosion must be rewarded. 

NRCS Response 

Cover crops are given performance 

points in the CMT. There are also five 

CSP enhancements available that 

promote the adoption of cover crops in 

various ways. No changes are made to 

the rule in response to this comment. 

Comments 

Commenters supported the concept 

that resource-conserving crop rotations 

and managed rotational grazing should 

be rewarded through CSP. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees and these activities are 

recognized in scoring and 

enhancements through CSP. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that CSP is 

essential to the development of a better, 

more sustainable agricultural sector in 

this country, and therefore, it is 

necessary that the program provide 

support on a wide range of important 

practices like crop rotation. 

Forty-nine commenters recommended 

that resource-conserving crop rotations 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and management-intensive rotational 

grazing should receive strong support or 

high ranking and payment points. 

Cropping systems built around resourceconserving cropping and livestock 

systems based on rotational grazing are 

superior conservation approaches with 

multiple environmental benefits. They 

should be fully rewarded whether they 

are an ongoing conservation system or a 

newly adopted one. 

NRCS Response 

Applicants who choose to implement 

a resource-conserving crop rotation are 

recognized because they receive a 

separate payment for this activity above 

and beyond other payments they may 

qualify for under the program. NRCS 

recognizes the conservation value of 

crop rotations and rotational grazing. 

Both are scored highly in the CMT, and 

enhancements are offered for both of 

these activities. No changes are made to 

the regulation in response to these 

comments. 

Comments 

Another commenter expressed that it 

is also important that the funding 

amounts recognize the critical role that 

organic crop and livestock systems, 

resource-conserving crop rotations, and 

management-intensive rotational 

grazing play in strong and productive 

stewardship. 

NRCS Response 

CSP uses the CMT in evaluating the 

environmental impact that a 

management system provides. Those 

systems that provide the highest 

benefits receive the most conservation 

performance points resulting in higher 

ranking and increase payments. No 

changes are made to the rule in response 

to the comment. 

Comments 

A number of comments show support 

for small farmers like the one that 

expressed the concern that small family 

farmers raising a diversity of crops and 

animals, should receive high ranking 

and payment points based on resourceconserving crop rotations and 

management-intensive rotational 

grazing. 

NRCS Response 

Applicants in this category that are 

addressing natural resource concerns 

will score very well in the CMT and will 

have the potential for high stewardship 

levels. Recognizing that CSP may not 

offer financial resources to smaller 

operators that would encourage 

participation, NRCS amended the 

regulation in paragraph 1470.24 to add 

authority for the Chief to offer a 

minimum contract payment amount. 

Comments 

Farmers coming into newly adopted 

resource-conserving crop rotations and 

management-intensive rotational 

grazing (in addition to those who 

presently implement those practices) 

need to be able to sign-up for CSP. 

NRCS Response 

CSP scoring, ranking, and payments 

are based on both existing conservation 

activities and additional conservation 

activities that the applicant chooses to 

implement. This process allows for 

farmers who are at different levels of 

conservation to participate. NRCS uses 

an environmental focus and not a 

commodity-based focus when 

implementing CSP. No changes are 

made to the rule in response to the 

comment. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that in 

reviewing the interim final rule and the 

materials posted on the NRCS Web site 

in reference to the rule, the resourceconserving crop rotation and its specific 

special payment is clearly a priority for 

NRCS. However, exact implementation 

of this provision still appears uncertain. 

As NRCS moves forward with this 

provision, the agency should strive to 

attain the objective of greater soil 

conservation and the building of carbon 

in the soil rather than a prescription that 

can only be met with the addition of a 

perennial crop or forage crop to the 

rotation. 

NRCS Response 

The resource-conserving crop rotation 

job sheet, describes the benefits of a 

resource-conserving crop rotation that 

includes reduced wind and water 

erosion, increased soil organic matter, 

improved soil fertility and tilth, 

interrupted pest cycles, reduced 

depletion of soil moisture or reduced 

need for irrigation in applicable areas, 

and provided protection and habitat for 

pollinators. Each State developed a list 

of plants and crops that met the criteria 

of a resource-conserving crop. No 

changes are made to the rule in response 

to the comment. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that 

conservation methods in crop rotations 

are vital for a sound, conservation-based 

farm. Adequate rewards for resourceconserving methods such as green 

manure plantings and forage, is 

important to ensure such practices are 

implemented and maintained. Well 

managed rotational grazing systems for 

livestock are another superior 

conservation method with value-added 

gain to the environment. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with these comments as 

reflected in the questions in the CMT 

and the CSP enhancements. No changes 

are made to the rule. 

Comments 

One commenter expected real change 

with the implementation of the CSP. 

The commenter expressed that the new 

CSP actually rewards farmers who are 

early adopters and using long-term 

rotations or grass-based livestock 

systems. 

NRCS Response 

Questions in the CMT are designed to 

analyze an existing crop production 

system and award conservation 

performance points for those systems 

that provide the greatest environmental 

benefit. Systems that include greater 

crop diversity reduce tillage and high 

levels of nutrient and pest management 

receive more conservation performance 

points, increasing chances to be selected 

for funding. No changes are made to the 

rule in response to the comment. 

Comments 

One commenter was critical of the 

ranking process in situations where a 

producer has to change a rotation that 

is not on the list, and then the producer 

would have to go through some ranking 

changes each time. 

NRCS Response 

Participants can modify stewardship 

plans to address unforeseen 

contingencies, as long as they select 

enhancement activities with the same or 

greater environmental benefits. Further, 

NRCS does not consider a participant in 

violation of the contract for failure to 

comply with the contract due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

participant, including disaster or related 

conditions, as determined by the State 

Conservationist. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

NRCS seek opportunities to increase bee 

forage when implementing other 

conservation practices, such as cover 

crops and resource-conserving crop 

rotations. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS feels that it has adequately 

addressed the concerns in the CMT and 

with the activities offered through the 

program. NRCS will conduct continuous 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31631 

reviews to incorporate innovative ideas 

for future ranking periods. No changes 

are made to the rule in response to the 

comment. 

Comments 

One commenter requested 

clarification on whether or not orchard 

and vineyard crops are eligible for the 

resource-conserving crop rotation. Wine 

grape growers typically use a resourceconserving crop in their vineyards 

which meets the first definition, a 

perennial crop for soil fertility. Will 

vineyards be eligible for the 

supplemental payment? 

NRCS Response 

Resource-conserving crop rotations 

are not applicable for orchards or 

vineyards. A resource-conserving crop 

rotation is only applicable where there 

is an annually planted crop in the 

rotation. 

On-Farm Research and Demonstration 

Comments 

NRCS received one comment on this 

provision. The commenter 

recommended the addition of a new 

paragraph (3) in 1470.2 to stipulate that 

NRCS will make available to eligible 

applicants design protocols and 

participation procedures for 

participation in CSP on-farm research 

and demonstration projects. In addition, 

the commenter recommended that 

either (a) current point values for onfarm research and demonstration be 

enhanced, or (b) that on-farm research 

and demonstration be taken out of the 

point system for payment purposes and 

compensated in a more traditional 

manner. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS amends section 1470.2(f)(1) to 

read as follows: 

(f) The State Conservationist will: 

(1) Obtain advice from the State 

Technical Committee and local working 

groups on the development of Statelevel technical, outreach, and program 

issues, including the identification of 

priority resource concerns for a State, or 

the specific geographic areas within a 

State, and design protocols and 

participation procedures for 

participation in on-farm research and 

demonstration and pilot projects. 

States are working with their 

respective research institution in 

educating them on the use of on-farm 

research and demonstration projects to 

increase the list of available projects for 

the next ranking period. 

Section 1470.8 Technical Assistance 

Comments 

Section 1470.8, Technical assistance, 

explains that NRCS or other technical 

service providers (TSP) could provide 

the technical consultation for installing 

conservation activities under CSP. 

Two commenters recommended that 

more CSP money to be available for 

technical assistance through TSPs or 

cooperative agreements with entities 

such as State wildlife agencies in order 

to meet the anticipated program 

demand. 

NRCS Response 

States have an option to enter into 

cooperative agreements with TSPs or 

other agencies to assist in delivering the 

program. However, it is important to 

mention that the program constraints of 

managing the program to achieve a 

national average of $18 per acre for 

financial assistance and technical 

assistance will limit program servicing 

options. 

Technical Assistance on Forest Land 

Comments 

A number of comments were received 

regarding technical assistance on forest 

land. Commenters expressed support for 

CSP with concerns on how the expertise 

and technical assistance will be 

delivered at the field level to NIPF; 

technical assistance for many NRCS 

forest projects is provided by agreement 

with the State Forestry Department, and 

in some cases, technical expertise is 

very limited; and respondents 

recommended that NRCS utilize the 

extensive network of forestry expertise 

through the Forest Stewardship 

Program, which includes State forestry 

agencies, consulting foresters, and other 

partners working to deliver technical 

assistance to NIPF landowners. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS field office staffs have diverse 

technical backgrounds and in some 

cases have forestry and agroforestry 

expertise, but in those situations where 

they do not, they will seek professional 

forestry assistance. NRCS has staff 

foresters in many States that provide 

technical guidance and training to field 

offices and can assist field offices with 

planning and application questions. In 

States without staff foresters, the field 

offices will assist the forest owner in 

seeking assistance from either State 

agency foresters, forestry TSPs, or other 

private consulting foresters in the local 

area who are providing forestry 

planning and application assistance 

such as forest stewardship planning. 

Pollinators 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

NRCS further this objective by (1) 

designating a liaison at NRCS charged 

with working with beekeeping industry 

interests, and (2) establishing and 

convening a working group of 

beekeepers, qualified research and 

extension specialists, and interested 

agricultural producers to help conduct 

the necessary review and revisions. 

Another commenter expressed that 

USDA should realize the full potential 

conservation assistance and incentive 

programs to help farmers and ranchers 

establish and maintain habitat for 

managed and native bees, and provide 

training to NRCS and other technical 

assistance providers to make them 

aware of the new Farm Bill authorities 

and the importance of habitat for 

managed and native bees and how 

programs can be used to assist farmers 

and ranchers. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has a Pollinator Initiative 

through which it is pursuing increased 

attention to pollinators from a variety of 

approaches. A few of these approaches 

include the following: Establishment of 

an NRCS Liaison with beekeepers and 

with the United States beekeeping 

industry to ensure that the needs of 

beekeepers and honey bees are 

appropriately addressed in NRCS 

pursuits; revision of NRCS Conservation 

Practice Standards to encourage 

establishment of pollinator habitat and 

discourage management practices 

harmful to pollinators; implementation 

of the recently-developed NRCS Plant 

Materials Centers pollinator action plan 

which includes the field-testing of seed 

mixes for pollinators from an ecoregion-specific perspective and cropspecific recommendations of plant 

materials that will provide preferred 

and extended pollinator forage and 

refugia for beneficial insects helpful in 

pest management; inclusion of a large 

number of opportunities for matching 

funds to create and enhance pollinator 

habitat through a variety of financial 

assistance and easement conservation 

programs; development of Web based 

training for NRCS staffs and for our 

partners and customers focused upon 

pollinators and their habitat 

requirements; and implementation of 

the NRCS pollinator communications 

plan for awareness-building concerning 

the critical roles of pollinators and what 

individuals can do to help us sustain 

pollinator habitat and the 

environmental services they provide. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

NRCS takes seriously its 

responsibilities to ensure its field office 

staffs have adequate training to work 

with organic farmers. Individual States 

have conducted numerous training 

sessions on conservation planning with 

organic producers. A national 

teleconference on organic certification 

has been conducted, and plans are in 

place to work with several private 

organic groups to provide training to 

NRCS State specialists on organic 

farming systems. No changes are made 

to the rule in response to this comment. 

Comments 

One commenter questioned why 

NRCS included a definition of TSP. The 

commenter did not see where the term 

is used or referenced in the rule. The 

commenter expressed that the rule leads 

one to conclude that NRCS must 

provide all technical assistance relative 

to the CSP. 

NRCS Response 

Section 1470.8 states that NRCS may 

provide technical assistance to an 

eligible applicant or participant either 

directly or through a TSP as set forth in 

7 CFR part 652. 

Subpart B—Contracts and Payments 

Section 1470.20 Application for 

Contracts and Selecting Offers From 

Applicants 

Comments 

Section 1470.20, ‘‘Application for 

contracts and selecting offers from 

applicants,’’ identifies procedures 

associated with application acceptance, 

contract application requirements, and 

the application evaluation process. 

NRCS received 20 comments on the 

application process. Many of the 

commenters expressed frustration 

related to the amount of paperwork 

necessary to participate in CSP. 

Application Process 

Seven commenters expressed that 

there is too much paperwork or the 

program is too complex; other 

comments included that NRCS needs to 

control costs and if an applicant is 

rejected from program enrollment, the 

basis for the rejection needs to be 

explained to the applicant. NRCS 

received comments that information 

requirements should be fair, reasonable, 

and limited to data that is necessary, 

relevant, and related directly to 

determining an applicant’s potential 

CSP participation. An applicant’s 

personal details and proprietary 

operational information must be 

protected at all times by the 

Department; respondents urged NRCS to 

avoid onerous and invasive CSP 

documentation requirements and to be 

fair and reasonable. One commenter 

acknowledged that good 

recordingkeeping is integral to 

managing a successful farming 

operation; however, due to the newness 

of this program, some producers may 

not have records for all of the activities 

conducted that would aid them in their 

application for CSP. The commenter has 

concerns about how farmers will be 

treated in situations where they have 

recently acquired farm ground where 

previous records would not be available 

to the new operator, which could limit 

their eligible acres. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. 

All applicants are provided written 

notification of all determinations related 

to their application. 

NRCS designed the CSP to collect as 

little information from the applicants as 

feasible. It is always difficult to balance 

the information necessary for quality 

assurance and minimize burden on 

customers. NRCS feels strongly that 

proper documentation is required to 

avoid improper use of program funds. 

NRCS does not collect records to be kept 

in NRCS field offices. Records are used 

to verify that the information provided 

by the applicant is accurate when 

conducting the onsite field verification 

and State quality assurance process. 

Acreage eligibility is not determined 

by the presence or absence of records; 

however, it may impact the applicant’s 

ranking score. The applicants are 

required to offer all acres on their 

operation that are under effective 

control at the time of entry into a 

conservation stewardship contract. To 

participate in CSP, applicants need to be 

able to provide some form of 

verification for those activities that they 

are credited in the CMT. There are many 

ways that information can be verified 

during the onsite field verification such 

as equipment, crop residues, visible 

signs of erosions, existing practices on 

the ground, photos, receipts, existing 

conservation plans, aerial photos, etc. It 

is the applicant’s responsibility to 

provide accurate information of the 

existing system that they will be 

compensated through program 

payments. 

NRCS will evaluate ways to minimize 

burdens on producers while following 

policies and procedures to ensure that 

NRCS is accountable for the use of 

program funds. It is critical that 

participants maintain and supply 

information to verify eligibility. NRCS 

has the proper supporting contract 

documentation to ensure fair and 

consistent determinations are made. 

Comments 

Another area of interest related to the 

availability of information. Four 

commenters expressed that applicants 

should have access to enhancement 

points during the application process. 

For farmers to make good decisions, 

farmers should have access to the 

number of points each enhancement is 

assigned to make the best decision for 

their operation and for the overall 

environmental benefit of their contract. 

Three commenters expressed that the 

list of potential enhancements is long 

and exhaustive, and it will benefit 

potential program participants to know 

the ranking of each enhancement for 

both conservation performance 

effectiveness and relative cost. We 

assume that these rankings are in turn 

used in the CMT and, as such, the 

rankings reflected in this document 

should be subject to review and 

modification by the State Technical 

Committee to fully reflect that State’s 

needs and priorities. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has made available to the 

public the conservation performance 

effectiveness values for all activities 

offered through the program as well as 

for all the inventory questions. In 

addition, NRCS developed two detailed 

documents explaining how the points 

are used in the tool. This information is 

located at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

programs/new_csp/csp.html. 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to these comments. 

Conservation Performance Ranking 

Score 

Comments 

One commenter indicated that what is 

unclear is how the activity list relates 

specifically to the ranking process used 

in CSP contract approvals, if at all, and 

how this list relates to the CMT. NRCS 

should clarify how this list relates in 

this regard. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT is utilized to evaluate CSP 

applications using a point based system 

for environmental benefits. The CMT 

evaluates existing and proposed new 

activities to calculate conservation 

performance points that will be used for 

ranking and payment purposes. No 

changes are made to the rule in response 

to the comment. 

Comments 

One commenter encouraged NRCS to 

allow one application for producers 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31633 

with agricultural lands that also contain 

NIPF. Another commented that the 

contract application requirements and 

ranking pool protocols for NIPF are not 

specified. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS deemed necessary the 

separation between NIPF from 

agricultural land applications to be able 

to meet the legislative requirement of 

not more than 10 percent of the annual 

acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal 

year may be NIP. However, NIPF 

applicants follow the same application 

requirements and ranking protocols that 

agricultural land applications follow. 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comment. 

Ranking Process 

Comments 

NRCS received nine comments related 

to the ranking process. The majority of 

the comments pertained to 

implementing CSP in a size neutral 

manner. The commenters encouraged 

NRCS to resist efforts that would place 

unnecessary size and income 

restrictions on CSP participation, 

especially if those restrictions go 

beyond the provisions Congress 

specifically included in the CSP 

authorization. CSP is a program that 

must be designed in a way that allows 

participants to be ranked and evaluated 

on the environmental merit of their onfarm activities, regardless of the overall 

size of their operation. One commenter 

expressed that CSP puts more emphasis 

on change. NRCS needs to be careful 

about what kind of change is being 

directly or indirectly promoted with taxpayer money. In the two sign-ups for the 

old CSP, the highest ranking 

applications were often continuous notill row crop producers. With the 

emphasis on change, those applicants 

who are changing to no-till will rank 

high. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP is designed to allow 

participants to be ranked and evaluated 

on the environmental merit of their onfarm activities regardless of the overall 

size of their operation. The CMT 

evaluates existing and proposed new 

activities to calculate conservation 

performance points that will be used for 

ranking and payment purposes. The 

CMT is size neutral ensuring that all 

operations, despite the size of each 

operation, have the same potential to 

accrue a similar number of points. 

NRCS is following the program’s 

statute by crediting producers for the 

conservation performance from the 

existing and proposed system. In 

addition, NRCS is following the ranking 

factors stated in the statute. Three out of 

the four ranking criteria are related to 

new conservation activities. However, a 

review of the first sign-up data is being 

conducted, and any needed adjustments 

will be made before the next ranking 

period. 

Comments 

Two commenters responded with 

concerns related to wildlife issues; one 

commenter expressed concern if cost is 

figured into the ranking criteria, that 

wildlife and forest health enhancements 

will be negatively weighted because of 

the installation cost, low CSP payment, 

and no cost-share opportunities 

available for the producer. 

NRCS Response 

Cost is not a ranking factor unless 

there is a tie in ranking scores between 

two or more applications. When there is 

a tie, the application that represents the 

least cost to the program will be given 

priority. The CSP does not provide costshare payments but rather compensates 

producers for the conservation 

performance. 

Comments 

One commenter supports a ranking 

scheme with no weighting for the 

adoption of new enhancements by the 

producer. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is currently implementing the 

ranking factors without preferential 

treatment to any one factor. No changes 

are made to the regulation in response 

to this comment. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

award points for selecting conservation 

practices that address State, regional, or 

national resource concerns such as Gulf 

of Mexico hypoxia, Northern Bobwhite 

Conservation, and grassland bird 

initiatives. 

NRCS Response 

Conservation practices are used in 

CSP for the purpose of encouraging 

producers to meet additional 

stewardship thresholds. NRCS is 

evaluating options and methodologies to 

allow for State and regional adaptation 

of the CMT at some future point. 

Conservation Measurement Tool 

Comments 

NRCS received 19 comments on the 

CMT. Most of the comments requested 

additional conservation considerations 

in the CMT. NRCS received both 

positive and negative comments related 

to CMT and agency implementation. For 

example, one commenter expressed the 

CMT is an attempt to provide a 

nationwide ‘‘level playing field’’ in 

ranking applicants and determining 

funding status across a large number of 

resource conservation areas. For this, 

the NRCS deserves some 

commendation. Unfortunately, the draft 

tools available for review thus far do not 

give clear indications of how some of 

the ranking decisions were made, nor 

how points are applied to producers’ 

activities. Another commented that 

estimation of a true baseline of 

environmental conditions before and 

after CSP implementation is not 

possible. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS appreciates and understands 

the positive and negative comments on 

CMT. The first implementation of CMT 

was a learning process. Changes are 

already planned for CMT based on 

experiences at the field level. As field 

personnel become more familiar with 

the use of CMT, inconsistencies in its 

implementation will be minimized. In 

addition, NRCS will conduct additional 

training for field personnel on CMT to 

ensure consistent application and 

interpretation across the country. 

NRCS entered into an agreement with 

the University of Illinois to conduct a 

scientific validation to assess its 

performance in evaluating 

environmental benefits. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that the 

CMT considers the relative physical 

effects of existing and proposed 

conservation activities to estimate 

improvements in conservation 

performance. It does not measure true 

environmental benefits, e.g., tons of 

carbon sequestered or tons of soil saved. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with this commenter. 

The CMT was developed for the CSP as 

a means of providing an ordinal ranking 

of applicants based upon the level of 

conservation stewardship on the 

applicant’s operation. The CMT does 

this by asking a series of questions about 

the outcomes of agricultural and 

ranching practices in terms that a 

typical landowner should be able to 

answer. In other words, it provides a 

means of saying that the environmental 

outcome on applicant A’s farm as a 

result of the implementation of farming 

and conservation activities is better than 

applicant B’s. However, NRCS will 

explore potential future additions for 

quantitative capability to the tool. For 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the CMT to measure benefits will 

require incorporating other modules 

that can measure change such as 

Agricultural Policy Environmental 

Extender, Voluntary Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases-Carbon Management 

Evaluation Tool, Nitrogen Loss and 

Environmental Assessment Package, etc. 

Comments 

Another commenter expressed that 

the CMT does not adequately encourage 

intensive tillage management for residue 

management or soil tilth. 

NRCS Response 

CMT seeks only to judge the results of 

conservation actions (or lack thereof). 

The encouragement comes as applicants 

see what actions they need to take in 

order to rank highly or increase their 

level of payment. CMT does in fact 

reward applicants through increased 

score that practice tillage techniques 

that maintain high residue levels and 

limit soil disturbance. In addition, by 

choosing enhancements that increase 

residue and otherwise improve soil 

quality, applicants can further increase 

ranking and payment levels. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed 

understanding that the CMT has been 

developed to determine if an applicant 

meets the basic stewardship threshold 

for entry into the program. The CMT 

should also be capable of assisting 

further in the ranking process by 

calculating and accounting for the 

practices of those farmers that have 

achieved a much higher level of 

conservation, above and beyond the 

entry level threshold. It must be 

remembered that many of the nation’s 

best land stewards adopted and 

implemented these conservation 

practices with their own money because 

it was the ‘‘right’’ thing to do. In time, 

CSP will have the majority of the farms 

enrolled, but the poor land stewards 

must be aware of the successes of the 

best land stewards. The new CSP should 

continue to inspire farmers to be ranked 

among the best land stewards in the 

country. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT scores the exceptional 

steward much higher than the applicant 

that just barely meets eligibility. NRCS 

acknowledges that the number of 

enhancements available and the 

environmental points granted to a 

‘‘barely eligible’’ producer could result 

in an application to be ranked higher 

than for an exceptional steward. NRCS 

will be reviewing the stewardship 

eligibility levels for each resource 

concern to ensure that good and poor 

stewards are properly indentified. This 

could ultimately have some effect on 

who is eligible for the program and 

better identify the good steward. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended the 

CMT needs to better recognize and score 

certain practices. For example, terracing 

is a conservation practice that was 

advocated for decades by the Soil 

Conservation Service and is still part of 

the FOTG. Terracing is a vital 

component in controlling water erosion, 

especially where residue production is 

low. No-till or cover crops are not 

always an acceptable substitute for 

terraces, and CMT scoring must 

recognize that fact. Producers who have 

installed and farmed with terraces have 

incurred significant costs in additional 

time, machinery, and labor 

requirements. Ignoring both the benefits 

and producer costs, the CMT recognizes 

terracing with at most only 45 points 

(questions 13 and 14) and specifically 

only 16 points (question 14). 

NRCS Response 

While NRCS recognizes the 

significant contribution that some 

applicants have made to improve the 

farming landscape by installing terrace 

systems, CMT is designed to judge the 

conservation outcome of activities 

rather than the capital and labor input 

to install the practices. Farmers make 

choices based on the land they farm, the 

crops they choose to grow, and other 

site-specific factors. In most cases, there 

are multiple paths to achieve a good 

conservation outcome. The CMT does 

not try to define the path, rather it tries 

to judge the result of the choices the 

farmer makes. The farmer is free to 

make these choices based on their 

operational goals. 

Comments 

One commenter opined that the CMT 

is particularly flawed in being heavily 

weighted towards practices that are 

impractical for some regions. Although 

it is recognized that the CSP is outcome 

based, it will not further national 

conservation efforts to exclude some 

regions. The CMT needs to be expanded 

with questions and points that match a 

reasonable conservation outcome for a 

given region. It also needs a mechanism 

to omit questions inappropriate for a 

particular region. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will take this concern under 

advisement and look for opportunities 

for States or regions to customize the 

CMT within the constraints of a national 

program. 

Comments 

One commenter questioned in what 

manner does the CMT account for the 

costs (or lack thereof) of given practices/ 

enhancements? Question 11 provides up 

to 64 points for the use of a no-till 

system. However, in many instances notill systems are actually adopted for cost 

savings. This is in conflict with the 

language in section 1470.24 and with 

World Trade Organization requirements. 

Given these payment requirements, how 

do practices/enhancements such as notill (which is potentially income 

enhancing) warrant high CMT points 

when significant conservation practices 

such as terracing (which clearly has 

high costs) are assigned much lower 

point values? 

NRCS Response 

NRCS developed CMT to determine 

the environmental benefits points using 

conservation physical effects and does 

not take into account costs of activities. 

The payment process takes into account 

costs incurred, income foregone, and to 

the extent practical, environmental 

benefits. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that the 

CMT asks no questions related to 

strategies for the management of 

herbicide resistance in weeds. With 

reduced till/no-till systems relying on 

the availability of effective herbicides 

(especially glyphosate in which 

resistance is an increasing problem) this 

topic must be addressed. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT includes a section on pest 

management with the highest scoring 

being the use of an integrated pest 

management plan (IPM). The IPM can 

include a host of activities that range 

from the use of herbicides to avoidance 

techniques that rely on management 

strategies. This plan provides sufficient 

options to address herbicide resistant 

weeds and reward applicants that 

choose environmentally sound options 

without CMT prescribing the necessary 

treatment. 

Comments 

One commenter responded that other 

than referencing residue cover at 

planting, the CMT asks no major 

questions about management for the 

control of wind erosion. This is an 

example of an issue where regional 

practices/enhancements must be more 

fully addressed by the CMT. This 

commenter also expressed that despite 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31635 

the otherwise heavy emphasis on plant 

diversity and cover crops, the CMT does 

not recognize the identical role that 

facilitating postharvest volunteer plant 

growth provides in wheat-fallow 

rotations. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will take the comments under 

advisement to ensure that additional 

clarification is included in the CMT. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

NRCS refine the CMT to allow for the 

creation of more precise resource 

concern categories within the land use 

category of forest land. This would 

allow States to set priorities for 

conservation on forest land in the same 

manner that they do for other land use 

types when selecting resource concerns 

and priority resource concerns for 

cropland, rangeland, or pasture. 

NRCS Response 

At this time NRCS does not anticipate 

changing the micro resource concerns 

that are considered by CSP. Cropland, 

pastureland, rangeland, and forest land 

are evaluated across the same 27 micro 

resource concerns. 

Ranking—Environmental Benefits 

Comments 

NRCS received 102 comments on the 

ranking for environmental benefits. The 

majority of the comments pertained to 

organic farming and livestock systems 

and ranking applications based on 

environmental outcomes. NRCS 

received a few comments in support of 

small farms. The comments are 

summarized as follows: 

Organic Production 

NRCS received 43 comments related 

to organic production. The majority of 

these commenters expressed that 

organic crop and livestock systems 

should get extra consideration because 

of their environmental benefits. One 

commenter requested NRCS make the 

rules flexible enough to fit the various 

needs of organic farmers, since their 

overall system is beneficial but does not 

always fit the narrow guidelines for 

conventional farming. A number of 

commenters expressed that organic and 

those transitioning into organic should 

be treated similarly. Ranking and 

payment point values should be roughly 

equivalent for ongoing organic 

management and new conversions or 

transition to organic. Another 

commenter expressed that the points 

given to organic farmers are quite fair, 

and it is apparent that many organic 

farming practices are sustainable. Those 

practices may be adopted, at least in a 

modified form, by non-organic farms as 

a way to become more sustainable and 

protective of the environments. 

Not all the commenters supported 

giving organic and livestock producers 

special consideration. One commenter 

expressed that organic and livestock 

practices should not be given higher 

ranking or points because it is organic. 

The end result is what matters; if 

conventional agriculture or organic 

agriculture accomplishes the same 

result, the reward should be the same. 

Another commenter expressed that 

organic farming is not sustainable, and 

the added tillage to control weeds only 

increases soil erosion. The use of 

manure encourages phosphorus run off, 

and there is not scientific proof that 

their producer is any better for humans 

than that produced with no-till. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT evaluates the impacts of 

organic systems in the same manner as 

for non-organic systems. All producers 

are required to meet the same 

stewardship threshold for each of the 

resource concerns. The CMT evaluates 

the environmental benefits provided by 

an operation regardless of operation 

size, land use, or production system. 

Environmental Outcomes 

Comments 

NRCS received 36 comments 

recommending that CSP applications be 

ranked and paid based on 

environmental outcomes. Examples of 

specific comments include: 

Conservation strategies that yield the 

largest environmental performance and 

provide multiple benefits should receive 

priority ranking; it would be great if 

subsidy payments would shift towards 

CSP; effective application ranking that 

prioritizes enrollment of producers 

promising to do the most to address the 

important resource concerns in a 

particular area will be critical to 

maximizing the environmental benefits 

CSP can deliver; and reward good 

outcomes such as enhanced wildlife 

habitat, better watershed protection, and 

higher regard for air quality. These 

outcomes should be rewarded whether 

the conservation practice was adopted 

this year or in the past so that farmers 

with good practices are not punished for 

starting conservation early. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT will credit producers with 

higher points if their existing and 

proposed system is addressing the 

priority resource concerns identified by 

the State for the geographic area they are 

competing in. In addition, existing and 

proposed activities’ performance are 

calculated by resource concern for each 

land use ensuring the producers are 

rewarded for multiple benefits they are 

producing. 

Small Farms/Farm Size 

Comments 

Two commenters urged NRCS to 

encourage farms of all sizes to practice 

conservation methods on their farms. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS promotes conservation methods 

on all farms. The program is designed in 

a way that allows participants to be 

ranked and evaluated on the 

environmental merit of their on-farm 

activities, regardless of the size of their 

operation. 

Comments 

NRCS received comments expressing 

disappointment from applicants whose 

applications were not selected for 

participation. Commenters indicated 

their applications were rejected due to 

their size, lack of sufficient income, or 

cropping history. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP has no minimum income or 

size limitation. However, the CSP 

statute provides that land used for crop 

production after June 18, 2008, that had 

not been planted, considered planted, or 

devoted to crop production for at least 

4 of the 6 years preceding that date is 

not eligible. Certain exceptions apply. 

NRCS recommends the commenters 

contact their local NRCS office for 

additional clarification. 

Resource-Conserving Crop 

Comments 

One commenter recommended 

mechanical row crop cultivation with 

equipment leaving high levels of surface 

residue should be assigned some points 

when it results in a reduction of 

herbicide use. Another commenter 

recommended NRCS give more credit 

for spring planted small grains with an 

under seeding of a legume or legume/ 

grass mix. This is a common practice 

among sustainable farmers here in the 

Midwest. 

NRCS Response 

CMT considers residue amounts and 

the use of pesticides (including 

herbicides) separately. The applicant 

has the opportunity to be scored for 

high residue levels under questions 2 

and 11. Pesticide related questions are 

dealt with under question 15. In the 

case described above, high residue 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

levels could be part of an IPM plan to 

reduce the application of herbicides. 

The use of a nurse crop of grass or 

legume should be credited under 

question 3 as a cover crop depending 

upon how it is handled after the small 

grain is harvested and under question 4 

for increased crop diversity. It might 

also gain points from question 12 for 

wildlife considerations, again 

depending on how it is handled after 

harvest. 

Fallow Practices 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

fallow practices are not all the same and 

should not all be ranked the same. The 

commenter suggested a way be 

established to account for conservation 

fallow such as chemical fallow. In arid 

agricultural regions, the purpose of this 

fallow type is to idle the land for a 

growing season, and conserve and even 

recharge soil moisture while 

maintaining a cover of previous crop 

stubble serving to protect the soil from 

wind and water erosion. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes that fallow with 

high residue was not accounted for in 

the current version of CMT. This 

oversight will be corrected for future 

sign-ups. 

Wildlife Habitat/Riparian Buffers 

Comments 

One commenter requested riparian 

buffers wider than 50 feet should be 

rewarded. Currently the highest ranking 

is for buffers with a width of 33 feet or 

2.5 times the stream channel width, but 

wider buffers capture more nutrients 

and provide real wildlife habitat. 

NRCS Response 

Water quality research has shown that 

most of the water quality benefits are 

attained in buffers in the first few yards. 

While we recognize that additional 

width is beneficial, in order to reduce 

the complexity of the CMT questions, 

we chose to craft question 7 under the 

Water Bodies/Water Courses section to 

ask about the minimum width necessary 

for water quality. Additionally, question 

7 in Cropland and question 5 in Pasture 

will reward an applicant for buffers that 

are wider than the minimum for water 

quality. NRCS is not changing the 

riparian buffer requirements. 

Comments 

The buffer scoring should also reward 

higher levels of forest canopy in regions 

where forests were the predominant 

land cover prior to conversion to 

agricultural production. The current 

version does not differentiate between 

forests and shrubs or grasses. 

NRCS Response 

In the CMT, Questions 7 and 8 on 

Water Bodies/Water Courses ask 

questions about the quality of the 

vegetation in riparian buffers. Buffers 

that are composed of native vegetation 

should be scored higher than those that 

have non-natives. 

Comments 

Scoring for manure/pesticide 

application setbacks should be tiered to 

reward greater distances from water 

bodies. The current version only 

rewards setbacks greater than 33 feet. 

Higher scores should be available for 

setbacks greater than 100 feet (#9 on 

Water Bodies/Water Courses Existing 

Activity Conservation Performance). 

NRCS Response 

Water quality research has shown that 

most of the water quality benefits are 

attained in buffers in the first few yards. 

While we recognize that additional 

width is beneficial, in order to reduce 

the complexity of the CMT questions we 

chose to craft question 9 under the 

Water Bodies/Water Courses section to 

ask about the minimum width necessary 

for water quality. 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

provide special consideration to the 

environmental benefits of protection of 

wildlife habitats and corridors, 

promoting biodiversity and protecting 

species from the dangerous effects of 

overuse of pesticides. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT accomplishes this through a 

series of questions that address (1) the 

occurrence of native vegetation in buffer 

areas, (2) the current level of 

management of pesticides, and (3) 

additional enhancements the applicant 

will apply that will reduce pesticide 

exposure to the environment and 

improve the quality of wildlife habitat. 

Applicants that do all of these activities 

to protect and benefit wildlife should 

score well in the CMT. 

Comments 

A third commenter expressed that the 

commenter devoted many areas of their 

farm to providing habitat for reptiles 

and amphibians. A true 

environmentalist works from the bottom 

of the food chain up. These types of 

land stewards should be rewarded for 

protecting this base, not penalized. 

NRCS Response 

There are many opportunities in the 

CMT to recognize fish and wildlife 

activities an applicant is currently 

implementing, as well as many 

opportunities for enhancements to 

improve fish and wildlife habitat on a 

farm. 

Pollinators 

Comments 

NRCS received requests that 

landowners be given credit in the 

scoring system for pollinator-related 

values of conservation practices that 

provide habitat for native and managed 

pollinators. Two examples are (1) the 

ecosystem services that native 

pollinators provide, and (2) giving 

beekeepers permission to place 

managed hives on their land to take 

advantage of natural forage. To the 

extent innovative approaches are 

developed that offer premium CSP 

payments, the same principles could 

apply. The scoring system could also be 

weighted to provide additional value to 

practices that provide multiple 

environmental benefits. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS recognizes the value of 

pollinators to agriculture and the 

environment. NRCS agrees to make 

changes in the CMT to specifically 

include pollinator habitat in areas that 

are managed for wildlife habitat. This 

will provide scoring in the CMT for 

those applicants that are managing noncropped and non-pastured areas for 

pollinator habitat. 

Comments 

Another commenter recommended 

NRCS consider awarding additional 

points for selecting additional 

conservation practices that address 

State, regional, or national resource 

concerns. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT currently does this by 

rewarding applicants that choose to 

address additional State priority 

resource concerns during the life of the 

contract. 

Other 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

consider ALL the environmental 

ramifications AND the food 

ramifications of its decisions. Another 

commenter expressed that CSP should 

continue to reward farmers who are 

farming at a high stewardship threshold 

and should provide an incentive to 

maintain those high standards. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31637 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is following the legislation and 

program purpose. The CSP is a new 

program with a new purpose. The 

program is a voluntary conservation 

program that encourages producers to 

address resource concerns in a 

comprehensive manner by: 

(1) Undertaking additional 

conservation activities; and 

(2) Improving, maintaining, and 

managing existing conservation 

activities. 

Applicants that are farming at high 

resource stewardship levels will score 

very well on the existing activities 

which will be reflected in program 

payments. NRCS is not authorized to 

provide payments solely for improving, 

maintaining, and managing 

conservation activities in place on the 

operation. Conservation programs are 

not authorized to make incentive 

payments. Under CSP, participants are 

paid for conservation performance; the 

higher the operational performance, the 

higher their payment will be. 

Comments 

Another commenter expressed that a 

practice designed to achieve wildlife or 

other conservation practices could 

generate significant benefits for native 

and managed pollinators by integrating 

modest enhancements such as 

selections of pollinator-beneficial 

plants. Similarly, conservation efforts 

for native and managed pollinators will 

advance other natural resource 

objectives including the new natural 

resource challenge of mitigating and 

managing the adverse impacts of climate 

change. 

NRCS Response 

A review of CSP enhancements and 

practices is currently underway with 

recommended changes and 

improvements to be incorporated into 

the next ranking period. Of the 82 CSP 

enhancements that were available 

during the first sign-up period, 27 

included a wildlife focus or purpose. In 

addition, over 70 percent of the funding 

pools identified wildlife related issues 

as one of their priority resource 

concerns. No changes are made to the 

rule in response to these comments. 

Comments 

One commenter encouraged NRCS to 

consult with USFS on analysis of 

environmental benefits. Considerable 

data and research guidance on such 

matters is available from the USFS State 

and private forestry, as well as the 

recently established USDA Office of 

Ecosystem Services and Markets. 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

give additional weight to projects that 

yield significant public benefits beyond 

the boundaries of the enrollee’s 

property. For example, NRCS could 

develop a suite of priorities that prequalify proposals that achieve one or 

more of the following: Nitrogen and 

sediment run-off benefits in targeted 

watersheds. 

Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Benefits 

One commenter expressed that some 

areas of resource concerns seem 

undervalued. For example, the fertilizer 

decisionmaking questions in the 

operation profile focus on soil nutrient 

tests, but the California perennial crop 

growers have long used the more 

sophisticated plant tissue testing 

methods which are not mentioned until 

you reach the ‘‘enhancement’’ section. 

One commenter requested NRCS 

encourage proposals/awards to farms/ 

farmers that make a contribution to 

lessen C02 emissions from sunlight 

oxidizing organic material from bare soil 

on America’s Farms. 

NRCS Response 

CSP currently rewards farmers who 

limit tillage and keep the soil covered 

either with residue or cover crops and 

practice advanced nutrient management 

techniques. This is done by questions in 

the CMT and through enhancements 

that are targeted to these concerns. 

Application and Ranking—Weighting 

of Ranking Factors 

Comments 

NRCS received numerous comments 

regarding policy options for the 

weighting of ranking factors. The 

comments were evaluated and given 

consideration in the development of the 

CEA. To add clarity to the issue of 

weighting ranking factors, NRCS 

amended 1470.20(d) to read, ‘‘Weighting 

of ranking factors. To the extent CSP 

objectives, including implementing new 

conservation, are not being achieved as 

determined by the Chief, NRCS will 

adjust the weighting of ranking factors 

in order to place emphasis on improving 

and adding conservation activities.’’ 

Additionally, NRCS adds a new 

paragraph (e) regarding State and local 

priorities that enables the Chief to 

develop and use additional criteria for 

evaluating applications to ensure 

national, State, and local priorities are 

effectively addressed. 

Weight Between Existing/Additional 

Conservation Activities 

Supporters of Equal Weighting 

Overall, commenters expressed 

concern over how NRCS will weight 

new and existing practices. Numerous 

comments were received expressing 

concern that if NRCS selects those who 

have considerable conservation 

measures to adopt over those who have 

actively been practicing higher levels of 

stewardship, NRCS will be punishing 

those who are practicing good 

stewardship. A recurring theme within 

the comments is that NRCS should not 

discriminate against early adopters and 

that the sole measure should be the 

environmental benefits secured by the 

total conservation system regardless of 

the timing of adoption of various parts 

of the system. 

Thirty-one comments were received 

expressing that CSP should equally 

balance the benefits of both existing and 

new practices. The most important 

aspect of CSP needs to be the measure 

and rewarding of conservation benefits 

secured by a farm regardless of the 

timing or adoption of various 

conservation measures or practices. 

Farmers who have adopted conservation 

measures should get the same incentive 

as a farmer who newly adopts 

conservation measures and agrees to 

continue them into the future. This 

policy will reward farmers who have 

been doing good things for the 

environment, it will give them an 

incentive to continue the conservation 

practices, and it will encourage 

surrounding farmers to do more 

conservation to qualify for CSP 

incentives. Ultimately this will result in 

better conservation of our environment 

overall. Another commenter who 

supported this position recommends 

existing and new practices have equal 

merit in determining participation 

because existing practices require 

intensive management to sustain them. 

Similarly, 45 commenters expressed 

that farmers applying to participate in 

CSP should be ranked on environmental 

outcomes regardless of whether the 

conservation practice was previously 

adopted. A system that emphasizes the 

existing environmental outcome should 

be the ultimate goal. 

Two commenters requested that 

conservation enhancements score higher 

than related conservation practices, and 

that point values for existing 

conservation score equally with new 

conservation. Moreover, the baseline 

portion of the CMT should allow farms 

to accumulate points for the full range 

of conservation practices and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

enhancements that are in the nonbaseline portion of the CMT. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS acknowledges the concerns and 

will seek to clarify that the CSP is not 

penalizing good stewards of the land. 

CSP is a competitive program that 

rewards applicants for their existing 

conservation system as well as for the 

proposed increased conservation 

performance. NRCS has designed the 

program as presented in the 2008 Act. 

The ranking factors used to evaluate an 

applicant’s conservation performance 

are provided by the legislation, in which 

three out of the four factors are crediting 

producers for additional conservation 

activities. NRCS recognizes this is a 

significant concern for good stewards of 

the land, and while reviewing the first 

sign-up data, will consider all the 

comments made about this topic. NRCS 

will take in consideration all comments 

received for future analysis and if 

adjustments are needed, will be made 

before the next ranking period. 

It is important to emphasize that each 

applicant’s existing conservation 

activities are evaluated and used to 

determine if they have met the 

minimum stewardship threshold for 

resource concerns. Those applicants 

with a high level of conservation are 

more likely to exceed the minimum 

stewardship threshold on more resource 

concerns resulting in a higher ranking 

score, increasing their chances of being 

selected for program funding. 

Good stewards are encouraged to 

adopt additional conservation activities 

while increasing the environmental 

benefits they are providing which in 

turn will result in a higher ranking score 

and increase their chances of being 

selected for program funding. 

NRCS acknowledges the concerns and 

will seek policy options that ensure that 

CSP does not penalize good stewards of 

the land. 

Supporters of More Weight on 

Additional Practices 

Comments 

Not all commenters supported the 

equal weighting concept. Five 

commenters supported placing greater 

weight on additional practices. One 

commenter expressed that both the law 

and conference report, ‘‘encourage the 

Secretary to place emphasis on 

improving and adding conservation 

activities.’’ Therefore, NRCS should 

follow this guidance by placing an 

emphasis in the ranking criteria for new 

practices adopted with less weight for 

existing practices. Another urged that 

greater emphasis and valuation be given 

to scoring additional conservation 

practices and the increased outcomes 

they will provide. The third commenter 

urged implementation of the CSP 

consistent with statutory intent, with 

emphasis on rewarding landowners for 

additional conservation enhancements. 

Habitat loss and degradation is a major 

identified cause of decline for both 

native and managed pollinator 

populations. CSP provides economic 

reward to landowners to increase 

habitat as part of their farming, 

ranching, and stewardship actions. 

Several comments suggested that 

more weight should be on existing 

practices. One commenter 

recommended that the program and its 

benefits be geared to those who have 

taken the steps to conserve their 

resources and that other USDA 

programs are available for those wanting 

to install new practices. Three others 

offer that the most cost-effective 

conservation practices are the ones 

already installed; therefore, early 

adopters should receive credit and not 

be penalized. 

Other Comments 

One commenter offered that during 

the most recent CSP application period, 

it was common for producers to have 

already enacted several of the 

enhancements listed. In many cases, 

compensation and recognition for these 

conservation efforts farmers have 

adopted on their own was not possible. 

There should be a way when 

establishing the producer’s conservation 

activity baseline with the CMT that the 

questions asked and points offered 

correspond with the enhancements 

offered. The producer then would get 

credit in ranking factor 1 for those 

enhancements already adopted and 

correspondingly would be able to add 

them as enhancements and receive 

credit if they are not in practice. 

One commenter recommended that if 

a producer receives credit for a practice 

as an enhancement, then a producer 

should receive the same credit for the 

practice if it is already implemented on 

their operation. 

One commenter suggested that there 

needs to be a way within the CMT to 

address and give credit to farmers who 

have been extremely active in adopting 

conservation practices. If a practice is 

listed as an enhancement, then the 

producer that has already adopted that 

particular practice should receive equal 

points or credit within the CMT. If the 

CMT can be used to estimate the 

existing and proposed conservation 

performance, it should therefore be able 

to credit existing conservation practices. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has thoroughly reviewed the 

questions in the CMT and the 

enhancements. Almost all of the 

enhancements are reflected either 

directly or indirectly in the CMT. The 

few that are not are inconsequential in 

terms of CMT scoring. Therefore, an 

applicant’s current level of stewardship, 

even if it includes enhancement 

activities, should be reflected in the 

CMT score. 

Comments 

Seven commenters expressed that 

ranking and payment point values 

should be roughly equivalent for 

ongoing organic management and new 

conversions or transition to organic. 

Another recommended NRCS credit 

existing organic system plans with a 

specific baseline question and ranking 

score for existing conservation 

activities. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP evaluates each applicant’s 

conservation activities as to their impact 

on seven resource concerns plus energy. 

No two systems will have the exact 

same impact on all resource concerns. 

Giving equal environmental benefits to 

an established organic system and one 

that is in transition would be penalizing 

the established organic producer at the 

expense of the one in transition. While 

over the course of time the transition 

farmer might catch up, the CSP rules 

require the conservation evaluation to 

be done on the system at the time of 

application. This same concept would 

apply to an organic system plan. While 

they all may meet the national organic 

plan rules, they all do not provide the 

same level of environmental benefits. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

CSP continue to require additional 

practices, especially when the farm 

operator already is practicing multiple 

conservation practices. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP offers a defined, limited 

suite of management practices for the 

explicit purpose of encouraging 

producers to meet additional 

stewardship thresholds. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that there 

are point values that are off by very 

large factors, well beyond any possible 

justification based on cost. For instance, 

NRCS estimates the payment range for 

newly adopted resource-conserving crop 

rotations at $12–16 per acre, yet the 

payment for an existing resourceVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:52 Jun 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM 03JNR3

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31639 

conserving crop rotation as reflected in 

the baseline assessment points could be 

as low as $1 per acre. This is a 

fundamental flaw in the current CMT 

that needs to be quickly addressed and 

remedied before the FY 2010 enrollment 

process gets underway. We have 

previously suggested different ways to 

fix this problem to the agency, and we 

are very interested in continuing to 

pursue practical solutions. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS respectfully disagrees with the 

comments. The contrast between 

payment for adopting a resourceconserving crop rotation and existing 

conservation activities is because they 

are compensated through two different 

payment types, not because CMT point 

values are off. By statute, CSP offers 

participants two possible types of 

payments: 

(1) Annual payments for installing 

and adopting additional activities, and 

improving, maintaining, and managing 

existing activities; and 

(2) A supplemental payment for the 

adoption of resource-conserving crop 

rotations. 

NRCS received significant feedback 

from national, State, and regional 

organizations that emphasized the crop 

rotation provision’s importance to the 

overall success of the program and the 

need to implement it in a 

comprehensive, meaningful manner. 

NRCS also found direction in the Farm 

Bill Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

Committee of Conference, which 

provided guidance that, ‘‘The Managers 

intend for the supplemental payment to 

encourage producers to adopt new, 

additional beneficial crop rotations that 

provide significant conservation 

benefits.’’ With consideration to that 

feedback, NRCS used variable cost and 

price information to compare the 

difference in net-returns between 

‘‘conventional’’ and ‘‘resourceconserving’’ crop rotations and arrive at 

the supplemental payment rate. Based 

on past program experience, NRCS 

believes this approach provides the 

level of meaningful compensation 

needed to encourage producers to adopt 

additional resource-conserving crop 

rotations and effectively use this aspect 

of the program. 

Comments 

This feature is of critical importance 

to sustainable and organic farming. The 

ranking and payment system, which is 

currently equally weighted between 

existing and new superior conservation, 

should be changed. USDA has indicated 

that serious consideration is being given 

to giving more weight to the adoption of 

practices, resulting in smaller 

enrollment chances and smaller 

payments for farmers already practicing 

superior land stewardship. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is currently evaluating the first 

sign-up data and will make adjustments 

needed to the program to ensure the 

program objectives are met. 

Stewardship Threshold 

Comments 

NRCS received nine comments on the 

topic of stewardship thresholds. One 

commenter encouraged forest 

landowners to participate in CSP and in 

general believe that conservation 

assistance should be available for farm, 

ranch, and forest lands. Eligible 

participants should meet the 

stewardship threshold for one resource 

concern at the time of their application. 

The commenter believes that this 

approach will allow more participants 

to be eligible for the program. 

Two commenters recommended that 

the applicant should be meeting the 

stewardship threshold on a minimum of 

three resource concerns that includes at 

least one priority concern. Requiring 

producers to meet at least three of the 

nine potential resource categories is 

more commensurate with the goal of 

encouraging producers to adopt a 

rewardable level of conservation on 

their farmed lands. 

One commenter expressed that 

meeting the stewardship threshold and 

one priority resource concern is not 

adequate unless that priority resource 

concern includes wildlife. Wildlife 

enhancements provide multiple 

resource benefits to soil, water, and 

wildlife as well as greater conservation 

return for the dollars invested. Another 

commenter thought the level was 

adequate, providing it is considered an 

entry level requirement for the program. 

The entry level must be low, but at the 

same time not discourage the best 

farmers in America. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the regulation 

in response to this comment. The statute 

provides that to be eligible to participate 

in the CSP, a producer will demonstrate, 

to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that 

a producer, at the time of the contract 

offer, is meeting the stewardship 

threshold for at least one resource 

concern and would, at a minimum, meet 

or exceed the stewardship threshold for 

at least one priority resource concern by 

the end of the stewardship contract. 

NRCS does not have authority to 

require a producer to meet a specific 

priority resource concern to participate 

in the program. The CSP authorizing 

language provides that three to five 

priority resource concerns are identified 

at the State level for each geographic 

area or region, in consultation with the 

State Technical Committee, as a priority 

for a particular watershed or area of the 

State. 

Comments 

One commenter requested each State 

be given the authority to increase the 

stewardship threshold if they wish to 

have a more targeted impact to achieve 

particular conservation goals. 

NRCS Response 

The CMT is not currently designed to 

allow States to make adjustments on 

scorings, thresholds, questions, or 

activities. The tool has been normalized 

and calibrated and to enable State 

access, will require a major rebuild of 

the tool that will also impact other 

program processes. However, NRCS will 

explore options to allow States to make 

adjustments as we move into the future 

with the program. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that the 

statute provides a choice to the 

applicant to address one or more 

resource concerns as a condition of 

eligibility and requires them to choose 

one more priority resource concern to 

address either at the outset or during the 

first contract term, but does not provide 

discretion to the Department to require 

more. Therefore, the commenter does 

not recommend the agency consider 

changing the interim final rule 

provision. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agree with the commenter and 

intends to maintain the provision in the 

interim final rule as stated in the 

legislation. 

Comments 

One commenter questioned how high 

is the stewardship threshold for the 

resource concern or priority resource 

concern? 

Second, how comprehensive is the 

level of treatment required for each 

resource concern and priority resource 

concern, and is it truly based on 

resource outcomes and conditions? 

NRCS Response 

NRCS set the threshold numbers for 

each resource concern by running a 

nation-wide test on a sampling of farms. 

NRCS Conservationists judged the level 

of resource treatment on each farm, and 

the CMT was then run on each of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

farms. The resulting scores were 

compared to the level of treatment that 

was determined by the Conservationist. 

Threshold scores were then set at the 

average of the scores for the farms that 

were determined to be adequately 

addressing the resource concerns on the 

farm, what NRCS refers to as the 

Resource Management System level of 

treatment. 

Comments 

Third, is it possible that the priority 

resource concern might be the same as 

the resource concern? The answer to 

each of these questions will inform our 

understanding of whether the bar for 

participation in CSP has been set at an 

appropriate level. 

NRCS Response 

The resource concern and priority 

resource concern used to meet the 

stewardship threshold criteria must be 

different for the same land use. For 

example, an applicant is only meeting 

one resource concern, which also 

happens to be a priority resource 

concern at the time of application. That 

resource concern would meet the ‘‘one 

resource concern at the time of 

application’’ criterion. However, a 

different priority resource concern 

would need to be used to meet the ‘‘one 

priority resource concern at the time of 

application, or by the end of the 

stewardship contract’’ criterion. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed support for 

using EQIP practices that directly 

contribute to a CSP participant’s ability 

to meet or exceed stewardship 

thresholds. It will both allow CSP to 

function properly and be an excellent 

use of EQIP, because the funds will be 

directed to meeting the stewardship 

threshold for priority resource concerns 

for the State or geographic area within 

the State. The commenter requested 

NRCS design a process that eliminates 

redundancy and minimizes paperwork 

in the sign-up process. The commenter 

urged NRCS to have this process ready 

for the 2010 sign-up period. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees to address the 

recommendation by adding language to 

section 1470.7(c) as follows: 

‘‘CSP encourages the use of other 

NRCS programs to install practices that 

are required to meet the agreed-upon 

stewardship threshold only if the 

practice is not compensated through 

CSP.’’ 

Resource Concerns 

Comments 

NRCS received several comments 

related to resource concerns. NRCS 

should include consideration of habitat 

and forage needs for both native and 

managed pollinators, requiring 

producers to address multiple resource 

concerns fits within the purpose of CSP 

to promote comprehensive conservation 

planning and to encourage producers to 

adopt new activities or maintain 

existing ones. NRCS should include the 

addition of a special provision for firstyear beginning farmers or ranchers in 

the eligibility section (1470.20(b)(1) 

concerning resource concerns. 

NRCS Response 

Regarding eligibility, NRCS decided 

to adopt the statutory provision without 

additional restrictions in order to attract 

a broad spectrum of eligible producers. 

NRCS does have flexibility with how it 

ranks applications. The greater the 

number of resource concerns the 

applicant addresses and those planning 

on being addressed, increases the 

ranking score. Data from the first signup shows that 99 percent of applicants 

are meeting more than one resource 

concern at the time of application. 

Comments 

Another commenter expressed 

concern that the practices that rank 

‘‘very high’’ seem targeted at Midwestern 

grain producers. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the 

regulation. NRCS keeps the language in 

the interim final rule to be consistent 

with the language in legislation. 

Practices are scored based on the 

environmental impact they have across 

27 micro-resource concerns regardless 

of physical location. Further, program 

allocations and ranking pools are 

established and operated at the State 

level. Applications do not compete 

across State boundaries or ranking 

pools. 

Pollinators 

Comments 

Several comments were received 

related to pollinators. Commenters 

asked NRCS to seek innovative ways in 

the CSP to maximize forage outcomes 

for honey bees and other pollinators; 

place emphasis on rewarding 

landowners for additional bee forage; 

enhance planting mixes to include 

plants that provide optimal forage for 

honey bees; and urged NRCS to allow 

planting mixes to be enhanced at the 

national and State levels by including 

plants suitable for each region that 

provide optimal forage for honey bees. 

Additionally, NRCS received a number 

of specific recommendations to address 

the habitat needs of native and managed 

native pollinators. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS welcomes suggestions on 

additional enhancements from all 

partners. NRCS solicited input from a 

wide source of expertise and will 

continue to do so for future 

enhancements. NRCS will evaluate the 

recommended enhancements and will 

incorporate those viable for future 

ranking periods. 

Comments 

One commenter urged the Chief to 

direct the development and integration 

of appropriate additional criteria that 

adequately reflect the objectives of the 

new conservation provisions of the 

Farm Bill for native and managed 

pollinators as an important part of 

ensuring that national, State, and local 

conservation priorities address resource 

needs related to native and managed 

pollinators and the agriculture 

pollination and ecosystem services they 

provide. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the regulation 

in response to this comment. NRCS will 

modify the questions in the CMT to 

specifically mention pollinator habitat 

as part of these questions. Pollinator 

habitat can be considered when 

answering the inventory questions, 

specifically question 7 under cropland 

and question 5 under pasture. In 

addition, the program offers an 

enhancement to Establish Pollinator 

Habitat for cropland, pastureland, 

rangeland, and forest land. In the 2009 

sign-up this enhancement was in the top 

ten most popular enhancements 

selected by applicants. 

Priority Resource Concerns 

Comments 

NRCS received numerous comments 

on the topic of priority resource 

concerns. In the interim final rule, 

NRCS requested specific comments on 

whether wildlife should be a required 

resource concern, and as a result, many 

of the comments focused on wildlife. 

NRCS received the following feedback: 

NRCS should establish wildlife as one 

of the national ranking priorities by 

incorporating State wildlife action plans 

in the CSP ranking tool and require 

producers to address multiple resource 

and priority concerns, rather than just 

requiring all States to select ‘‘wildlife’’ as 

a priority resource concern. NRCS 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31641 

should clearly require States to be more 

strategic by identifying particular 

indicator species or suites of species 

and specific habitats as priority resource 

concerns for at least one geographic area 

within the State. Forty-one respondents 

identified biodiversity and fish, 

wildlife, pollinator, and beneficial 

insect habitat to be specifically added as 

a priority resource concern; priority 

resource concerns related to the needs 

of native and managed pollinators 

should be incorporated, it is important 

that fish, forest, and wildlife resources 

be given adequate priority and attention; 

the agency should strongly encourage 

but not absolutely mandate that one or 

more wildlife habitat resource concerns 

be included among the up to five 

priority resource concerns in each 

watershed or State; NRCS should 

identify forage and habitat for 

agriculture pollinators—honey bees and 

native pollinators—as a national priority 

resource concern; State offices should 

be encouraged to make a similar 

determination, especially in States or 

regions where agriculture pollination 

services are important and where forage 

deficits are recognized as a limiting 

factor for healthy honey bees and native 

agriculture pollinators. 

NRCS Response 

Although the commenters preferred to 

include wildlife as a priority resource 

concern, NRCS has determined the 

decision will continue to be made at the 

State level in consultation with the State 

Technical Committee. NRCS prefers to 

have the resource concerns determined 

at the State level by people more 

familiar with the local issues. NRCS 

evaluated data from the initial program 

sign-up and determined it is not 

necessary to identify wildlife as a 

priority resource concern at the national 

level. Seventy-seven percent of the 

funding pools identified wildlife as one 

of the priority resource concerns. With 

such a high percentage of pools 

recognizing the importance of wildlife, 

the national designation seems 

unnecessary. Therefore, NRCS 

encourages commenters and others to 

voice their concerns or 

recommendations to the NRCS State 

Conservationist and the State Technical 

Committee in their respective State as to 

which resource concerns should be a 

priority in their State or area of the 

State. 

Comments 

Commenters questioned specific 

priority resource concerns selected by 

States. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has chosen broader resource 

concerns categories which is consistent 

with the agency planning procedures. 

NRCS historically has planned to 

address soil, water, air, plants, and 

animal concerns. The recommended 

priority resource concerns fall under 

one or more existing categories that are 

used for CSP. NRCS encourages 

commenters and others to voice their 

concerns or recommendations to the 

NRCS State Conservationist and the 

State Technical Committee in their 

respective State as to which resource 

concerns should be a priority in their 

State or area of the State. 

Comments 

NRCS received suggestions regarding 

broad priority resource concern 

categories for State selection. Another 

commenter recommended biodiversity 

promoting Prairie Reconstructions (50 

species or greater) as a priority resource 

concern. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS welcomes the suggestions to 

improve CSP and will consider 

recommendations related to priority 

resource concern categories. NRCS has 

included Prairie Reconstructions in the 

resource concerns under the Plants 

category. No changes are made to the 

regulation in response to this comment 

as the regulation does not include 

language on each priority resource 

concern. 

Comments 

Another commenter recommended 

farm energy efficiency and the reduction 

of direct and indirect fossil fuel based 

energy in agriculture needs to be more 

emphasized as a priority resource 

concern. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS already considers farm energy 

efficiency and the reduction of fossil 

fuels under the Energy category. No 

changes are made to the rule in response 

to the comment. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

farms in impaired watersheds, listed by 

the EPA under section 303(d) of the 

Federal Clean Water Act, should be 

required to address water quality as one 

of their priority resource concerns. 

Another recommended, in addition to 

the priority resource concerns that are 

identified by the NRCS State offices, 

codify a suite of criteria tailored to 

ensure that CSP addresses targeted 

regional and national resource priorities 

that are inherently cross boundary and 

multi-jurisdictional; for example, 

projects that produce measurable 

downstream outcomes in reducing 

nitrogen and sediment run-off in 

targeted watersheds (i.e. the Chesapeake 

Bay) that are shared by multiple States 

or projects that have measurable 

benefits in sequestering or preventing 

the release of N20 and other greenhouse 

gasses. 

Three commenters recommended 

NRCS set priorities on specific resource 

concerns at the State and local levels in 

close coordination with the landowners 

that the program is targeted to serve. 

Such coordination will provide the best 

opportunity for CSP to fulfill Congress’ 

intent of targeting the conservation 

needs of working agricultural lands and 

their operators. 

One commenter encouraged strategic 

emphasis on ‘‘at least’’ one priority 

resource concern. 

NRCS Response 

No change is made to the regulation 

in response to these comments. The 

priority resource concerns are selected 

at the State level. States use a variety of 

resources to determine the priority 

resource concerns. NRCS agrees that the 

303(d) list of waters reports on streams 

and lakes could be a good reference to 

assist States in determining the priority 

resource concerns for their geographic 

areas. In the initial CSP sign-up, 89 

percent of the funding pools listed water 

quality as one of the priority resource 

concerns. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed, with the 

exception of unusual geographic 

circumstances where the consensus is 

that one priority resource concern is 

overridingly important, the goal should 

be for landowners to meet more than 

stewardship threshold. Additional 

enhancements should be designed to 

meet more than one stewardship 

threshold where practicable. 

NRCS Response 

Most enhancements provide benefits 

to multiple resource concerns. 

Enhancements that produce multiple 

benefits across resource concerns are 

scored as such in the CMT. Producers 

will be rewarded for each resource 

concern individually. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended 

amending paragraph 1470.20(b)(2) to 

add ‘‘in addition to the resource concern 

described in (b)(1)’’ after the words 

‘‘priority resource concern.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the commenter and 

will amend paragraph 1470.20(b)(2) as 

suggested. The paragraph will read 

‘‘Would, at minimum, meet or exceed 

the stewardship threshold for at least 

one priority resource concern in 

addition to the resource concern 

described in (b)(1) by the end of the 

conservation stewardship contract 

***’’ 

Comments 

Several commenters identified that 

resource and priority resource concerns 

for an area need to be specific, stable, 

and consistent to give producers 

confidence that bringing their 

operations up to the basic stewardship 

threshold level for one or more of the 

resource concerns may in fact lead to a 

CSP contract in the future. If the 

resource concerns change too often and 

in an unpredictable manner, CSP cannot 

serve as an effective incentive for 

operators to improve their performance. 

NRCS heard from several commenters 

that it needs to provide clear guidance 

on how States choose priority resource 

concerns. One commenter requested 

NRCS take a close look at how all States 

selected priority resource concerns for 

the FY 2009 sign-up. States should 

choose priority resource concerns that 

are both specific and are, in fact, the 

most important environmental 

challenges associated with agricultural 

production in particular areas of the 

State. Another commenter suggested 

NRCS closely follow the definition set 

in the statute, and require States to 

select priority resource concerns for 

specific geographic areas. 

NRCS received a comment that it 

should consider offering an incentive 

through higher acreage allocations to 

States that do a good job of 

implementing CSP to produce 

measurable improvements to specific 

habitat types and other specific priority 

resource concerns. Another commenter 

suggested States establish very broad 

priority resource concerns. NRCS also 

received a comment that the potential 

benefit of geographically-focused 

ranking pools may not be realized 

because it may be difficult to ensure that 

priority is given to applicants who offer 

to do the most to solve specific pressing 

resource concerns in each geographic 

area. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will consider the 

recommendations for future ranking 

periods. NRCS will give States an 

opportunity to review the priority 

resource concerns to ensure they select 

the most appropriate priority resource 

concerns that best represent the 

impairments and concerns in their areas 

for subsequent ranking periods. 

Applicants who offer a management 

system that addresses the priority 

resource concerns selected for the 

geographic area will score very well and 

increase their chances of being awarded 

a contract. However, applicants are 

competing among other applicants with 

similar resource challenges. Program 

funding, State acreage distribution 

among ranking pools, and 

characteristics of the applicants within 

a ranking pool will be determining 

factors in whether an applicant is 

awarded a contract. 

Section 1470.21 Contract 

Requirements 

Comments 

NRCS received four comments related 

to the contract requirements in this 

section. The comments are addressed 

separately. 

One commenter expressed there is 

considerable discussion regarding 

‘‘available funds.’’ Should a situation 

arise that Federal funding is incomplete 

or not available for CSP, the farmer’s 

continued contract obligation should be 

reduced proportional to the reduction in 

payment. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS believes this scenario is 

unlikely to happen as Congress 

recognizes the positive benefits on the 

environment produced by the CSP. 

However, in the event that funds are 

reduced, NRCS will make Congress fully 

aware of the impacts this action will 

have on participants’ contracts and on 

the landscape. No change is needed to 

the rule in response to this comment. 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

create an exception that allows for a 

temporary suspension of practices or a 

temporary reduction in conservation 

performance for the installation of 

infrastructure and equipment necessary 

to undertake additional CSP 

enhancements. This exception could be 

administered by setting a specific 

timeframe and conditioned on a 

requirement that the project is 

anticipated to result in higher overall 

levels of conservation performance. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS understands there may be 

circumstances where a temporary 

reduction is justified when the 

reduction is very minor compared to an 

eventual much larger stewardship gain 

or the plan might include mitigating 

activities to offset the temporary 

situation. In either case, it should be 

covered in the stewardship plan on a 

case-by-case basis and does not require 

any change in the CSP rule. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that the 5 

years of an operator’s contract is not a 

very long time for an environmentally 

friendly conservation practice. The 

commenter suggested that 10 years of a 

landowner’s commitment to a 

conservation practice is worth a lot 

more. 

NRCS Response 

No change in the rule is needed. 

NRCS is following a legislative 

requirement regarding the duration of 

the contract. A conservation 

stewardship contract will be for 5 years. 

However, at the end of an initial 

conservation stewardship contract 

NRCS may renew the contract for one 

additional 5-year period when the 

participant demonstrates compliance 

with terms of the existing contract and 

agrees to adopt new conservation 

activities. 

Comments 

One commenter observed that each of 

these provisions contains important 

applicant and participant rights and 

obligations about which they must be 

clearly and regularly informed during 

each of these CSP phases. Clear and 

regular NRCS guidance about these 

rights and obligations would give 

applicants and participants appropriate 

information to reinforce their ability to 

apply for or implement a CSP contract 

without reservation or uncertainty. 

NRCS Response 

Program contract requirements are 

explained in great detail on the Contract 

Appendix (Form NRCS–CPA–1202). 

The appendix is given to producers at 

the time of application. The Appendix 

is reviewed, accepted, and signed by the 

applicant before contract obligation and 

is incorporated into the contract by 

reference. Additional efforts to inform 

producers of their obligations are listed 

on the conservation performance 

summary report from CMT, producers 

self screening checklist, conservation 

stewardship plan, job sheets, and 

practice standards. In addition, NRCS 

continuously updates the CSP Web site 

with information pertaining to program 

requirements and participants’ 

obligations. 

Comments 

Another commenter expressed that 

the conservation stewardship plan will 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31643 

clearly be an important, integral part of 

any contract, but the plan development 

and oversight costs must be balanced 

with the implementation costs borne by 

the participating farm operator. 

NRCS Response 

Farm planning is an integral part of 

any agricultural operation, and 

developing and following a 

conservation plan does take time and 

effort. While financial assistance 

programs such as CSP compensate the 

landowner for many of the incurred 

costs of conservation measures, farm 

programs cannot cover all costs. The 

landowner (and the community) 

receives benefits from conservation 

activities in the form of sustainable crop 

and livestock yields, improved water 

quality, reduced labor, improved 

wildlife habitat, and many other 

monetary, social, and environmental 

benefits. NRCS requests that the 

commenter consider these benefits as 

off-setting the uncompensated planning 

costs of a conservation plan. No changes 

are made to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

Section 1470.22 Conservation 

Stewardship Plan 

Comments 

NRCS received six comments related 

to conservation planning. One 

commenter recommended that the term 

‘‘conservation stewardship plan’’ when 

expressed in the context of NIPF 

participation specifically reference the 

forest stewardship plan as the requisite 

plan to participate in CSP (pursuant to 

the Forest Stewardship Program, section 

5 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 

Act of 1978). Another commenter 

expressed that nothing in the rule 

should prevent forest landowners with 

a FSP from participating in the program. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The CMT is 

used to determine program eligibility, 

ranking score, and payment points. A 

FSP is not a requisite to participate in 

CSP. However, if a FSP exists it could 

be referenced in the conservation 

stewardship plan. 

There is nothing in the rule that will 

prevent forest landowners with a 

conservation stewardship plan from 

participating in the program. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended, in 

paragraph 1470.22(b), NRCS add the 

words ‘‘maintained’’ after ‘‘managed.’’ 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comment. The 

Conservation Performance Summary 

Report from CMT documents the 

existing system that the participants are 

required to maintain. This information 

is not duplicated in the conservation 

stewardship plan. By signing the 

contract, applicants agree to the 

conservation plan and to maintain 

existing conservation performance 

levels and achieve additional 

conservation performance 

improvements as identified on the 

Conservation Performance Summary 

Report by land use for the contract 

period. 

Comments 

One commenter identified that the 

CTA conservation plan approach has 

long dealt at the field level with the 

realities of conservation planning for 

farms that have sizable quantities of 

rental acres. The commenter 

recommends that NRCS draw upon this 

field level expertise with preparing 

conservation plans for farms, in 

combination with the CSP’s statutory 

direction to comprehensively address a 

farm’s resource concerns, to determine 

on a case-by-case basis how much of a 

producer’s acreage under their 

operational control must be enrolled in 

a CSP contract to make the conservation 

planning process work for that 

operation. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. However, 

minor changes were made to the rule in 

response to comments about control of 

the land. The rule was amended in 

1470.6 to mirror the statute. The CSP 

statute states that eligible land will 

include all acres in an agricultural 

operation of a producer whether or not 

contiguous, that are under the effective 

control of the producer at the time the 

producer enters into a stewardship 

contract, and is operated by the 

producer with equipment, labor, 

management, and production or 

cultivation practices that are 

substantially separate from other 

agricultural operations. 

Section 1470.23 Conservation Activity 

Operation and Maintenance 

Comments 

Section 1470.23, ‘‘Conservation 

system operation and maintenance,’’ 

addresses the participant’s 

responsibility for operating and 

maintaining existing conservation 

activities on the agricultural operation 

to at least the level of conservation 

performance identified at the time the 

application is obligated into a contract 

for the conservation stewardship 

contract period. 

Operation and Maintenance 

NRCS received two comments 

regarding operation and maintenance. In 

particular, both respondents 

recommended changing ‘‘Operation and 

Maintenance’’ to ‘‘Management and 

Maintenance’’ to reflect accurately the 

statutory terms. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the commenters 

and amends section 1470.23, 

Conservation activity operation and 

maintenance, to read as follows: The 

participant will maintain and manage 

existing conservation activities to at 

least the level of conservation 

performance identified at the time the 

application is obligated for the contract 

period and any additional activities 

installed and adopted over the term of 

the contract. 

Section 1470.24 Payments 

Section 1470.24, ‘‘Payments,’’ 

describes the types of payments issued 

under CSP, how payments will be 

derived, and payment limitations. 

Payments-In General 

NRCS received 53 comments on the 

topic of payments in general. These 

comments can be organized into 

subtopics including: 

Adjustments 

Comments 

NRCS received three comments on 

adjustments to payments rates. One 

commenter urged NRCS to adjust 

payment rates based on the results of 

monitoring and evaluation and on-farm 

research and demonstration. Another 

commenter recommended if the 

payments are raised for any of the 

practices, they should be made 

retroactive to the farmers who sign-up 

this year. A third commenter strongly 

encouraged NRCS to clarify that CSP 

contracts may be modified to address 

additional resource concerns. 

NRCS Response 

CSP participants will receive an 

annual land use payment for operationlevel environmental benefits they 

produce. Under CSP, participants are 

paid for conservation performance not 

for individual activities. 

Payment supporting information used 

for establishing the 2009 national 

payment rates will not change for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

contracts enrolled in the initial ranking 

period. 

NRCS will not be modifying contracts 

to address additional resource concerns. 

Applicants will be evaluated based on 

the activities they have implemented 

and additional activities they commit to 

at the time of application that they are 

willing to install and adopt. NRCS will 

not allow contract improvement 

modifications that will increase annual 

payments in order to manage fund 

obligation amounts. 

Rewarding Existing Conservation 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that 

maintaining payments for farms already 

engaged in sound conservation methods 

will provide a network for such farmers 

and new and beginning farmers. 

Another encouraged NRCS to continue 

to work toward establishing equity in 

benefits paid to farmers for equivalent 

levels of conservation to ensure that 

farmers who work towards greater levels 

of conservation are recognized for their 

contributions. One commenter 

expressed that the payment rate should 

be the same for current and new 

activities. This commenter could not 

select several enhancements because the 

commenter was already doing them. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP Managers’ Report provides 

that the managers encourage the 

Secretary to place emphasis on 

improving and adding conservation 

activities. In general it costs more to 

implement new practices than to 

maintain existing practices. NRCS 

intends to implement a split payment 

structure with one payment rate for 

existing activities and a higher payment 

rate for additional activities. NRCS’ 

payment structure will recognize 

producer’s conservation contributions 

regardless of the timing of 

implementation. The structure is 

designed to encourage participants to 

adopt enhancements to accelerate their 

conservation efforts. NRCS amended the 

rule in paragraph 1470.24(a) to add ‘‘A 

split-rate annual payment structure will 

be used to provide separate payments 

for additional and existing conservation 

activities in order to place emphasis on 

implementing additional conservation.’’ 

To further encourage additional 

activities, the final rule provides in 

paragraph (a)(2) that participants must 

schedule, install, and adopt at least one 

additional conservation activity on a 

land use in order for that land use to 

earn annual payments. 

Statutory Adherence 

Comments 

NRCS received a few comments 

related to whether payment rates 

adherred to statutory provisions. 

Two commenters identified that 

NRCS gives no apparent explanation in 

the interim final rule’s Summary of 

Provisions why it is requiring in subpart 

B, one- and three-year schedules for the 

completion of contractual CSP 

enhancements. Congress does not 

address this issue in the Farm Bill or the 

Statement of Managers. Absence of an 

explanation makes the provision appear 

arbitrary. It should be dropped from the 

rule because the schedules would 

unfairly and unreasonably limit a 

participant’s flexibility and adaptability 

to achieve, productively and 

realistically, the targeted conservation 

benefits. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The 

requirement that a participant must 

schedule, install, and adopt at least one 

activity in the first year of the contract 

is an agency policy and is incorporated 

into the final rule. NRCS chooses to 

retain the requirement to be consistent 

with other NRCS programs and to 

accelerate conservation benefits. The 

requirement that all enhancements must 

be scheduled, installed, and adopted by 

the end of the third year is a 

programmatic decision to ensure that 

program objectives are met and allow 

sufficient time to evaluate the 

conservation system. Participants will 

receive prorated annual payments over 

5 years for the activities they install, 

adopt, and maintain. The policy to 

require all enhancements to be started 

by year three of the contract is designed 

to achieve conservation benefits on the 

land at a faster rate than if producers 

choose to adopt activities in year four or 

five of the contract. 

NRCS believes this policy maximizes 

the environmental benefits produced, 

minimizes contract administration, and 

helps producers maximize their 

payments. Payments are based on the 

participant’s performance which is 

calculated based on the potential and 

environmental benefits produced. The 

longer the activity is on the ground, the 

more environmental benefits they 

produce translating to a higher payment. 

Enhancements 

Comments 

Six respondents addressed the issue 

of payments for enhancements. NRCS 

received requests for higher payment 

levels; one commenter expressed that 

Enhancement ANM11, patch burning to 

enhance wildlife habitat, does not pay 

enough to persuade producers 

considering the danger and work 

involved. FSA pays considerably more 

to burn entire patches of CRP; one 

commenter expressed a willingness to 

plant native shrubs, trees, create 

shallow ponds, and otherwise create a 

haven for wildlife on his property rather 

than mow 10 acres like all of his 

neighbors if a financial incentive were 

provided; one commenter opined that 

based on the intent of the law it appears 

a producer would only receive the 

maximum CSP payment from NRCS if 

they had addressed all resource 

concerns on their entire operation. If 

such is the case, then the producer 

would simply continue receiving 

payments with a contract extension as 

long as they continued to follow their 

plan. If a producer had not addressed all 

resource concerns, then higher 

payments could only be awarded if 

additional resource concerns were 

addressed. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. Participants 

are being compensated for existing 

conservation through the annual 

payment. However, legislation requires 

that payments are made for existing and 

new conservation activities. 

The CSP presents a significant shift in 

how NRCS provides conservation 

program payments. CSP participants 

will receive an annual land use payment 

for operation-level environmental 

benefits they produce. Under CSP, 

participants are paid for conservation 

performance—the higher the operational 

performance, the higher their payment. 

Participants’ annual payments are not 

determined using the traditional 

compensation model where they receive 

a percentage of the estimated practice 

installation cost or a per acre rental rate. 

Instead participants’ annual payment 

level will be unique for their operation 

and land uses based on the combined 

total of environmental benefits from 

existing and new activities. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

add in paragraph (a)(4)(i)—‘‘and 

practices’’ after ‘‘enhancements’’ both 

times and add ‘‘practice’’ after 

‘‘enhancement.’’ In paragraph (b) and 

(b)(2) add ‘‘or improve’’ after ‘‘adopt.’’ 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. CSP allows 

producers to substitute enhancements. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31645 

Practices are not to be substituted as 

they are utilized to encourage producers 

to meet additional resource concerns. A 

practice substitution may not meet the 

stewardship threshold for a resource 

concern which may result in a producer 

being ineligible for the program. 

Other Program Payments 

Comments 

Five respondents address the 

interrelationship between CSP 

payments and other program payments. 

One commenter recommended that 

producers be allowed to utilize 

programs, including EQIP and WHIP, to 

help fund the installment of 

enhancements as long as they do not 

duplicate payments on lands enrolled in 

CSP. In addition, NRCS should allow 

the use of other conservation programs 

to assist producers with meeting 

comprehensive stewardship goals. 

Using other conservation programs will 

shift some of the costs to these programs 

and more readily allow NRCS to meet 

CSP acreage and funding requirements. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The policy 

related to the source of payments is 

designed to avoid duplication of 

payment. When an enhancement is 

scheduled to be completed in CSP 

through the CMT, the producer is 

receiving compensation for the 

enhancement through their annual 

payment rather than receiving a direct 

cost-share payment like they would 

through EQIP. The statute prohibits 

payments to participants for new 

activities that were applied with 

financial assistance through other USDA 

programs on the same land. 

If an applicant wishes to install 

conservation practices or activities not 

included in the CSP contract, then other 

programs could be used to assist 

producers meet their goals. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended that 

the rule explicitly exclude from the CSP 

annual payment rate calculation, costs 

incurred for conservation practices, or 

enhancements applied with financial 

assistance through other USDA 

conservation programs. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comment. Legislation 

states that the amount of conservation 

stewardship payment will be 

determined and based, to the maximum 

extent practicable, on the following 

factors: 

(a) Cost incurred by the producer 

associated with planning, design, 

materials, installation, labor, 

management, maintenance, or training; 

(b) Income forgone by the producer; 

and 

(c) Expected environmental benefits 

as determined by the CMT. 

Comments 

One commenter strongly encouraged 

NRCS to improve estimated payment 

rates and clarify that CSP contracts can 

be modified to allow producers to 

participate in other Title II Conservation 

Programs such as CRP, EQIP, or WHIP. 

NRCS Response 

To manage CSP funding and meet 

legislative requirements, NRCS used the 

2009 application period to arrive at a 

uniform payment rate per land use 

conservation performance point. NRCS 

modeled the annual land use payment 

rates using the following nationwide 

sign-up data from the 2009 application 

period pre-approved applications: 

(a) New and existing environmental 

benefits measured in conservation 

performance points generated by land 

use type; 

(b) Costs incurred and income 

foregone for conservation activities; and 

(c) Available program funding levels. 

Land use payment rates represent the 

costs of existing and new activities per 

performance point proportionally 

adjusted to manage program payments 

to achieve the national average rate of 

$18 per acre. 

Each case where a potential 

modification could be needed will be 

evaluated in a case-by-case basis by the 

State to determine if contract provisions 

are being met. 

Legislation prohibits land to be 

enrolled in CRP, WRP, or GRP and CSP 

at the same time. If a producer wants to 

transition out of the CSP contract to 

another land retirement or working land 

preservation program, the CSP contract 

will terminate with respect to the acres 

enrolled in the other program. The 

annual payment for the land remaining 

in CSP will be reduced in proportion to 

the acres removed. 

It is also important to mention that 

CSP participants can participate in EQIP 

or WHIP, but must ensure they follow 

agency policy that prohibits the 

participants from receiving financial 

assistance from more than one program 

on the same land for the same practice 

or activity. 

Public Information 

Comments 

One respondent addressed the need to 

keep the public informed. In addition, it 

is essential that USDA keep participants 

and the public informed on a regular 

basis about its payment rate findings 

during the first ranking period. USDA is 

to be commended for its dedication to 

making payments more consistent and 

predictable because these factors will 

have a strong impact on future CSP 

participation rates, and most 

importantly, achieving the conservation 

benefits desired by Congress. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. NRCS agrees 

that it is critical to keep the participants 

and the public informed of program 

information on a regular basis. NRCS 

continuously posts information on the 

NRCS Home Page at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov to ensure producers 

are informed and processes are 

transparent. NRCS has posted a onepage ‘‘Payment for Performance’’ 

document to explain the process used to 

establish the national payment rates. 

This information, along with other 

important information related to the 

program, can be found at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/ 

csp.html. 

Fairness of Payments 

Comments 

Three respondents touched on the 

topic of fairness of CSP payments 

between farmers. One expressed that 

some have spent years increasing soil 

organic matter and nutrients, reducing 

soil erosion, and increasing beneficial 

wildlife habitat with our own resources 

while watching neighbors do just the 

opposite with intensive grain 

production on erodible land and having 

USDA pay them a subsidy for their 

actions; another expressed concern 

about huge sums of money for no-till 

planters of corn in Iowa as being unfair 

to small struggling dairy farmers that 

adopt practices that are much more 

sustainable in the long run; one 

recommended NRCS should be paying 

farmers for producing healthier soil, 

cleaner water, climate change 

mitigation, and greater bio-diversity 

instead of an approach that encourages 

farmers to get bigger, faster, better, and 

cheaper with little to no regard for the 

environmental impacts they have. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. The CSP 

provides an annual payment to contract 

holders for the combined total of 

environmental benefits from existing 

and new activities. Payments are not for 

specific conservation activities, instead 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

they are for the combined 

environmental benefits. The CMT 

calculated conservation performance for 

existing and additional conservation 

activities and benefits. It is computed by 

land use type for cropland, pastureland, 

rangeland, and forest land. The tool is 

size neutral, ensuring that all applicants 

regardless of the size or type of 

operation have the same opportunity to 

earn similar points. 

Establishing Payments 

Comments 

NRCS received 17 comments related 

to recommendations about how NRCS 

should establish payment rates 

including setting the payment rate at 

inordinately low levels perpetuates the 

ground being conventionally cropped. 

NRCS should be emphasizing paying 

good stewards over poor stewards who 

agree to do better; USDA should 

increase the payment levels for cropland 

and pastureland. The 2009 estimated 

payment ranges are not sufficient; using 

the first ranking period as a payment 

discovery period was a good idea; and 

the preamble and rule do not 

correspond. The preamble states ‘‘This 

retrospective payment approach will 

allow NRCS to field-verify applied 

conservation activities prior to contract 

obligation and payment.’’ No part of 

paragraph 1470.24, references the same 

intent and procedure. A reference 

would clarify the rule for NRCS 

employees and program participants. 

Other comments included payment 

point values should be roughly 

equivalent for ongoing organic 

management and new conversions or 

transition to organic; encouragement to 

clarify exact payment levels for 

satisfying particular resource concerns 

and for meeting other resource 

concerns; and comments seeking 

information about exact payments for 

program enrollment. Regarding the 

contract payments under CSP, the 

majority of the payments should be 

dedicated to the base contract payments 

rather than separate enhancement 

payment. Applicants should be giving 

them priority points based on their 

conservation value or effectiveness 

which would be added into the point 

total for the contract which in turn 

would establish the per acre price. 

NRCS Response 

CSP does not provide payments for 

individual activities. Applicants are 

ranked and paid based on the 

conservation performance points 

generated by the environmental benefits 

produced by the existing and new 

activities. NRCS has made information 

available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

programs/new_csp/csp.html. 

Comments 

For many landowners, the promise of 

CSP-generated income will not be 

sufficient to prompt actions that 

advance conservation practices that will 

meet resource concerns, including those 

for native and managed pollinators. 

However, ‘‘bundling’’ of multiple values 

for the multiple benefits that 

conservation practices provide, such as 

carbon sequestration and water quality 

nutrient trading, is an approach that 

offers considerable potential to generate 

a combined economic value to 

landowners that will stimulate 

increased adoption and integration of 

conservation practices into their 

operations. Support was expressed for 

both types of payments to reward 

innovation and to advance new 

conservation practices, particularly 

those that yield multiple conservation 

outcomes. NRCS received comments 

that the CSP payment should recognize 

the environmental benefits for adopting 

a practice not only on the actual acres, 

but also the benefits gained on adjacent 

agricultural or forest land. 

NRCS Response 

Environmental benefits are based on 

the actual amount of the activity the 

producers agree to apply versus the 

potential of land that could receive the 

treatment. It measures the 

environmental benefits generated by the 

producer. 

Comments 

Four respondents recommended 

payments be based on environmental 

outcomes. 

NRCS Response 

To be able to implement the program 

and meet legislative requirements, the 

following three criteria were the driving 

factors for establishing the payment 

rates: 

(1) Contract payment by CMT point 

per land use fixed nationwide for four 

eligible land uses: crop, pasture, range, 

forest; 

(2) National average payment less 

than $18 per acre per year (includes 

technical assistance and financial 

assistance); and 

(3) Payment limitations. 

CSP makes payments for conservation 

activities that benefit both the 

landowner and community. The CSP 

program must be fair, equitable, and 

accessible to all landowners and easy to 

administer by government agencies. CSP 

cannot pay for all expenses incurred for 

conservation activities, but CSP can 

offset some expenses. CSP encourages 

landowners to maintain and adopt new 

conservation activities. 

NRCS amended section 1470.20 to 

add paragraph (h) to read, ‘‘NRCS will 

conduct onsite field verification prior to 

contract obligation to substantiate that 

the information provided by preapproved applicants during the 

application process is accurate prior to 

contract obligation.’’ 

Owners of Forest Lands 

Comments 

NRCS received three comments 

related to CSP payments and forest 

landowners. The rules propose 

payments for on-farm research, 

demonstration, and pilot testing. It is 

not clear if such payments are also 

available to NIPF components. The 

National Association of State Foresters 

recommends that forestry research and 

demonstration should also be eligible 

for annual payments. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. On-farm 

research and demonstrations and pilot 

projects are eligible for cropland, 

pastureland, rangeland, and NIPF. The 

protocols for the States to offer these 

activities can be found at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/ 

csp.html. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that it 

would seem apparent that NIPF would 

deserve the highest annual payment per 

acre to encourage people to continue to 

invest time and labor to benefit our 

environment. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the low payment per acre and no 

cost-share will also discourage 

participation, especially among forest 

landowners. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. Land use 

payment rates represent the composite 

costs of existing and new activities per 

performance point proportionally 

adjusted to manage program payments 

to achieve the national average rate of 

$18 per acre. NRCS has supporting cost 

information to demonstrate that national 

payment rates were established 

following the established process and 

ensuring fairness with all land uses. 

To manage CSP funding and meet 

legislative requirements, NRCS used the 

2009 application period to arrive at a 

uniform payment rate per land use 

conservation performance point. NRCS 

modeled the annual land use payment 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31647 

rates using the following nationwide 

sign-up data from 2009 application 

period pre-approved applications: 

(a) New and existing environmental 

benefits measured in conservation 

performance points generated by land 

use type; 

(b) Costs incurred and income 

foregone for conservation activities; and 

(c) Available program funding levels. 

Other 

Comments 

One commenter provided that the 

statement that no payment will be made 

for which there is no cost incurred or 

income forgone by the participant, is 

truly biased toward the individual who 

has in the past raped the soil, and now 

wants to possibly change his ways if 

you pay him enough. Not the spirit that 

CSP was intended to convey. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comment. NRCS is 

following CSP authorizing language that 

provides that the amount of 

conservation stewardship payment will 

be determined and based, to the 

maximum extent practicable, on the 

following factors: 

(a) Cost incurred by the producer 

associated with planning, design, 

materials, installation, labor, 

management, maintenance, or training; 

(b) Income forgone by the producer; 

and 

(c) Expected environmental benefits 

as determined by the CMT. 

Exclusions 

SEC(e)(3)(B) payments to a producer 

will not be provided for conservation 

activities for which there is no cost 

incurred or income forgone to the 

producers. 

Comments 

One commenter recognized and 

applauded NRCS’ effort to place the 

dollars in the hands of the operator. 

This policy avoids creating unnecessary 

angst within the farming communities. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP statutory authority requires 

that NRCS provide contract holders 

payments to compensate for installing 

and adopting additional conservation 

activities, and improving, maintaining, 

and managing conservation activities in 

place on the operation of the producer 

at the time the contract offer is accepted. 

NRCS has added clarity to the rule in 

paragraph 1470.6(a). 

Interaction With Subsidy Payments 

Comments 

NRCS received two comments 

regarding CSP and subsidy payments. 

One commenter expressed that it is 

about time that we stop giving subsidies 

to specific farmers on the basis of 

specific crops. We can ALL benefit 

greatly if these subsidies were 

distributed instead on the basis of their 

environmental effectiveness; and two, in 

no way should these payments be added 

to the government’s corn or grain 

subsidies obtained by those who rent 

the land. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS is following statutory authority 

by providing contract holders payments 

to compensate for installing and 

adopting additional conservation 

activities, and improving maintaining, 

and managing conservation activities in 

place at the operation of the producer at 

the time the contract offer is accepted. 

The CSP payment is based on 

environmental benefits accrued across 

the four major land uses authorized by 

the program and is not crop specific. 

Annual Payments 

Comments 

Commenters expressed a number of 

concerns related to annual payments 

including that payment rates are too low 

and that low payment rates push 

landowners towards less beneficial 

enhancements. Additionally, the ability 

to receive cost-share assistance or use 

other conservation programs to improve 

conservation systems is a disincentive 

to participate in CSP, especially when 

combined with the low payment rate; 

producers cannot determine their exact 

cost and benefit of program 

participation if they are provided 

estimated annual payment rates; 

payment rates for cropland, pastureland, 

and managed grazing lands are too low; 

managed grazing land should be paid at 

the same rate as cropland; and NIPF 

deserves the highest annual payment 

rate. NRCS also heard that prompt 

payments are important to cover 

participant expenses incurred in the 

preceding months. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP statute provides a maximum 

acreage enrollment and funding level for 

each fiscal year. NRCS needed the 

payment discovery period, described in 

the ‘‘Discussion of Payment’’ section, 

because no historical information was 

available to be able to establish the rates 

for performance points and still be able 

to meet the program constraints. NRCS 

used real time data from the first signup to establish the national payment 

rate per point by land use. It is NRCS’ 

intention to maintain, to the extent 

practicable, the per point payment rates 

established for the first sign-up in future 

ranking periods. This decision allows 

NRCS to provide estimated payment 

amounts to applicants early in the 

application process. 

To manage CSP funding and meet 

legislative requirements, NRCS used the 

2009 application period to arrive at a 

uniform payment rate per land use 

conservation performance point. NRCS 

modeled the annual land use payment 

rates using the following nationwide 

sign-up data from the 2009 application 

period: 

(a) New and existing environmental 

benefits measured in conservation 

performance points generated by land 

use type; 

(b) Costs incurred and income 

foregone for conservation activities; and 

(c) Available program funding levels. 

Note that land use payment rates 

represent the composite costs of existing 

and new activities per performance 

point, proportionally adjusted to 

manage program payments to achieve 

the national average rate of $18 per acre. 

CSP payments by statute are based on 

the costs associated with agriculture on 

different land uses. In general, the costs 

associated with the maintenance and 

enhancements on pastureland are lower 

than those associated with cropland; 

therefore, the payment rate for 

pastureland is lower. 

The CSP statute establishes that the 

Secretary look at current practices and 

future commitments to conservation. 

Historical changes to agricultural 

operations were made for a multitude of 

personal, financial, and cultural 

reasons. Although it is difficult to fairly 

assess past actions, CSP payments are 

calculated based on existing levels of 

conservation stewardship as well as a 

commitment to add conservation. A 

grass based farm should score well for 

existing levels of stewardship, and the 

CSP payment should reflect this. 

NRCS has established that grassland, 

that is managed for hay or haylage, is 

considered cropland. If the land is also 

grazed, a determination must be made 

about which is the predominant 

activity, haying or grazing. The 

predominant activity will determine the 

land use category. If it is split evenly 

between the two activities the applicant 

should decide which land use will be 

considered. 

Although many commenters 

referenced payment rates in terms of 

payment per acre, under CSP, 

participants are paid for operational 

conservation performance—the higher 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the performance, the higher their 

payment. It is inappropriate to refer to 

the national payment rates on a per acre 

basis as the payments are made for 

performance points, and they are unique 

for each operation. NRCS clarifies that 

the estimated payment rates were made 

available to applicants in the 2009 signup to provide a proxy of type of national 

average payment that the program could 

offer. Additional information related to 

payments can be located at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/ 

csp.html. 

Regarding concerns related to prompt 

payments, NRCS will make payments as 

soon as practicable after October 1 of 

each fiscal year for activities carried out 

in the previous fiscal year. NRCS 

amends 1470.24(d), timing of payments, 

to add, ‘‘For newly enrolled contracts, 

payments will be made as soon as 

practicable after October 1 following the 

fiscal year of enrollment.’’ 

Supplemental Payments—ResourceConserving Crop Rotation 

Comments 

NRCS received 5 comments on the 

topic of supplemental payments. 

One commenter expressed the timely 

release of the rules for implementation 

of and application for resourceconserving crop rotation supplemental 

payments is very important, in 

particular for rice, which is an irrigated 

crop. The Farm Bill says that the term 

resource-conserving crop means, in part, 

a rotation that reduces soil-moisture 

depletion or otherwise reduces the need 

for irrigation. With irrigation being the 

essence of rice production, rice 

producers who apply for the rotation 

supplement should not be 

disadvantaged in any way because they 

must irrigate their rice crop. Prompt 

USDA determinations about what 

rotations are beneficial and the 

definition of resource-conserving crops, 

for purposes of this program 

component, would assist prospective 

applicants in making informed, timely 

decisions about applying. 

Another commenter recommended no 

supplemental payment will be made 

until the crop rotation is installed. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS acknowledges the concerns and 

encourages producers to refer to the 

activity criteria listed on the resourceconserving crop rotation jobs sheet at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ 

new_csp/csp.html. In addition, refer to 

the State Web site where eligible 

resource-conserving crops are posted. 

NRCS understands the importance of 

this under advisement for future ranking 

periods. However, the procedures allow 

applicants to schedule the resourceconserving crop rotation when the 

resource-conserving crop is planted on 

at least one-third of the rotation acres. 

The resource-conserving crop must be 

adopted by the third year of the contract 

and established or planted on all 

rotation acres by the fifth year of the 

contract. 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

provide more than one resource 

outcome, combined with the concept of 

supplemental payments. Consideration 

should be given to resource-conserving 

crops that provide nectar and pollen for 

native and managed pollinators. Alfalfa 

is a good example, so long as the 

practice includes allowing the plants to 

bloom and providing access to 

beekeepers. 

NRCS Response 

The benefits of a resource-conserving 

crop rotation include protection and 

habitat for pollinators. A resourceconserving crop rotation means a crop 

rotation that includes at least one 

resource-conserving crop, and reduces 

wind and water erosion, increases soil 

organic matter, improves soil fertility 

and tilth, interrupts pest cycles, reduces 

depletion of soil moisture or reduces the 

need for irrigation in applicable areas, 

and may provide protection and habitat 

for pollinators. 

Comments 

Finally, one commenter expressed 

that the payment for a resourceconserving crop rotation is inadequate 

to encourage change. 

Payment Limitations 

NRCS received 58 comments on the 

topic of payment limitations. Although 

commenters expressed both support for 

and dissatisfaction with payment 

limitations, more commenters 

supported the limitations than did not. 

One commenter expressed that 

section 1470.24(g) imposes an arbitrary 

contract limit of $200,000 per contract 

regardless of the number of producers 

involved in the farming operation 

covered by the contract. This limit is 

outside the clear language of the statute 

and will negatively impact commercialsize farming operations. 

Thirty-two respondents stated that the 

CSP payment limits should be retained 

and enforced. Many of these 

respondents also expressed that NRCS 

should resist pleas to incorporate 

payment limitation loopholes. One of 

the respondents expressed that USDA 

needs to ensure that as many farmers as 

possible can access the program for the 

greatest environmental benefit and 

farmers’ bottom lines. Another 

respondent recommended an addition 

to the rule to make CSP contracts and 

payments subject to the FSA ‘‘actively 

engaged in farming’’ rules. One 

respondent identified that payment 

limits should remain a separate 

payment limitation and not be 

combined with other payments to 

encourage more moderate sized farms to 

participate and keep the total cost of the 

program at the limits of $40,000 per 

person or legal entity during any fiscal 

year, and $200,000 over any 5-year 

period. 

Conversely, NRCS received many 

comments expressing that the only CSP 

payment limit the Farm Bill does 

declare explicitly is that $200,000 is the 

amount that a person or legal entity may 

receive in the aggregate, but may not 

exceed for all CSP contracts entered into 

during any 5-year period. A limit on a 

CSP contract as proposed in the interim 

final rule paragraph 1470.24 (g), is 

neither legislated in the Farm Bill nor 

discussed in the Statement of Managers. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS follows the Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC) regulation in 7CFR 

part 1400 when applying its statutory 

payment limitation requirements for 

CSP. This regulation is applicable to 

most CCC and FSA commodity, price 

support, and conservation programs. 

NRCS used 7 CFR part 1400 as a guide 

for establishing the CSP contract 

limitation. A joint operation is 

composed by members who are either 

persons or legal entities. Based on how 

joint operations are characterized in 

section 1400.106, the statutory payment 

limitation applies to each person or 

legal entity that comprises the joint 

operation. NRCS recognizes the 

$200,000 contract limitation established 

in the interim final rule was too low and 

unfairly restricted certain joint 

operations who achieve the 

conservation performance levels needed 

to earn the payments. Therefore, NRCS 

raises, in the final rule, the CSP contract 

limitation to $400,000, which would 

allow two members of a joint-tenancy 

operation to earn the payments to obtain 

their $200,000 per person payment 

limitation authorized in statute. Further, 

NRCS establishes in paragraph (h) an 

annual contract limit for these joint 

operations of up to $80,000. These 

payment limitations do not apply to 

funding arrangements with federally 

recognized Indian tribes or Alaska 

Native corporations. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31649 

Comments 

Twenty-one respondents expressed 

concern about the payment limits. 

NRCS received comments suggesting 

where CSP accepted farming operations 

that exceed the $40,000 payment limit, 

NRCS should only include the acres 

necessary to reach the $40,000 payment 

limit against the State’s allotted acres 

because the limit is understood and 

acceptable to producers. There is no 

advantage to NRCS offering a program 

that results in artificially low per acre 

contracts. If large farms only consumed 

their proportional share of the allotted 

CSP acres, large farms would present no 

threat to other operations. Large farms 

offer tremendous value to the United 

States taxpayer by providing more acres 

of conservation practices for the tax 

dollar. The current rule could result in 

large farms avoiding CSP. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. NRCS 

acknowledges the concern and explored 

this recommendation during the 

payment discovery period. NRCS cannot 

limit the acres it considers attributable 

to the authorized enrollment level. By 

statute, NRCS is required to enroll in the 

program no more than 12,769,000 acres 

for each fiscal year. 

Comments 

One respondent expressed that it is 

important to consider the longer-term 

implication of the agency’s decision to 

create program provisions that run 

contrary to clear statutory language. If 

the agency can create its own set of 

payment limitations in each regulation 

it issues, the same overriding logic 

would allow it to impose its own set of 

environmental requirements, or allow it 

to change or override clear 

congressional guidelines with respect to 

expected environmental benefits. 

One commenter recommended 

program participants should be able to 

roll over the annual payment limit for 

cause, so if they cannot undertake the 

conservation activity in a given year, but 

shift that work into the next year, the 

limit should be lifted if they request and 

extension on the activity. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will not make payments for 

individual activities, so an annual 

payment amount will not be changed to 

adjust for actual performance. An actual 

performance level below what is 

required in the contract is considered a 

potential contract violation. Potential 

contract violations are addressed with a 

formal contract review as per agency 

policy in the Conservation Programs 

Manual, Part 512.55. In these cases, the 

annual payments will not be issued 

until NRCS and the applicant agree to 

a timeframe when the applicant will be 

back in compliance with the contract 

provisions. This agreement is official 

when form NRCS–CPA–153 has been 

signed by the participant and NRCS. 

Statutory Acreage/Payment Constraints 

Comments 

NRCS received four comments on the 

statutory acreage and payment 

constraints. One respondent stated that 

payment constraints should be 

addressed in part by enrolling 

considerably more grassland than is 

assumed by the economic analysis, but 

rather is more in keeping with 2009 

applications by land-use type. Payment 

constraints should also be addressed by 

allowing for year-to-year flexibility in 

meeting the statutory average per-acre 

payment cap over the full 9-year period 

provided by statute. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. NRCS is not 

limiting the acres of grassland that 

enrolls in the program. The amount 

projected in the economic analysis was 

used in lieu of historical data for 

analytical purposes only. The analysis is 

being reviewed with actual sign-up data 

which will reflect the amount of 

pastureland that sign-up for the 

program. NRCS is offering fair payment 

rates to encourage participation by 

operators of all land uses. 

Comments 

One respondent stated that as the 

level of CSP payments per acre is 

relatively low (not to exceed an average 

of $18 per acre), we anticipate that 

smaller acreage producers that might 

need to install a more costly 

enhancement on their own will be 

discouraged from applying for CSP 

because their expense to adopt some 

costlier enhancements (e.g. conversion 

of cropland to native grass for wildlife, 

alternative water sources, and exclusion 

fencing) may exceed their CSP payment. 

Thus, the commenter recommends that 

producers be allowed to utilize 

programs including EQIP and WHIP to 

help fund the installment of 

enhancements, as long as they do not 

duplicate payments on lands enrolled in 

CSP. 

NRCS Response 

No changes are made to the rule in 

response to the comments. NRCS 

recognizes the concerns related to small 

acreage producers. Participants have an 

extensive menu of enhancements to 

choose from that vary significantly in 

cost and environmental benefits. 

Although NRCS will not allow 

producers to combine programs to help 

producers install enhancements as that 

will be considered a duplicate payment, 

CSP participants can participate and 

receive funds under EQIP providing 

they do not receive payment for the 

same practice on the same land under 

both programs. 

Comments 

One respondent stated that given that 

the 2008 Farm Bill set caps on average 

payment rate and total acres, NRCS will 

need the flexibility to make changes 

based on the real data that a sign-up 

would offer to keep within the 

congressionally-set parameters. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS acknowledges the 

recommendation and will take under 

advisement for future ranking periods. 

However, it is NRCS’ intention to 

maintain the per point payment rates in 

future ranking periods close to the same 

that was used in the first sign-up. This 

should allow NRCS to tell applicants 

early in their application process what 

their estimated payment will be. 

Comments 

One respondent urged NRCS to 

attempt to keep the average cost per acre 

for CSP down to $18 per acre ‘‘to the 

extent practicable’’ as required by the 

statute. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS followed rigorous processes 

during the payment discovery period to 

ensure payment rates were established 

based on sign-up data and not to exceed 

legislative requirements. NRCS is 

currently monitoring the contract 

obligation process, and program 

constraints are being met. However, the 

States have not completed the obligation 

process which may result in small 

variations of the expected results. 

Minimum Contract Payment 

Comments 

NRCS received 55 comments 

expressing support that the final rule 

incorporates a minimum payment. Of 

these 55 comments, 21 respondents 

identified that the minimum payment 

should be at least $1,500. The 

respondents asserted that a minimum 

payment would encourage participation 

among small farms, especially among 

organic producers and producers in the 

New England States. The respondents 

expressed that small farms are 

important links in our ecological 

system. The respondents were 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

concerned that without this minimum, 

there may be no incentive for farmers 

operating at a scale smaller than 50–100 

acres to take part in the program. 

However, one of the respondents, while 

supporting the $1,500 minimum 

payment, urged that the CSP payment 

limits in the interim final rule be 

retained and enforced to prevent 

payment limitation loopholes. NRCS 

also received comments that producers 

in certain geographic locations, such as 

Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska would 

potentially not participate in the 

program if the contract payment was too 

low. 

NRCS Response 

Under the existing payment structure, 

payments consider the environmental 

benefits produced on each acre. NRCS 

recognizes that small scale operations, 

beginning farmers or ranchers, and 

limited resource farmers or ranchers 

could be discouraged from participating, 

as well as producers in certain 

geographic locations and those who 

have been historically underserved. 

NRCS intends to encourage 

conservation on all agriculture 

operations regardless of size or type of 

operation, including organic production 

systems. NRCS is seeking CSP 

regulatory provisions to more directly 

encourage participation of small-scale 

producers, socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers, beginning farmers 

or ranchers, and limited resource 

farmers or ranchers. NRCS believes that 

participation by these agricultural 

producers will provide for more 

conservation assistance for those who 

traditionally have not participated in 

USDA programs, as well as beginning 

farmers or ranchers seeking assistance 

with their operations. 

Therefore, NRCS modified the rule in 

1470.24 to add a new paragraph (d) that 

provides authority for minimum 

contract payments to socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, 

beginning farmers or ranchers, and 

limited resource farmers or ranchers. 

Paragraph (d) now reads, ‘‘Minimum 

contract payment. NRCS will make a 

minimum contract payment to 

participants who are socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, 

beginning farmers or ranchers, or 

limited resource farmers or ranchers at 

a rate determined by the Chief in any 

fiscal year that a contract’s payment 

amount total is less than $1,000.’’ 

Section 1470.25 Contract 

Modifications and Transfers of Land 

Comments 

NRCS received ten comments on the 

topic of contract modifications and 

transfers of land. 

NRCS received several comments in 

support of the provisions in the interim 

final rule. One commenter supported 

the interim final rule regarding NRCS’ 

ability to modify, renew, and terminate 

contracts found in § 1470.25, § 1470.26, 

and § 1470.27. Another commenter 

supported the ability to transfer all or 

portions of the CSP contract if land is 

transferred or control of land changes. 

NRCS may wish to allow 90 days rather 

than 60 days to accomplish the transfer 

to ensure transfers are completed. 

However, another commenter expressed 

that the proposed rule provides for no 

contract modifications. Farm operations 

are dynamic organizations, and 

provisions should be allowed for the 

addition of qualifying land during the 

contract period. The other option would 

be to allow producers to enter into 

separate contracts for land added to the 

farm operation subsequent to an initial 

contract. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS chooses to retain the 60 days to 

accomplish the transfer to be consistent 

with other NRCS programs’ contract 

prohibitions. NRCS has determined that 

although participants cannot modify 

contracts to add lands after a contract 

has been approved due to complexities 

related to ranking and payment rates, 

participants may offer new applications 

for additional lands they acquire after 

the initial contract is approved. The 

application on the newly acquired land 

will have to compete against other lands 

being offered for the program at the 

same time. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that 

section 1470.25(b) prohibits 

modifications that increase the contract 

obligation over the initial amount with 

the exception of contracts that are 

renewed after the 5-year period. This 

prohibition has no basis in statute, and 

it is unclear why NRCS would want to 

prohibit contract modifications that 

increase the initial obligation as long as 

the increase is within the overall person 

or entity cap of $200,000. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS has amended the rule to allow 

participants who expand their farming 

operation to submit new applications 

for additional contracts on the newly 

acquired acreage. Any new application 

will have to compete with other 

applications received during the same 

ranking period. This policy enables 

producers to participate in CSP on 

newly acquired land while maintaining 

the integrity of the ranking and payment 

process. 

Comments 

Two commenters strongly encouraged 

NRCS to not penalize producers for 

amending their contract to enroll 

sensitive lands in other Title II 

Conservation Programs such as CRP, 

GRP, or WRP. Another recommended 

clarifying that CSP contracts can be 

modified to allow producers to enroll 

land into other conservation programs 

and payments should be modified to 

reflect the producers’ costs and the 

environmental benefits gained on the 

entire field. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the commenters 

and amended the final rule in paragraph 

1470.25 to allow modifications to 

contracts to cancel and remove contract 

acres enrolled in programs like CRP, 

GRP, WRP, or other similar Federal or 

State programs without penalty to the 

participant. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended when 

renewable energy facilities and 

infrastructure are built on existing CSP 

contracts, the contract should be 

modified to address acres impacted by 

earthmoving and construction activities. 

These activities change the intent and 

purpose of the CSP contract. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the commenter. 

NRCS will consider taking land out of 

production in a potential noncompliance situation. State 

Conservations will evaluate these cases 

individually and decide if contract 

termination is needed or if a 

modification of contract acres is 

permitted to allow the producer to 

maintain the contract with the reduced 

acres. 

Section 1470.26 Contract Renewal 

Comments 

NRCS received nine comments on the 

topic of contract renewal. One 

commenter supported the interim final 

rule regarding NRCS’ ability to modify, 

renew, and terminate contracts found in 

§ 1470.25, § 1470.26, and § 1470.27. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS appreciated the positive 

feedback. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31651 

Comments 

NRCS received a comment that it 

should be much clearer and more 

explicit in the final rule. As a condition 

of eligibility for renewal, the participant 

should be required to meet or exceed 

the stewardship threshold for at least 

two additional priority resource 

concerns during the second contract 

term, provided they are not already 

exceeding the threshold for all or at 

least four priority resource concerns. In 

addition, the requirement to adopt 

additional conservation activities 

should be tied directly to the 

requirement to meet or exceed the 

threshold on those additional priority 

resource concerns. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS intends to follow the Managers’ 

Report language that provides, ‘‘The 

Secretary is provided authority to 

require new conservation activities as 

part of the contract renewal process. It 

is the intent of the Managers that this 

could include expanding the degree, 

scope, and comprehensiveness of 

conservation activities adopted by a 

producer to address the original priority 

resource concerns or addressing one or 

more additional priority resource 

concerns.’’ To add clarity to the rule, 

NRCS amends paragraphs 1470.26(b)(3) 

and (4) to read as follows: ‘‘(3) At a 

minimum, meet stewardship thresholds 

for at least two priority resource 

concerns; and (4) agree to adopt 

additional conservation activities to 

address at least one additional priority 

resource concern during the term of the 

renewed conservation stewardship 

contract.’’ 

Comments 

One respondent identified that 

section 1470.26 of the interim final rule 

provides that NRCS will permit contract 

renewals to foster participant 

commitment to increased conservation 

performance. The commenter believes 

that payment for implementing 

additional conservation activities 

should be equally weighted with 

payment for implementing existing 

conservation activities. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS established the National 

Payment Rates which include the 

conservation performance for existing 

and new activities. It anticipates it will 

maintain the same payment structure on 

renewed contracts. 

Comments 

One commenter supported the idea of 

contract renewals. Some practices take 

years of implementation before you 

actually see financial results. When 

transitioning to no-till farming practices 

in semi-arid Montana, it takes between 

7 and 10 years before the nutrient 

requirements stabilize and the producer 

is able to reduce the amount of fertilizer 

that is required. Assisting farmers and 

ranchers with additional time to 

implement larger practices can only 

serve to help the meet the goals of CSP 

and improve our environment. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS agrees with the commenter. 

Contract renewal will ensure that 

conservation benefits achieved in the 

first period will be maintained longer. 

In addition, this will allow participants 

to adopt new conservation activities and 

address additional stewardship 

thresholds. No change is made to the 

rule in response to the comment. 

Section 1470.27 Contract Violations 

and Termination 

Comments 

Section 1470.27, ‘‘Contract violations 

and termination,’’ addresses the 

procedures that NRCS will take when a 

violation has occurred or a contract 

termination is needed. NRCS received 

four comments on this section. 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

remove the penalty for terminating the 

CSP contract before the 5 years is done. 

The environment will reap a benefit 

from even just one year of CSP 

enrollment and conservation practices. 

We should be trying to encourage 

participation rather than instilling fear 

of repercussions. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS will follow agency contracting 

policies to be consistent with other 

NRCS programs and ensure program 

objectives are met. However, NRCS will 

not penalize a participant if they failed 

to comply with contract provisions due 

to circumstances beyond their control. 

Comments 

One commenter requested NRCS 

include verbiage that specifically says 

the landowner will not be held liable in 

any manner if their tenant does not 

fulfill the 5-year contract. This would 

encourage landowners to cooperate with 

tenants who want to do good things for 

the environment. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS does not consider it appropriate 

to include the language recommended 

above as NRCS may not have any 

contractual obligations with the 

landlords. NRCS enters into a contract 

with the applicant who is held 

responsible for meeting the contract 

provisions. NRCS has provisions that 

explain that participants will not be 

considered in violation of the contract 

for failure to comply with the contract 

due to circumstances beyond the control 

of the participant. In addition, NRCS 

will ensure that producers who would 

have an interest in acreage being offered 

received treatment which NRCS deems 

to be equitable. 

Subpart C—General Administration 

Section 1470.30 Fair Treatment of 

Tenants and Sharecroppers 

Comments 

Section 1470.30, ‘‘Fair treatment of 

tenants and sharecroppers,’’ specifies 

that any CSP payments received must be 

divided in the manner specified in the 

contract. Where conflicts arise between 

an operator and landowner, NRCS may 

refuse to enter into a CSP contract. 

NRCS received two comments on this 

section. 

One commenter expressed that tenant 

and sharecropper treatment must be a 

priority and communicated clearly and 

frequently to applicants and 

participants during every phase of the 

CSP process. In particular, USDA must 

clearly and frequently communicate to 

applicants and participants the interim 

final rule statement, i.e., that the 

Department may refuse to enter into a 

CSP contract when there is a 

disagreement amongst joint applicants 

seeking enrollment as to an applicant’s 

eligibility to participate in the contract 

as a tenant. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS does not want to interfere with 

the contractual relationship between 

landowners and tenants. However, 

NRCS has a responsibility to ensure fair 

treatment of tenants. NRCS feels that 

this concern has been addressed in the 

program contract appendix which is 

given to the applicants at the time of 

application and reviewed, accepted, and 

signed before contract obligation. The 

contract appendix provides that: 

No payment will be approved for the 

current year if the CCC determines that 

any of the following conditions exist: (1) 

The landlord or operator has not given 

the tenants that have an interest in the 

agricultural operation covered by the 

contract, or that have a lease that runs 

through the contract term at the time of 

sign-up, an opportunity to participate in 

the benefits of the program, and (2) The 

landlord or operator has adopted any 

other scheme or device for the purpose 

of depriving any tenant of any benefits 

to which such tenant would otherwise 

be entitled. If any such conditions occur 

or are discovered after payments have 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

been made, all or any part of the 

payments, as determined by the CCC, 

must be refunded according to 

paragraph 5F of the contract, and no 

further payments will be made. 

Comments 

The second commenter recommended 

NRCS adopt additional procedures to be 

sure that the contracts themselves 

provide fair treatment to tenants, and 

that landowners be required to disclose 

any operators on the land who may be 

farming on the land covered under CSP 

who lack adequate written lease 

agreements. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS accepts applications from the 

operator of record in the FSA farm 

records management system. Exceptions 

may be made for other tenants, other 

producers, and owners in the FSA farm 

records management system that can 

demonstrate, to the satisfaction of 

NRCS, they are the operator and have 

effective control of the land at the time 

of enrollment in the program. This 

should ensure that the contracts provide 

for fair treatment of tenants. 

Section 1470.31 Appeals 

No comments were received. 

Section 1470.32 Compliance With 

Regulatory Measures 

No comments were received. 

Section 1470.33 Access to Operating 

Unit 

NRCS received three comments 

regarding access to operating unit. One 

commenter requested USDA inform and 

make clearly available notices in its 

national, State, and local offices during 

public outreach activities, and during 

prospective applicants’ and active 

participants’ meetings, that its 

authorized representatives have certain 

limited rights to enter a private 

agricultural operation solely for CSPrelated purposes. The interim final rule 

statement that NRCS will make every 

effort to contact the participant prior to 

the exercise of this provision must be 

honored and fulfilled to the fullest 

extent. Every effort to make prior 

contact must be documented and 

logged, using permissible and 

appropriate means of communication. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

right to access be extended to any 

representative of USDA, as in other 

USDA regulations. This will allow 

conservation partners with TSP 

agreements to assist with applications 

and conservation planning on the 

applications land. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS supports the comment and has 

inserted ‘‘or its authorized 

representative’’ after ‘‘NRCS’’ where 

appropriate within this section of the 

rule. 

Section 1470.34 Equitable Relief 

No comments were received. 

Section 1470.35 Offsets and 

Assignments 

No comments were received. 

Section 1470.36 Misrepresentation 

and Scheme or Device 

No comments were received. 

Section 1470.37 Environmental 

Credits for Conservation Improvements 

Section 1470.37, ‘‘Environmental 

credits for conservation improvements,’’ 

provides NRCS’ policy on 

environmental credits. NRCS received 

five comments on this section. 

Two commenters were encouraged to 

see the provisions included on 

environmental credits and support the 

policy that any environmental credits 

(for example carbon or water quality) 

created in conjunction with a CSP 

contract are solely the property of the 

contract holder. This is consistent with 

policy statements made by USDA in 

reference to EQIP and CRP. 

NRCS Response 

NRCS appreciates the positive 

feedback. It is correct that the policy on 

this issue with respect to CSP is 

consistent with many other USDA 

programs. Although such assistance 

may favor program participants at the 

expense of non-participants, this stance 

is based on the Department’s desire to 

foster the creation of credits to spur the 

supply side of these markets. 

Comments 

One commenter expressed that 

although NRCS is asserting no interest 

in the credits that may be generated due 

to participation in CSP, it is possible 

that the rules of an ecosystem services 

market may preclude the purchase of 

credits that may have already been 

partially funded by the taxpayer. In 

almost all cases, it is highly likely that 

NRCS has only financed the creation of 

a portion of the credits that may be 

generated by an operation, and that a 

large percentage of the potential 

ecosystem service credit is being 

generated through ongoing labor and 

investment on the part of the farm 

operator. It would help ensure the 

ability of all USDA conservation 

program participants to sell ecosystem 

services credits in any ecosystem 

services market if USDA would 

calculate what portion of the potential 

credit they have financed and what 

portion remains that could be sold into 

an ecosystem services market. This 

would create more stability and 

assurance for producers who wish to 

participate in these markets. 

NRCS Response 

USDA recognizes and respects the 

rights for markets to establish their own 

technical and trading requirements for 

market participants. The rationale for 

precluding environmental credits 

generated by taxpayer-assisted programs 

is that these markets only want to 

recognize ‘‘additional’’ credits produced 

without tax-payer assistance. These 

markets would contend that credits 

generated through such programs would 

have been produced regardless of the 

presence of an environmental market 

and in fact, could affect the decision of 

non-program participants to create and 

enter into environmental markets. 

Measuring the degree of distortion 

created by tax-payer assistance 

programs to extricate its portion of the 

credits due to their influence would add 

another level of complexity to these 

emerging markets. 

Comments 

One commenter supported the 

provision of the regulation regarding 

environmental credits for conservation 

improvements. It is important the 

conservation program participants be 

able to participate in future ecosystem 

services markets regardless of whether 

they have or have not participated in 

Federal conservation programs. 

NRCS Response 

USDA supports the creation of 

environmental markets and does not 

directly affect the decision of program 

participants to participate in them. 

Comments 

One commenter recommended NRCS 

provide additional weight to projects 

that acreage CSP program goals while 

concurrently facilitating emerging 

environmental credit markets (i.e. those 

projects that are well-tailored to 

resulting in the production of 

marketable climate and water quality 

credits). In addition to meeting program 

goals, these projects will meet the 

administration’s goal for fostering 

economic stimulus through enhanced 

markets in ecosystem services. 

NRCS Response 

The CSP has the potential to address 

specific resource concerns by allowing 

the State Technical Committee to select 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31653 

the priority resource concerns in their 

State. Also, although NRCS recognizes 

that there may be substantial indirect 

impacts on local economies and 

employment, NRCS’ primary objective 

is to put conservation on the ground. 

Other Regulatory Changes 

NRCS made the following 

administrative changes to add clarity to 

the rule: 

(1) Text related to funding reserves for 

Socially Disadvantaged Farmers or 

Ranchers and Beginning Farmers or 

Ranchers was removed from paragraph 

1470.2(e) and relocated more 

appropriately under 1470.4, Allocation 

and Management; 

(2) Paragraphs 1470.2(f)(1)(i) through 

(iii) were added to place responsibilities 

of the State Technical Committees and 

local working groups in one location 

within the rule. 

(3) Paragraph 1470.4(e) was added to 

include a statutory requirement to 

identify that CSP may contribute to the 

Cooperative Conservation Partnership 

Initiative (CCPI). CCPI provides that, for 

the funds available for CCPI, 90 percent 

will be allocated for projects selected at 

the State level and 10 percent for 

projects offered through a national 

competitive process. For the percentage 

of funds allocated based on a national 

competitive process, this regulation 

identifies that funding allocation 

decisions will consider the extent to 

which the project addresses national 

and regional conservation priorities. 

(4) Paragraph 1470.3 includes a new 

definition for limited resource farmer 

and rancher for consistency with other 

NRCS regulations. 

(5) Outreach—in paragraph 1470.5(b), 

deleted redundant text and added 

paragraph 1470.5(d) clarifying that 

NRCS will conduct focused outreach in 

regions of national significance in order 

to maximize program participation. 

(6) Paragraph 1470.6(b)(4) was 

amended to provide clarification to 

‘‘other eligible lands’’ to include ‘‘other 

private agricultural land as determined 

by the Chief, on which resource 

concerns related to agricultural 

production could be addressed by 

enrolling the land in CSP.’’ 

(7) The text in paragraph 1470.20(e), 

Application, was deleted and relocated 

to ‘‘Administration’’ to keep reference to 

administrative functions in one 

location. A new paragraph (e) has been 

added regarding State and local 

priorities. 

(8) Paragraph 1470.24(e) clarified the 

timing of payments for newly enrolled 

contracts. In paragraph (i) clarified 

payment limitation provisions for 

Indian tribes, Pueblos, and Indian 

nations. In paragraph (j) clarified that 

payments will be directly attributed to 

entity members. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1470 

Agricultural operation, Conservation 

activities, Conservation measurement 

tool, Natural resources, Priority resource 

concern, Stewardship threshold, 

Resource-conserving crop rotation, Soil 

and water conservation, Soil quality, 

Water quality and water conservation, 

Wildlife and forest management. 

■ For the reasons stated above, the CCC 

adds part 1470 of Title 7 of the CFR to 

read as follows: 

PART 1470—CONSERVATION 

STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Sec. 

1470.1 Applicability. 

1470.2 Administration. 

1470.3 Definitions. 

1470.4 Allocation and management. 

1470.5 Outreach activities. 

1470.6 Eligibility requirements. 

1470.7 Enhancements and conservation 

practices. 

1470.8 Technical and other assistance. 

Subpart B—Contracts and Payments 

1470.20 Application for contracts and 

selecting offers from applicants. 

1470.21 Contract requirements. 

1470.22 Conservation stewardship plan. 

1470.23 Conservation activity operation 

and maintenance. 

1470.24 Payments. 

1470.25 Contract modifications and 

transfers of land. 

1470.26 Contract renewal. 

1470.27 Contract violations and 

termination. 

Subpart C—General Administration 

1470.30 Fair treatment of tenants and 

sharecroppers. 

1470.31 Appeals. 

1470.32 Compliance with regulatory 

measures. 

1470.33 Access to agricultural operation. 

1470.34 Equitable relief. 

1470.35 Offsets and assignments. 

1470.36 Misrepresentation and scheme or 

device. 

1470.37 Environmental credits for 

conservation improvements. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d–3838g. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 1470.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part sets forth the policies, 

procedures, and requirements for the 

Conservation Stewardship Program 

(CSP) as administered by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

for enrollment during fiscal year (FY) 

2009 and thereafter. 

(b) The purpose of CSP is to 

encourage producers to address resource 

concerns in a comprehensive manner 

by: 

(1) Undertaking additional 

conservation activities; and 

(2) Improving, maintaining, and 

managing existing conservation 

activities. 

(c) CSP is applicable in any of the 50 

States, District of Columbia, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

Virgin Islands of the United States, 

American Samoa, and Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(d) NRCS provides financial 

assistance and technical assistance to 

participants for the conservation, 

protection, and improvement of soil, 

water, and other related natural 

resources, and for any similar 

conservation purpose as determined by 

NRCS. 

§ 1470.2 Administration. 

(a) The regulations in this part will be 

administered under the general 

supervision and direction of the Chief, 

NRCS, who is a Vice President of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). 

(b) The Chief is authorized to modify 

or waive a provision of this part if the 

Chief deems the application of that 

provision to a particular limited 

situation to be inappropriate and 

inconsistent with the purposes of the 

program. This authority cannot be 

further delegated. The Chief may not 

modify or waive any provision of this 

part which is required by applicable 

law. 

(c) To achieve the conservation goals 

of CSP, NRCS will: 

(1) Make the program available 

nationwide to eligible applicants on a 

continuous application basis with one 

or more ranking periods to determine 

enrollments. One of the ranking periods 

will occur in the first quarter of each 

fiscal year, to the extent practicable; and 

(2) Develop conservation 

measurement tools (CMT) for the 

purpose of carrying out the program. 

(d) During the period beginning on 

October 1, 2008, and ending on 

September 30, 2017, NRCS will, to the 

maximum extent practicable: 

(1) Enroll in CSP an additional 

12,769,000 acres for each fiscal year; 

and 

(2) Manage CSP to achieve a national 

average rate of $18 per acre, which 

includes the costs of all financial and 

technical assistance and any other 

expenses associated with program 

enrollment and participation. 

(e) The State Conservationist will: 

(1) Obtain advice from the State 

Technical Committee and local working 

groups on the development of Statelevel technical, outreach, and program 

matters, including: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Establishment of ranking pools 

appropriate for the conduct of CSP 

within the State to ensure program 

availability and prioritization of 

conservation activities. Ranking pools 

may be based on watersheds, geographic 

areas, or other appropriate regions 

within a State and may consider highpriority regional and State-level 

resource concern areas; 

(ii) Identification of not less than 

three, nor more than five priority 

resource concerns in particular 

watersheds, geographic areas, or other 

appropriate regions within a State; 

(iii) Identification of resourceconserving crops that will be part of 

resource-conserving crop rotations; 

(iv) Development of design protocols 

and participation procedures for 

participation in on-farm research, and 

demonstration and pilot projects; and 

(v) Evaluation of Cooperative 

Conservation Partnership Initiative 

(CCPI) projects and allowable program 

adjustments for the conduct of projects. 

(2) Assign NRCS employees as 

designated conservationists to be 

responsible for CSP at the local level; 

and 

(3) Be responsible for the program in 

their assigned State. 

(f) NRCS may enter into agreements 

with Federal, State, and local agencies, 

conservation districts, Indian tribes, 

private entities, and individuals to assist 

NRCS with program implementation. 

§ 1470.3 Definitions. 

The following definitions will apply 

to this part and all documents issued in 

accordance with this part, unless 

specified otherwise: 

Agricultural land means cropland, 

rangeland, and pastureland on which 

agricultural products or livestock are 

produced and resource concerns may be 

addressed. Agricultural lands may also 

include other land and incidental areas 

included in the agricultural operation as 

determined by NRCS. Other agricultural 

lands include cropped woodland, 

marshes, incidental areas included in 

the agricultural operation, and other 

types of agricultural land used for 

production of livestock. 

Agricultural operation means all 

agricultural land and other land, as 

determined by NRCS, whether 

contiguous or noncontiguous: 

(1) Which is under the effective 

control of the applicant; and 

(2) Which is operated by the applicant 

with equipment, labor, management, 

and production or cultivation practices 

that are substantially separate from 

other operations. 

Animal waste storage or treatment 

facility means a structural conservation 

practice used for storing or treating 

animal waste. 

Applicant means a person, legal 

entity, joint operation, or Indian tribe 

that has an interest in an agricultural 

operation, as defined in 7 CFR part 

1400, who has requested in writing to 

participate in CSP. 

Beginning farmer or rancher means: 

(1) An individual or legal entity who: 

(i) Has not operated a farm, ranch, or 

nonindustrial private forest land (NIPF), 

or who has operated a farm, ranch, or 

NIPF for not more than 10 consecutive 

years (this requirement applies to all 

members of a legal entity); and 

(ii) Will materially and substantially 

participate in the operation of the farm 

or ranch. 

(2) In the case of a contract with an 

individual, individually, or with the 

immediate family, material and 

substantial participation requires that 

the individual provide substantial dayto-day labor and management of the 

farm or ranch, consistent with the 

practices in the county or State where 

the farm is located. 

(3) In the case of a contract with a 

legal entity or joint operation, all 

members must materially and 

substantially participate in the 

operation of the farm or ranch. Material 

and substantial participation requires 

that each of the members provide some 

amount of the management or labor and 

management necessary for day-to-day 

activities, such that if each of the 

members did not provide these inputs, 

operation of the farm or ranch would be 

seriously impaired. 

Chief means the Chief of NRCS, or 

designee. 

Conservation activities means 

conservation systems, practices, or 

management measures needed to 

address a resource concern or improve 

environmental quality through the 

treatment of natural resources, and 

includes structural, vegetative, and 

management activities as determined by 

NRCS. 

Conservation district means any 

district or unit of State, tribal, or local 

government formed under State, tribal, 

or territorial law for the express purpose 

of developing and carrying out a local 

soil and water conservation program. 

Such district or unit of government may 

be referred to as a ‘‘conservation 

district,’’ ‘‘soil conservation district,’’ 

‘‘soil and water conservation district,’’ 

‘‘resource conservation district,’’ ‘‘land 

conservation committee,’’ ‘‘natural 

resource district,’’ or similar name. 

Conservation measurement tool 

means procedures developed by NRCS 

to estimate the level of environmental 

benefit to be achieved by a producer 

using the proxy of conservation 

performance. 

Conservation planning means using 

the planning process outlined in the 

applicable National Planning 

Procedures Handbook (NPPH). 

Conservation practice means a 

specified treatment, such as a structural 

or vegetative practice or management 

technique, commonly used to meet a 

specific need in planning and carrying 

out conservation programs for which 

standards and specifications have been 

developed. Conservation practices are in 

the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, 

section IV, which is based on the 

National Handbook of Conservation 

Practices. 

Conservation stewardship plan means 

a record of the participant’s decisions 

that describes the schedule of 

conservation activities to be 

implemented, managed, or improved. 

Associated supporting information that 

identifies and inventories resource 

concerns and existing conservation 

activities, establishes benchmark data, 

and documents the participant’s 

conservation objectives will be 

maintained with the plan. 

Conservation system means a 

combination of conservation practices, 

management measures, and 

enhancements used to address natural 

resource and environmental concerns in 

a comprehensive, holistic, and 

integrated manner. 

Contract means a legal document that 

specifies the rights and obligations of 

any participant who has been accepted 

into the program. A CSP contract is an 

agreement for the transfer of assistance 

from NRCS to the participant for 

installing, adopting, improving, 

managing, and maintaining 

conservation activities. 

Designated conservationist means an 

NRCS employee whom the State 

Conservationist has designated as 

responsible for CSP at the local level. 

Effective control means possession of 

the land by ownership, written lease, or 

other legal agreement and authority to 

act as decisionmaker for the day-to-day 

management of the operation both at the 

time the applicant enters into a 

stewardship contract and for the 

required period of the contract. 

Enhancement means a type of 

conservation activity used to treat 

natural resources and improve 

conservation performance. 

Enhancements are installed at a level of 

management intensity that exceeds the 

sustainable level for a given resource 

concern, and those enhancements 

directly related to a practice standard 

are applied in a manner that exceeds the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31655 

minimum treatment requirements of the 

standard. 

Enrollment means for the initial signup for FY 2009, NRCS will consider a 

participant ‘‘enrolled’’ in CSP based on 

the fiscal year the application is 

submitted, once NRCS approves the 

participant’s contract. For subsequent 

ranking cut-off periods, NRCS will 

consider a participant enrolled in CSP 

based on the fiscal year the contract is 

approved. 

Field office technical guide means the 

official local NRCS source of resource 

information and interpretations of 

guidelines, criteria, and standards for 

planning and applying conservation 

practices and conservation management 

systems. It contains detailed 

information on the conservation of soil, 

water, air, plant, and animal resources 

applicable to the local area for which it 

is prepared. 

Indian lands means all lands held in 

trust by the United States for individual 

Indians or Indian tribes, or all land titles 

held by individual Indians or tribes, 

subject to Federal restrictions against 

alienation or encumbrance, or lands 

subject to the rights of use, occupancy, 

or benefit of certain Indian tribes. This 

term also includes lands for which the 

title is held in fee status by Indian tribes 

and the U.S. Government-owned land 

under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

jurisdiction. 

Indian Tribe means any Indian tribe, 

band, nation, pueblo, or other organized 

group or community, including any 

Alaska Native village or regional or 

village corporation as defined in or 

established pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 

1601 et seq.), which is recognized as 

eligible for the special programs and 

services provided by the United States 

to Indians because of their status as 

Indians. 

Joint operation means, as defined in 

part 1400 of this chapter, a general 

partnership, joint venture, or other 

similar business arrangement in which 

the members are jointly and severally 

liable for the obligations of the 

organization. 

Legal entity means, as defined in part 

1400 of this chapter, an entity created 

under Federal or State law. 

Limited Resource Farmer or Rancher 

means: 

(1) A person with direct or indirect 

gross farm sales not more than the 

current indexed value in each of the 

previous 2 years ($142,000 is the 

amount for 2010, adjusted for inflation 

using Prices Paid by Farmer Index as 

compiled by the National Agricultural 

Statistical Service); and 

(2) Has a total household income at or 

below the national poverty level for a 

family of four, or less than 50 percent 

of county median household income in 

each of the previous 2 years (to be 

determined annually using Department 

of Commerce Data). 

Liquidated damages means a sum of 

money stipulated in the CSP contract 

that the participant agrees to pay NRCS 

if the participant fails to fulfill the terms 

of the contract. The sum represents an 

estimate of the technical assistance 

expenses incurred to service the 

contract, and reflects the difficulties of 

proof of loss and the inconvenience or 

non-feasibility of otherwise obtaining an 

adequate remedy. 

Local working group means the 

advisory body as described in 7 CFR 

part 610. 

Management measure means one or 

more specific actions that is not a 

conservation practice, but has the effect 

of alleviating problems or improving the 

treatment of the natural resources. 

National Organic Program means the 

program, administered by the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Agricultural Marketing Service, which 

regulates the standards for any farm, 

wild crop harvesting, or handling 

operation that wants to market an 

agricultural product as organically 

produced. 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service means an agency of USDA 

which has responsibility for 

administering CSP using the funds, 

facilities, and authorities of the CCC. 

Nonindustrial private forest land 

means rural land that has existing tree 

cover or is suitable for growing trees, 

and is owned by an individual, group, 

association, corporation, Indian tribe, or 

other private legal entity that has 

definitive decisionmaking authority 

over the land. 

Operation and maintenance means 

work performed by the participant to 

maintain existing conservation activities 

to at least the level of conservation 

performance identified at the time the 

application is obligated into a contract, 

and maintain additional conservation 

activities installed and adopted over the 

contract period. 

Participant means a person, legal 

entity, joint operation, or Indian tribe 

that is receiving payment or is 

responsible for implementing the terms 

and conditions of a CSP contract. 

Payment means financial assistance 

provided to the participant under the 

terms of the CSP contract. 

Person means, as defined in part 1400 

of this chapter, an individual, natural 

person and does not include a legal 

entity. 

Priority resource concern means a 

resource concern that is identified by 

the State Conservationist, in 

consultation with the State Technical 

Committee and local working groups, as 

a priority for a State, or the specific 

geographic areas within a State. 

Producer means a person, legal entity, 

joint operation, or Indian tribe who has 

an interest in the agricultural operation, 

as defined in part 1400 of this chapter, 

or who is engaged in agricultural 

production or forest management. 

Resource concern means a specific 

natural resource problem that is likely 

to be addressed successfully through the 

implementation of conservation 

activities by producers. 

Resource-conserving crop means a 

crop that is one of the following: 

(1) A perennial grass; 

(2) A legume grown for use as forage, 

seed for planting, or green manure; 

(3) A legume-grass mixture; 

(4) A small grain grown in 

combination with a grass or legume, 

whether inter-seeded or planted in 

rotation. 

Resource-conserving crop rotation 

means a crop rotation that: 

(1) Includes at least one resourceconserving crop as determined by the 

State Conservationist; 

(2) Reduces erosion; 

(3) Improves soil fertility and tilth; 

(4) Interrupts pest cycles; and 

(5) In applicable areas, reduces 

depletion of soil moisture or otherwise 

reduces the need for irrigation. 

Secretary means the Secretary of 

USDA. 

Socially disadvantaged farmer or 

rancher means a producer who has been 

subjected to racial or ethnic prejudices 

because of their identity as a member of 

a group without regard to their 

individual qualities. A socially 

disadvantaged group is a group whose 

members have been subject to racial or 

ethnic prejudice because of their 

identity as members of a group, without 

regard to their individual qualities. 

These groups consist of American 

Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians, 

Blacks or African Americans, Native 

Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, 

and Hispanics. A socially disadvantaged 

applicant is an individual or entity who 

is a member of a socially disadvantaged 

group. For an entity, at least 50 percent 

ownership in the farm business must be 

held by socially disadvantaged 

individuals. 

State Conservationist means the 

NRCS employee authorized to 

implement CSP and direct and 

supervise NRCS activities in a State, 

Caribbean Area, or Pacific Islands Area. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

State Technical Committee means a 

committee established by the Secretary 

in a State pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3861. 

Stewardship threshold means the 

level of natural resource conservation 

and environmental management 

required, as determined by NRCS using 

the CMT, to conserve and improve the 

quality and condition of a natural 

resource. 

Technical assistance means technical 

expertise, information, and tools 

necessary for the conservation of natural 

resources on land active in agricultural, 

forestry, or related uses. The term 

includes the following: 

(1) Technical services provided 

directly to farmers, ranchers, forest 

producers, and other eligible entities, 

such as conservation planning, 

technical consultation, preparation of 

forest stewardship management plans, 

and assistance with the design and 

implementation of conservation 

activities; and 

(2) Technical infrastructure, including 

processes, tools, and agency functions 

needed to support delivery of technical 

services, such as technical standards, 

resource inventories, training, data, 

technology, monitoring, and effects 

analyses. 

Technical Service Provider means an 

individual, private-sector entity, or 

public agency certified by NRCS to 

provide technical services to program 

participants in lieu of, or on behalf of, 

NRCS as referenced in 7 CFR part 652. 

§ 1470.4 Allocation and management. 

(a) The Chief will allocate acres and 

associated funds to State 

Conservationists: 

(1) Primarily on each State’s 

proportion of eligible land to the total 

amount of eligible land in all States; and 

(2) On consideration of: 

(i) The extent and magnitude of the 

conservation needs associated with 

agricultural production in each State 

based on natural resource factors that 

consider national, regional, and Statelevel priority ecosystem areas, 

(ii) The degree to which 

implementation of the program in the 

State is, or will be, effective in helping 

producers address those needs, and 

(iii) Other considerations determined 

by the Chief to achieve equitable 

geographic distribution of program 

participation. 

(b) The State Conservationist will 

allocate acres to ranking pools, to the 

extent practicable, based on the same 

factors the Chief considers in making 

allocations to States. 

(c) Of the acres made available for 

each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 

to carry out CSP, NRCS will use, as a 

minimum: 

(1) Five percent to assist beginning 

farmers or ranchers, and 

(2) Five percent to assist socially 

disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. 

(d) In any fiscal year, allocated acres 

that are not enrolled by a date 

determined by NRCS may be reallocated 

with associated funds for use in that 

fiscal year under CSP. As part of the 

reallocation process, NRCS will 

consider several factors, including 

demand from applicants, national and 

regional conservation priorities, and 

prior-year CSP performance in States. 

(e) Of the CSP funds and acres made 

available for each fiscal year: 

(1) The Chief will reserve 6 percent of 

funds and acres to ensure an adequate 

source of funds and acres for the CCPI. 

Of the funds and acres reserved, the 

Chief will allocate: 

(i) Ninety percent to projects based on 

the direction of State Conservationists, 

with the advice of State Technical 

Committees; and 

(ii) Ten percent to projects based on 

a national competitive process 

established by the Chief. In determining 

funding allocation decisions for these 

projects, NRCS will consider the extent 

to which they address national and 

regional conservation priorities. 

(2) Any funds and acres reserved for 

the CCPI in a fiscal year that are not 

obligated by April 1 of that fiscal year 

may be used to carry out other CSP 

activities during the remainder of that 

fiscal year. 

§ 1470.5 Outreach activities. 

(a) NRCS will establish program 

outreach activities at the national, State, 

and local levels to ensure that potential 

applicants who control eligible land are 

aware and informed that they may be 

eligible to apply for program assistance. 

(b) Special outreach will be made to 

eligible producers with historically low 

participation rates, including but not 

restricted to, beginning farmers or 

ranchers, limited resource farmers or 

ranchers, and socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers. 

(c) NRCS will ensure that outreach is 

provided so as not to limit producer 

participation because of size or type of 

operation or production system, 

including specialty crop and organic 

production. 

(d) NRCS will conduct focused 

outreach in regions of national 

significance in order to maximize 

program participation. These areas 

could include landscapes such as the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and Great 

Lakes basin. 

§ 1470.6 Eligibility requirements. 

(a) Eligible applicant. To be an 

eligible applicant for CSP, a producer 

must be the operator in the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) farm records 

management system. Potential 

applicants that are not in the FSA farm 

records management system must 

establish records with FSA. Potential 

applicants whose records are not 

current in the FSA farm records 

management system must update those 

records prior to the close of the 

evaluation period to be considered 

eligible. NRCS may grant exceptions to 

the ‘‘operator of record’’ requirement for 

producers, tenants, and owners in the 

FSA farm records management system 

that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction 

of NRCS, they will operate and have 

effective control of the land. Applicants 

must also meet all of the following 

requirements: 

(1) Have effective control of the land 

unless an exception is made by the 

Chief in the case of land administered 

by the BIA, Indian lands, or other 

instances in which the Chief determines 

that there is sufficient assurance of 

control; 

(2) Be in compliance with the highly 

erodible land and wetland conservation 

provisions found at 7 CFR part 12; 

(3) Be in compliance with Adjusted 

Gross Income provisions found at 7 CFR 

part 1400; 

(4) Supply information, as required by 

NRCS, to determine eligibility for the 

program, including but not limited to, 

information related to eligibility 

requirements and ranking factors; 

conservation activity and production 

system records; information to verify the 

applicant’s status as a historically 

underserved producer, if applicable; 

and payment eligibility as established 

by 7 CFR part 1400; and 

(5) Provide a list of all members of the 

legal entity and embedded entities along 

with members’ tax identification 

numbers and percentage interest in the 

entity. Where applicable, American 

Indians, Alaska Natives, and Pacific 

Islanders may use another unique 

identification number for each 

individual eligible for payment. 

(b) Eligible land. A contract 

application must include all of the 

eligible land on an applicant’s 

agricultural operation, except as 

identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. A participant may submit an 

application(s) to enter into an additional 

contract(s) for newly acquired eligible 

land, which would then compete with 

other applications in a subsequent 

ranking period. The land as described 

below is part of the agricultural 

operation and eligible for enrollment in 

the CSP: 

(1) Private agricultural land; 

(2) Agricultural Indian lands; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31657 

(3) NIPF: 

(i) By special rule in the statute, NIPF 

is eligible land, 

(ii) No more than 10 percent of the 

acres enrolled nationally in any fiscal 

year may be NIPF, 

(iii) The applicant will designate by 

submitting a separate application if they 

want to offer NIPF for funding 

consideration, 

(iv) If designated for funding 

consideration, then the NIPF component 

of the operation will include all the 

applicant’s NIPF. If not designated for 

funding consideration, then the 

applicant’s NIPF will not be part of the 

agricultural operation; and 

(4) Other private agricultural land, as 

determined by the Chief, on which 

resource concerns related to agricultural 

production could be addressed by 

enrolling the land in CSP. 

(c) Ineligible land. The following 

ineligible lands are part of the 

agricultural operation, but ineligible for 

inclusion in the contract or for payment 

in CSP: 

(1) Land enrolled in the Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP), 7 CFR part 

1410; 

(2) Land enrolled in the Wetlands 

Reserve Program (WRP), 7 CFR part 

1467; 

(3) Land enrolled in the Grassland 

Reserve Program (GRP), 7 CFR part 

1415; 

(4) Land enrolled in the Conservation 

Security Program, 7 CFR part 1469; 

(5) Public land including land owned 

by a Federal, State, or local unit of 

government; and 

(6) Land used for crop production 

after June 18, 2008, that had not been 

planted, considered to be planted, or 

devoted to crop production for at least 

4 of the 6 years preceding that date, 

unless that land: 

(i) Had previously been enrolled in 

CRP, 

(ii) Has been maintained using longterm crop rotation practices as 

determined by the designated 

conservationist, or 

(iii) Is incidental land needed for 

efficient operation of the farm or ranch 

as determined by the designated 

conservationist. 

§ 1470.7 Enhancements and conservation 

practices. 

(a) Participant decisions describing 

the additional enhancements and 

conservation practices to be 

implemented under the conservation 

stewardship contract will be recorded in 

the conservation stewardship plan. 

(b) NRCS will make available to the 

public the list of enhancements and 

conservation practices available to be 

installed, adopted, maintained, and 

managed through the CSP. 

(c) NRCS will make available bundled 

suites of conservation activities for 

participants to voluntarily select to 

include as part of their conservation 

stewardship plans. The bundles will be 

designed to coordinate the installation 

and adoption of enhancements with 

each other to address resource concerns 

in a more comprehensive and costeffective manner. 

(d) CSP encourages the use of other 

NRCS programs to install conservation 

practices that are required to meet 

agreed-upon stewardship thresholds, 

but the practices may not be 

compensated through CSP. 

§ 1470.8 Technical and other assistance. 

(a) NRCS may provide technical 

assistance to an eligible applicant or 

participant either directly or through a 

technical service provider (TSP) as set 

forth in 7 CFR part 652. 

(b) NRCS retains approval authority 

over certification of work done by nonNRCS personnel for the purpose of 

approving CSP payments. 

(c) NRCS will ensure that technical 

assistance is available and program 

specifications are appropriate so as not 

to limit producer participation because 

of size or type or operation or 

production system, including specialty 

crop and organic production. In 

providing technical assistance to 

specialty crop and organic producers, 

NRCS will provide appropriate training 

to field staff to enable them to work 

with these producers and to utilize 

cooperative agreements and contracts 

with nongovernmental organizations 

with expertise in delivering technical 

assistance to these producers. 

(d) NRCS will assist potential 

applicants dealing with the 

requirements of certification under the 

National Organic Program and CSP 

requirements concerning how to 

coordinate and simultaneously meet 

eligibility standards under each 

program. 

(e) NRCS may utilize the services of 

State foresters and existing technical 

assistance programs such as the Forest 

Stewardship Program of the U.S. Forest 

Service, in coordinating assistance to 

NIPF owners. 

Subpart B—Contracts and Payments 

§ 1470.20 Application for contracts and 

selecting offers from applicants. 

(a) Submission of contract 

applications. Applicants may submit an 

application to enroll all of their eligible 

land into CSP on a continuous basis. 

(b) Stewardship threshold 

requirement. To be eligible to 

participate in CSP, an applicant must 

submit to the designated conservationist 

for approval, a contract application that: 

(1) Indicates the applicant’s 

conservation activities, at the time of 

application, are meeting the 

stewardship threshold for at least one 

resource concern; 

(2) Would, at a minimum, meet or 

exceed the stewardship threshold for at 

least one priority resource concern in 

addition to the resource concern 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section by the end of the conservation 

stewardship contract by: 

(i) Installing and adopting additional 

conservation activities, and 

(ii) Improving, maintaining, and 

managing conservation activities 

present on the agricultural operation at 

the time the contract application is 

accepted by NRCS; 

(3) Provides a map, aerial photograph, 

or overlay that: 

(i) Identifies the applicant’s 

agricultural operation and NIPF 

component of the operation, and 

(ii) Delineates eligible land with 

associated acreage amounts; and 

(4) If the applicant is applying for onfarm research and demonstration 

activities or for pilot testing, describes 

the nature of the research, 

demonstration, or pilot testing in a 

manner consistent with design protocols 

and application procedures established 

by NRCS. 

(c) Evaluation of contract 

applications. NRCS will conduct one or 

more ranking periods each fiscal year. 

(1) To the extent practicable, one 

ranking period will occur in the first 

quarter of the fiscal year; 

(2) In evaluating CSP applications, the 

State Conservationist or designated 

conservationist will rank applications 

based on the following factors, using the 

CMT, to the maximum extent 

practicable: 

(i) Level of conservation treatment on 

all applicable priority resource concerns 

at the time of application, 

(ii) Degree to which the proposed 

conservation treatment on applicable 

priority resource concerns effectively 

increases conservation performance, 

(iii) Number of applicable priority 

resource concerns proposed to be 

treated to meet or exceed the 

stewardship threshold by the end of the 

contract, and 

(iv) Extent to which other resource 

concerns, in addition to priority 

resource concerns, will be addressed to 

meet or exceed the stewardship 

threshold by the end of the contract 

period; 

(3) In the event that application 

ranking scores from (2) above are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

similar, the application that represents 

the least cost to the program will be 

given higher priority; and 

(4) The State Conservationist or 

designated conservationist may not 

assign a higher priority to any 

application because the applicant is 

willing to accept a lower payment than 

the applicant would otherwise be 

eligible to receive. 

(d) Weighting of ranking factors. To 

the extent the CSP objective of 

additional conservation is not being 

achieved, as determined by the Chief, 

NRCS will adjust the weighting of 

ranking factors in order to place 

emphasis on increasing net conservation 

benefits. 

(e) State and local priorities. The 

Chief may develop and use additional 

criteria for evaluating applications that 

are determined necessary to ensure that 

national, State, and local conservation 

priorities are effectively addressed. 

(f) Ranking pools. Ranking pools will 

be established in accordance with 

§ 1470.2(e)(1)(i). 

(1) NIPF will compete in ranking 

pools separate from agricultural land. 

An applicant with both NIPF and 

agricultural land will have the options 

to submit: 

(i) One application for NIPF; 

(ii) One application for agricultural 

land; or 

(iii) Two applications, one for each 

land type. 

(2) An applicant with an agricultural 

operation or NIPF component of the 

operation that crosses ranking pool 

boundaries will make application and 

be ranked in the ranking pool where the 

largest acreage portion of their operation 

occurs. 

(3) Within each State or established 

ranking pool, the State Conservationist 

will address conservation access for 

certain farmers or ranchers, including: 

(i) Socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers; and 

(ii) Beginning farmers or ranchers. 

(g) Application pre-approval. The 

State Conservationist or designated 

conservationist will make application 

pre-approval determinations during 

established ranking periods based on 

eligibility and ranking score. 

(h) Field verification. NRCS will 

conduct onsite field verification prior to 

obligation of contract funding to 

substantiate the accuracy of the 

information provided by pre-approved 

applicants during the application 

process. 

§ 1470.21 Contract requirements. 

(a) After a determination that the 

application will be approved and a 

conservation stewardship plan will be 

developed in accordance with 

§ 1470.22, the State Conservationist or 

designee will enter into a conservation 

stewardship contract with the 

participant to enroll all of the eligible 

land on a participant’s agricultural 

operation. 

(b) The conservation stewardship 

contract will: 

(1) Provide for payments over a period 

of 5 years; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the 

conservation stewardship plan; 

(3) State the payment amount NRCS 

agrees to make to the participant 

annually, subject to the availability of 

funds; 

(4) Incorporate all provisions as 

required by law or statute, including 

requirements that the participant will: 

(i) Implement the conservation 

stewardship plan approved by NRCS 

during the term of the contract, 

(ii) Operate and maintain 

conservation activities on the 

agricultural operation consistent with 

§ 1470.23, 

(iii) Comply with the terms of the 

contract or documents incorporated by 

reference into the contract, 

(iv) Refund as determined by NRCS, 

any program payments received with 

interest, and forfeit any future payments 

under the program, upon the violation 

of a term or condition of the contract, 

consistent with § 1470.27, 

(v) Refund as determined by NRCS, 

all program payments received with 

interest, upon the transfer of the right 

and interest of the participant, in land 

subject to the contract, unless the 

transferee of the right and interest agrees 

to assume all obligations of the contract, 

consistent with § 1470.25, 

(vi) Maintain and make available to 

NRCS upon request, appropriate records 

documenting applied conservation 

activity and production system 

information, and provide evidence of 

the effective and timely implementation 

of the conservation stewardship plan 

and contract, and 

(vii) Not engage in any action during 

the term of the conservation 

stewardship contract on the eligible 

land covered by the contract that would 

interfere with the purposes of the 

conservation stewardship contract; 

(5) Permit all economic uses of the 

land that: 

(i) Maintain the agricultural or 

forestry nature of the land, and 

(ii) Are consistent with the 

conservation purposes of the contract; 

(6) Include a provision to ensure that 

a participant will not be considered in 

violation of the contract for failure to 

comply with the contract due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

participant, including a disaster or 

related condition, as determined by the 

State Conservationist; and 

(7) Include such other provisions as 

NRCS determines necessary to ensure 

the purposes of the program are 

achieved. 

§ 1470.22 Conservation stewardship plan. 

(a) NRCS will use the conservation 

planning process as outlined in the 

NPPH to encourage participants to 

address resource concerns in a 

comprehensive manner. 

(b) The conservation stewardship plan 

will contain a record of the participant’s 

decisions that describes the schedule of 

conservation activities to be 

implemented, managed, or improved 

under the conservation stewardship 

contract. 

(c) Associated supporting information 

maintained with the participant’s plan 

will include: 

(1) CMT documentation that will be 

the basis for: 

(i) Identifying and inventorying 

resource concerns, 

(ii) Establishing benchmark data on 

the condition of existing conservation 

activities, and 

(iii) Documenting the participant’s 

conservation objectives to reach and 

exceed stewardship thresholds; 

(2) A plan map delineating enrolled 

land with associated acreage amounts; 

(3) In the case where a participant 

wishes to initiate or retain organic 

certification, documentation that will 

support the participant’s transition to or 

participation in the National Organic 

Program; 

(4) In the case where a participant is 

approved for the on-farm research and 

demonstration or pilot testing option, a 

research, demonstration, or pilot testing 

plan consistent with design protocols 

and application procedures established 

by NRCS; and 

(5) Other information as determined 

appropriate by NRCS. 

§ 1470.23 Conservation activity operation 

and maintenance. 

The participant will maintain and 

manage existing conservation activities 

on the agricultural operation to at least 

the level of conservation performance 

identified at the time the application is 

obligated into a contract for the 

conservation stewardship contract 

period, and additional activities 

installed and adopted over the term of 

the conservation stewardship contract. 

§ 1470.24 Payments. 

(a) Annual payments. Subject to the 

availability of funds, NRCS will 

provide, as appropriate, annual 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31659 

payments under the program to 

compensate a participant for installing 

and adopting additional conservation 

activities, and improving, maintaining, 

and managing existing conservation 

activities. A split-rate annual payment 

structure will be used to provide 

separate payments for additional and 

existing conservation activities in order 

to place emphasis on implementing 

additional conservation. 

(1) To receive annual payments, a 

participant must: 

(i) Install and adopt additional 

conservation activities as scheduled in 

the conservation stewardship plan. At 

least one additional enhancement must 

be scheduled, installed, and adopted in 

the first fiscal year of the contract. All 

enhancements must be scheduled, 

installed, and adopted by the end of the 

third fiscal year of the contract, and 

(ii) As a minimum, maintain existing 

activities to the level of existing 

conservation performance identified at 

the time the application is obligated into 

a contract for the conservation 

stewardship contract period; 

(2) To earn annual payments for an 

eligible land use, a participant must 

schedule, install, and adopt at least one 

additional conservation activity on that 

land-use type. Eligible land-use types 

that fail to have at least one additional 

conservation activity scheduled, 

installed, and adopted will not receive 

annual payments; 

(3) A participant’s annual payments 

will be determined using the 

conservation performance estimated by 

the CMT and computed by land-use 

type for eligible land earning payments. 

Conservation performance is prorated 

over the contract term so as to 

accommodate, to the extent practicable, 

participants earning equal annual 

payments in each fiscal year; 

(4) The annual payment rates will be 

based to the maximum extent 

practicable, on the following factors: 

(i) Costs incurred by the participant 

associated with planning, design, 

materials, installation, labor, 

management, maintenance, or training, 

(ii) Income foregone by the 

participant, and 

(iii) Expected environmental benefits, 

determined by estimating conservation 

performance improvement using the 

CMT; 

(5) The annual payment method will 

accommodate some participant 

operational adjustments without the 

need for contract modification. 

(i) Enhancements may be replaced 

with similar enhancements without 

adjustment of annual payment as long 

as the conservation performance is 

determined by NRCS to be equal to or 

better than the conservation 

performance of the additional 

enhancements offered at enrollment. An 

enhancement replacement that results 

in a decline below that conservation 

performance level will not be allowed, 

and 

(ii) Adjustments to existing activities 

may occur consistent with conservation 

performance requirements from 

§ 1470.23; and 

(6) Enhancements may be applied on 

other land included in an agricultural 

operation, as determined by NRCS. 

(b) Supplemental payments. Subject 

to the availability of funds, NRCS will 

provide a supplemental payment to a 

participant receiving annual payments, 

who also agrees to adopt a resourceconserving crop rotation. 

(1) The State Conservationist will 

determine whether a resourceconserving crop rotation is eligible for 

supplemental payments based on 

whether the resource-conserving crop 

rotation is designed to provide natural 

resource conservation and production 

benefits; 

(2) A participant must agree to adopt 

and maintain a beneficial resourceconserving crop rotation for the term of 

the contract to be eligible to receive a 

supplemental payment. A resourceconserving crop rotation is considered 

adopted when the resource-conserving 

crop is planted on at least one-third of 

the rotation acres. The resourceconserving crop must be adopted by the 

third fiscal year of the contract and 

planted on all rotation acres by the fifth 

fiscal year of the contract; and 

(3) The supplemental payment is set 

at a rate needed to encourage a producer 

to adopt a resource-conserving crop 

rotation and will be based, to the 

maximum extent practicable, on costs 

incurred and income foregone by the 

participant and expected environmental 

benefits, determined by estimating 

conservation performance improvement 

using the CMT. 

(c) On-farm research and 

demonstration or pilot testing. A 

participant may be compensated 

through their annual payment for: 

(1) On-farm research and 

demonstration activities; or 

(2) Pilot testing of new technologies or 

innovative conservation activities. 

(d) Minimum contract payment. 

NRCS will make a minimum contract 

payment to participants who are 

socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers, beginning farmers or ranchers, 

or limited resource farmers or ranchers, 

at a rate determined by the Chief in any 

fiscal year that a contract’s payment 

amount total is less than $1,000. 

Definitions of socially disadvantaged 

farmers or ranchers, beginning farmers 

or ranchers, and limited resource 

farmers or ranchers are contained in 

§ 1470.3. 

(e) Timing of payments. NRCS will 

make payments as soon as practicable 

after October 1 of each fiscal year for 

activities carried out in the previous 

fiscal year. For newly enrolled 

contracts, payments will be made as 

soon as practicable after October 1 

following the fiscal year of enrollment. 

(f) Non-compensatory matters. A CSP 

payment to a participant will not be 

provided for: 

(1) New conservation practices or 

enhancements applied with financial 

assistance through other USDA 

conservation programs; 

(2) The design, construction, or 

maintenance of animal waste storage or 

treatment facilities, or associated waste 

transport or transfer devices for animal 

feeding operations; or 

(3) Conservation activities for which 

there is no cost incurred or income 

foregone by the participant. 

(g) Payment limits. A person or legal 

entity may not receive, directly or 

indirectly, payments that, in the 

aggregate, exceed $40,000 during any 

fiscal year for all CSP contracts entered 

into, and $200,000 for all CSP contracts 

entered into during any 5-year period, 

excluding funding arrangements with 

federally recognized Indian tribes or 

Alaska Native corporations, regardless 

of the number of contracts entered into 

under the CSP by the person or legal 

entity. 

(h) Contract limits. Payments under a 

conservation stewardship contract with 

joint operations will be limited to 

$80,000 per fiscal year and $400,000 

over the term of the initial contract 

period, excluding funding arrangements 

with federally recognized Indian tribes 

or Alaska Native corporations. The 

payment limits for contracts with 

persons or legal entities are contained in 

§ 1470.24(g). 

(i) Payment limitation provisions for 

individual Indians and Indian tribes. 

Payment limitations apply to individual 

tribal member(s) when applying and 

subsequently being granted a contract as 

an individual(s). Contracts with Indian 

tribes or Alaska Native corporations are 

not subject to payment or contract 

limitations. Indian tribes and BIA will 

certify in writing that no one individual, 

directly or indirectly, will receive more 

than the payment limitation. 

Certification provided at the time of 

contract obligation will cover the entire 

contract period. The tribal entity must 

also provide, upon request from NRCS, 

a listing of individuals and payment 

made, by Social Security number or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
31660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

other unique identification number, 

during the previous year for calculation 

of overall payment limitations. 

(j) Tax Identification Number. To be 

eligible to receive a CSP payment, all 

legal entities or persons applying, either 

alone or as part of a joint operation, 

must provide a tax identification 

number and percentage interest in the 

legal entity. In accordance with 7 CFR 

part 1400, an applicant applying as a 

joint operation or legal entity must 

provide a list of all members of the legal 

entity and joint operation and 

associated embedded entities, along 

with the members’ Social Security 

numbers and percentage of interest in 

the joint operation or legal entity. 

Payments will be directly attributed to 

legal entity members for the purpose of 

complying with § 1470.24(g). 

(k) Unique tax identification numbers. 

Where applicable, American Indians, 

Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders 

may use another unique identification 

number for each individual eligible for 

payment. Any participant that utilizes a 

unique identification number as an 

alternative to a tax identification 

number will utilize only that identifier 

for any and all other CSP contracts to 

which the participant is a party. 

Violators will be considered to have 

provided fraudulent representation and 

be subject to full penalties of § 1470.36. 

(l) Payment data. NRCS will maintain 

detailed and segmented data on CSP 

contracts and payments to allow for 

quantification of the amount of 

payments made for: 

(1) Installing and adopting additional 

activities; 

(2) Improving, maintaining, and 

managing existing activities; 

(3) Participation in research and 

demonstration or pilot projects; and 

(4) Development and periodic 

assessment and evaluation of 

conservation stewardship plans 

developed under this rule. 

§ 1470.25 Contract modifications and 

transfers of land. 

(a) NRCS may allow a participant to 

modify a conservation stewardship 

contract if NRCS determines that the 

modification is consistent with 

achieving the purposes of the program. 

(b) NRCS will allow modification to a 

conservation stewardship contract to 

remove contract acres enrolled in the 

CRP, WRP, or GRP or other Federal or 

State programs that offer greater natural 

resource protection. Such modifications 

are consistent with the purposes of CSP. 

Participants will not be subject to 

liquidated damages or refund of 

payments received for enrolling land in 

these programs. 

(c) NRCS will not allow a participant 

to modify a conservation stewardship 

contract to increase the contract 

obligation beyond the amount of the 

initial contract, with exception for 

contracts approved by NRCS for renewal 

or other exceptional cases as determined 

by the Chief. 

(d) Land under contract will be 

considered transferred if the participant 

loses control of the acreage for any 

reason. 

(1) The participant is responsible to 

notify NRCS prior to any voluntary or 

involuntary transfer of land under 

contract; 

(2) If all or part of the land under 

contract is transferred, the contract 

terminates with respect to the 

transferred land unless: 

(i) The transferee of the land provides 

written notice within 60 days to NRCS 

that all duties and rights under the 

contract have been transferred to, and 

assumed by, the transferee, and 

(ii) The transferee meets the eligibility 

requirements of the program; and 

(e) Contract payment adjustments due 

to modifications will be reflected in the 

fiscal year following the modification. 

§ 1470.26 Contract renewal. 

(a) At the end of an initial 

conservation stewardship contract, 

NRCS may allow a participant to renew 

the contract to receive payments for one 

additional 5-year period, subject to the 

availability of funds, if they meet 

criteria from paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) To be considered for contract 

renewal, the participant must: 

(1) Be in compliance with the terms 

of their initial contract as determined by 

NRCS; 

(2) Add any newly acquired eligible 

land that is part of the agricultural 

operation and meets minimum 

treatment criteria as established and 

determined by NRCS; 

(3) At a minimum, meet stewardship 

thresholds for at least two priority 

resource concerns; and 

(4) Agree to adopt additional 

conservation activities to address at 

least one additional priority resource 

concern during the term of the renewed 

conservation stewardship contract. 

§ 1470.27 Contract violations and 

termination. 

(a) The State Conservationist may 

terminate, or by mutual consent with 

the participants, terminate a contract 

where: 

(1) The participants are unable to 

comply with the terms of the contract as 

the result of conditions beyond their 

control; or 

(2) As determined by the State 

Conservationist, it is in the public 

interest. 

(b) If a contract is terminated in 

accordance with the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section, the State 

Conservationist may allow the 

participant to retain a portion of any 

payments received appropriate to the 

effort the participant has made to 

comply with the contract, or in cases of 

hardship, where forces beyond the 

participant’s control prevented 

compliance with the contract. If a 

participant claims hardship, such 

claims must be clearly documented and 

cannot have existed when the applicant 

applied for participation in the program. 

(c) If NRCS determines that a 

participant is in violation of the contract 

terms or documents incorporated 

therein, NRCS will give the participant 

a period of time, as determined by 

NRCS, to correct the violation and 

comply with the contract terms and 

attachments thereto. If a participant 

continues in violation, NRCS may 

terminate the CSP contract in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (c) of this section, a contract 

termination will be effective 

immediately upon a determination by 

NRCS that the participant: 

(1) Has submitted false information or 

filed a false claim; 

(2) Engaged in any act, scheme, or 

device for which a finding of 

ineligibility for payments is permitted 

under the provisions of § 1470.36; or 

(3) Engaged in actions that are 

deemed to be sufficiently purposeful or 

negligent to warrant a termination 

without delay. 

(e) If NRCS terminates a contract, the 

participant will forfeit all rights to 

future payments under the contract, pay 

liquidated damages, and refund all or 

part of the payments received, plus 

interest. Participants violating CSP 

contracts may be determined ineligible 

for future NRCS-administered 

conservation program funding. 

(1) NRCS may require a participant to 

provide only a partial refund of the 

payments received if a previously 

installed conservation activity has 

achieved the expected conservation 

performance improvement, is not 

adversely affected by the violation or 

the absence of other conservation 

activities that would have been installed 

under the contract, and has met the 

associated operation and maintenance 

requirement of the activity; and 

(2) NRCS will have the option to 

reduce or waive the liquidated damages, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31661 

depending upon the circumstances of 

the case— 

(i) When terminating a contract, NRCS 

may reduce the amount of money owed 

by the participant by a proportion that 

reflects the good faith effort of the 

participant to comply with the contract 

or the existence of hardships beyond the 

participant’s control that have 

prevented compliance with the contract. 

If a participant claims hardship, that 

claim must be well documented and 

cannot have existed when the applicant 

applied for participation in the program, 

and 

(ii) In carrying out its role in this 

section, NRCS may consult with the 

local conservation district. 

Subpart C—General Administration 

§ 1470.30 Fair treatment of tenants and 

sharecroppers. 

Payments received under this part 

must be divided in the manner specified 

in the applicable contract. NRCS will 

ensure that tenants and sharecroppers 

who would have an interest in acreage 

being offered receive treatment which 

NRCS deems to be equitable, as 

determined by the Chief. NRCS may 

refuse to enter into a contract when 

there is a disagreement among joint 

applicants seeking enrollment as to an 

applicant’s eligibility to participate in 

the contract as a tenant. 

§ 1470.31 Appeals. 

A participant may obtain 

administrative review of an adverse 

decision under this part in accordance 

with 7 CFR parts 11 and 614. 

Determinations in matters of general 

applicability, such as payment rates, 

payment limits, the designation of 

identified priority resource concerns, 

and eligible conservation activities are 

not subject to appeal. 

§ 1470.32 Compliance with regulatory 

measures. 

Participants will be responsible for 

obtaining the authorities, rights, 

easements, permits, or other approvals 

or legal compliance necessary for the 

implementation, operation, and 

maintenance associated with the 

conservation stewardship plan. 

Participants will be responsible for 

compliance with all laws and for all 

effects or actions resulting from the 

implementation of the contract. 

§ 1470.33 Access to agricultural operation. 

NRCS, or its authorized 

representative, will have the right to 

enter an agricultural operation for the 

purpose of determining eligibility and 

for ascertaining the accuracy of any 

representations, including natural 

resource information provided by an 

applicant for the purpose of evaluating 

a contract application. Access will 

include the right to provide technical 

assistance, determine eligibility, assess 

natural resource conditions, inspect any 

work undertaken under the contract, 

and collect information necessary to 

evaluate the implementation of 

conservation activities in the contract. 

NRCS, or its authorized representative, 

will make an effort to contact the 

participant prior to the exercise of this 

provision. 

§ 1470.34 Equitable relief. 

(a) If a participant relied upon the 

advice or action of NRCS and did not 

know, or have reason to know, that the 

action or advice was improper or 

erroneous, the participant may be 

eligible for equitable relief under 7 CFR 

part 635. The financial or technical 

liability for any action by a participant 

that was taken based on the advice of a 

TSP will remain with the TSP and will 

not be assumed by NRCS. 

(b) If a participant has been found in 

violation of a provision of the 

conservation stewardship contract or 

any document incorporated by reference 

through failure to comply fully with that 

provision, the participant may be 

eligible for equitable relief under 7 CFR 

part 635. 

§ 1470.35 Offsets and assignments. 

(a) Any payment or portion thereof 

due to any participant under this part 

will be allowed without regard to any 

claim or lien in favor of any creditor, 

except agencies of the United States 

Government. The regulations governing 

offsets and withholdings found at 7 CFR 

part 1403 will be applicable to contract 

payments. 

(b) Any participant entitled to any 

payment may assign such payments in 

accordance with regulations governing 

assignment of payment found at 7 CFR 

part 1404. 

§ 1470.36 Misrepresentation and scheme 

or device. 

(a) If NRCS determines that an 

applicant intentionally misrepresented 

any fact affecting a CSP determination, 

the application will be determined 

ineligible immediately. 

(b) A participant who is determined to 

have erroneously represented any fact 

affecting a program determination made 

in accordance with this part will not be 

entitled to contract payments and must 

refund to NRCS all payments, plus 

interest determined in accordance with 

7 CFR part 1403. 

(c) A participant will refund to NRCS 

all payments, plus interest determined 

in accordance with 7 CFR part 1403, 

received by such participant with 

respect to all CSP contracts if they are 

determined to have: 

(1) Adopted any scheme or device 

that tends to defeat the purpose of the 

program; 

(2) Made any fraudulent 

representation; 

(3) Adopted any scheme or device for 

the purpose of depriving any tenant or 

sharecropper of the payments to which 

such person would otherwise be 

entitled under the program; or 

(4) Misrepresented any fact affecting a 

program determination. 

(d) Participants determined to have 

committed actions identified in 

paragraph (c) of this section will: 

(1) Have their interest in all CSP 

contracts terminated; and 

(2) In accordance with § 1470.27(e), 

may be determined by NRCS to be 

ineligible for future NRCS-administered 

conservation program funding. 

§ 1470.37 Environmental credits for 

conservation improvements. 

NRCS believes that environmental 

benefits will be achieved by 

implementing conservation activities 

funded through CSP. These 

environmental benefits may result in 

opportunities for the program 

participant to sell environmental 

credits. Any requirements related to 

these environmental credits must be 

compatible with the purposes of the 

contract. NRCS asserts no direct or 

indirect interest on these credits. 

However, NRCS retains the authority to 

ensure that operation and maintenance 

(O&M) requirements for CSP-funded 

improvements are met, consistent with 

§ 1470.21 and § 1470.23. Where actions 

may impact the land and conservation 

activities under a CSP contract, NRCS 

will at the request of the participant, 

assist with the development of an O&M 

compatibility assessment prior to the 

participant entering into any credit 

agreement. 

Signed this 21st day of May in Washington, 

DC. 

Dave White, 

Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation and Chief, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12699 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3