U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access

Program

Prepared by USDA Business Center Environmental Activities Division and 

USDA Farm Service Agency

July 28, 2023
COVER SHEET

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

Agency (FSA) has proposed to fund grants and cooperative agreements

for projects that help move underserved producers from surviving to 

thriving through the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access 

(Increasing Land Access) Program. The Increasing Land Access Program

would increase access to farm ownership opportunities, increase access 

and improve results for those with heirs’ property or highly fractionated 

land, increase access to markets and capital that affect the ability to 

access land, and increase land ownership, land succession, and 

agricultural business planning. Section 1006 of the American Rescue 

Plan Act, as amended by Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act, 

included the provisions for USDA to ensure underserved producers have 

resources, tools, programs, and technical support they need to succeed.

Applications for funding were accepted from various government 

entities from local to Tribal, not-for-profit education institutions, and 

non-profit organizations (including Community Development Financial 

Institutions, foundations, and Tribal financial institutions with a 501c3 

status).

Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)

Lead Agency: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency 

(FSA)

Cooperating Agencies: None

Further Information: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist

541-699-3215

Land.Access@usda.gov

Comments: This PEA was prepared in accordance with USDA FSA National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures found in 7 

CFR Part 799, as well as the NEPA of 1969, Public Law 91-140, 42 US 

Code 4321-4347, as amended.

The FSA provided a public review and comment period for the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment from June 14, 2023 to July 14, 

2023.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose of and Need for Action .....................................................................................................8

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................8

1.1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................8

1.1.2 Program Administration.......................................................................................................9

1.1.3 Program Activities................................................................................................................9

1.2 NEPA Compliance..........................................................................................................................12

1.2.1 Purpose of Using a Programmatic Environmental Assessment.........................................12

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................................13

1.3.1 Purpose of the Action........................................................................................................13

1.3.2 The Need............................................................................................................................14

1.4 Decision To Be Made.....................................................................................................................14

1.5 Regulatory Compliance .................................................................................................................15

1.6 Public Involvement and Consultation ...........................................................................................15

1.7 Organization of PEA ......................................................................................................................16

2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives..........................................................................17

2.1 Alternative A - No Action Alternative............................................................................................17

2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative................................................................17

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts .......................................................................18

3.1 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis...............................................................................18

3.2 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis ..............................................................................21

3.2.1 Soils and Other Important Land Resources .......................................................................21

3.2.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ......................................................................23

3.2.3 Climate Change..................................................................................................................26

4. Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................................................29

4.1 Definition ......................................................................................................................................29

4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions.....................................................................29

4.3 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action ................................................................................30

4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................................31

5. Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations.................................................................32

5.1 Clean Water Act (CWA) .................................................................................................................32

5.2 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)........................................................................................32

5.3 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)...........................................................................................33
5.4 Endangered Species Act (ESA) ......................................................................................................33

5.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)..........................................................................................34

5.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).................................................................................................34

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

5.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)...............................................................................................35

5.9 Wilderness Act..............................................................................................................................35

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

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

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

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

6. Implementation ..........................................................................................................................38

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

6.2 Special Award Conditions and Conditional Approval of Specific Projects ....................................39

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

8. References ..................................................................................................................................42
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BMPs Best Management Practices

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

EA Environmental Assessment

ESW Environmental Screening Worksheet

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FSA Farm Service Agency

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

GHG Green House Gases

HUFR Historically Underserved Farmers and Ranchers

ILA Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program

IPaC Information Planning and Conservation

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OO Office of Outreach

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

THPO Tribal Historical Preservation Officer

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
APPENDICES

A. Preliminary Environmental Considerations Review

B. Environmental Screening Worksheet (FSA-850)

C. Notice of Availability

D. Supplemental Press Release

E. Public Comment Summary Table

F. Letter from National Young Farmers Coalition
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

This document is a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the Increasing Land, Capital, and 

Market Access Program (ILA), a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) Office of Outreach (OO). It describes the planned actions of the ILA and 

potential environmental impacts resulting from those actions. The ILA is proposing to undertake and 

fund activities to support a diverse set of farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and operators 

(producers) on the edge of viability, moving them from surviving to thriving as they address core barriers 

to attain land, capital, and market access. 

This PEA has been prepared to streamline the overall ILA NEPA review process. FSA anticipates using this 

PEA to guide decision-making for site-specific actions over the next five years. Each proposed grant or

cooperative agreement, and any associated site-specific actions, would be evaluated to determine if its 

potential environmental impacts have been addressed in this PEA. The review would be conducted by 

FSA OO staff as outlined in Chapter 6 under the description of the proposed action. 

1.1.1 Background

The ILA is authorized through Section 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) (Pub. L 117-

2), as amended by Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L 117-169)). Section 

1006(a), as amended, authorizes the establishment of assistance and support to farmers, ranchers, and 

forest landowners and focuses on addressing the needs of underserved producers through outreach, 

education, engagement, and technical assistance to increase land, credit, and market access. Section 

1006(b), as amended, also provides resources for grants to improve land access, including providing 

resources related to heirs’ property, highly fractionated land, and related land ownership and land access 

issues that impact access to USDA programs.

Through the funds provided by Section 1006 as amended, USDA will provide resources to entities by 

entering into cooperative agreements and/or grants to address land access issues that underserved 

producers face. Selected cooperative agreements and/or grants will ultimately focus on designing and/or 

deploying new programs or expanding successful existing models to address the three major barriers 

(land access, capital access, or market access), or a combination of those barriers, to producer and 

landowner success, resiliency, and viability. Selected cooperative agreements and/or grants will achieve,

but are not limited to, the following outcomes:

• Increased access to farm ownership opportunities; 

• Increased access and improved results for heirs’ property and highly fractionated land access; 

• Increased land ownership, land succession, and agricultural business planning; and

• Increased access to markets and capital that affect the ability to access land.

Selected entities will work collaboratively with USDA and with other Section 1006 cooperators to deliver 

targeted outreach and technical assistance programs designed to address and meet the needs of 

underserved agricultural producers. 
1.1.2 Program Administration

ILA will be administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) Office 

of Outreach (OO). The FSA OO published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NFO) requesting project 

proposals beginning August 24, 2022, through November 18, 2022. Project proposals submitted in 

response to the NFO were categorized into the following 4 funding tiers:

• Large, national land access tier: Proposals from $20,000,000 to $40,000,000 to include largescale national projects/models that are designed to increase land access for targeted producers 

across a national landscape. These projects must be for a five-year funding period. We anticipate 

funding up to two projects at this level.

• Mid-sized national land access tier: Proposals from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 to include 

large-scale national projects/models that are designed to increase land access for targeted 

producers across a national landscape. These projects must be for a five-year funding period.

• Regional land access tier: Proposal from $5,000,000 to $8,500,000 to include regional scaled 

projects/models designed to increase land access for targeted producers across a regional 

landscape. These projects may be for up to a five-year funding period.

• Local/State/Territorial land access tier: Proposals from $250,000 to $2,500,000 to include 

local/state targeted producers focused on increasing land access within one local area (substate/territory), one state, one territory or one Tribal landscape. These projects may be for up to 

a five-year funding period.

Ultimately, FSA OO received 164 project proposals with the following breakdown of applications:

Tier # of Proposals Received

Tier I: Large, national land access 10 

Tier II: Mid-sized national land access 4

Tier III: Regional land access 36

Tier IV: Local/State/Territorial land access 114

Table 1. Distribution of proposals received through ILA NFO. 

Following the initial internal review of proposals, FSA OO convened an external panel of reviewers who 

evaluated each proposal individually and later conferred on applications reviewed at a virtual summit in 

spring of 2023. At the conclusion of the virtual summit, the panel provided funding recommendations to 

FSA leadership. ILA staff then completed a preliminary environmental considerations review (Appendix 

A). These preliminary environmental consideration reviews were used to inform the description of 

program activities and the analysis of environmental consequences. While this PEA is informed by 

proposals received in response to the FY22 NFO, the analysis considers program-wide impacts to the 

human environment and considers a wide variety of activities that may be funded through ILA. 

1.1.3 Program Activities

Outreach & Education

Activities occurring under the outreach and education category are key to the success of projects 

performed under ILA. In many cases, the financial assistance being offered through ILA cooperative 

agreements and/or grants will be communicated to the public through outreach and education activities 
performed by the lead partner. The objective of these activities is to foster understanding and awareness 

of the various assistance opportunities available to underserved producers. Based on project proposals 

received, FSA anticipates that outreach and education activities occurring under ILA projects will include, 

but are not limited to, hosting educational workshops, website development, and content creation 

(flyers, handouts, etc.). These activities are anticipated to help the target audience identify the programs 

and services at USDA that are appropriate for their farming, ranching, or forest land operations. It is 

expected that partners will utilize these activities to inform needs assessments for future technical or 

financial assistance to be offered through the ILA project.

Minor indirect long-term benefits to the human environment are produced by promoting accurate 

information, fostering understanding of available programs (especially USDA conservation programs),

and encouraging new agricultural producers. The overall expected benefits of outreach and education

activities include improving the knowledge base for underserved producers, lowering barriers to access 

available resources, and facilitating the success of more underserved producers across the landscape. 

The activities as described here are not known to adversely impact the environment. They are primarily 

office-based in existing sites, involving no direct or indirect interactions with the biological or physical

environment or alterations to the built environment. When activities do take place outdoors, such as 

field demonstrations or outreach events at agricultural fairs, they will be informative in nature and will 

not involve ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and/or change in land use. 

As such, these actions have no potential for adverse impacts on the human environment, individually or

cumulatively, and meet the definition of a categorical exclusion in the CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. 1508.4). 

These categories of ILA program activities are consistent with categorical exclusions identified in USDA 

Departmental Regulations (7 CFR § 1b.3). 

Technical Assistance

Activities occurring under the technical assistance category will primarily be through developmental and 

educational opportunities in a variety of formats. The NFO for the ILA program requires that all project 

proposals include a technical assistance component, defined as “targeted services and support 

collectively designed to improve understanding of and equitable participation in the full range of USDA 

programs and services among underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners and operators 

through a range of activities.” These activities are anticipated to include but are not limited to:

developing strategies to identify unique needs and gaps in access, knowledge, and services; performing 

specialized consultation; developing viable business plans; training; coaching; capacity building; and 

mentoring focused on relevant topics that will improve effectively accessing land, capital, and markets.

Technical assistance may be delivered at the individual or organizational levels through one-on-one 

consultation, small group facilitation, or large group meetings in person or by phone, email, or other 

online methods. 

Minor indirect long-term benefits to the physical and human environment are produced by educating 

producers on innovative and sustainable agricultural techniques, increasing the utilization of USDA 

conservation programs by underserved producers, and providing technical support to existing producers 

to allow for agricultural lands to remain productive rather than being sold for the purpose of 

development. The overall expected benefits of technical assistance activities include improving the 

success rate of historically underserved producers in accessing critically needed USDA programs, 
facilitating peer learning within communities, and supporting new and existing agriculture throughout 

the U.S. The activities as described here are not known to adversely impact the environment. They are 

primarily office-based in existing sites, involving no direct or indirect interactions with the biological or 

physical environment or alterations to the built environment. When activities do take place outdoors, 

such as field demonstrations or site-specific farm planning, they will be informative in nature and will not 

involve ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and/or change in land use. 

As such, these actions have no potential for adverse impacts on the human environment, individually or 

cumulatively, and meet the definition of a categorical exclusion in the CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. 1508.4). 

These categories of ILA program activities are consistent with categorical exclusions identified in USDA 

Departmental Regulations (7 CFR § 1b.3). 

Land, Capital, and Market Access

Activities occurring under the land, capital, and market access category (hereinafter referred to as access 

activities) will primarily be in the form of providing financial assistance opportunities to underserved 

producers for the purpose of accessing land, capital, and markets. The primary focus of the ILA program 

is to strengthen land access with additional opportunities to focus on capital access and market access 

for use in agriculture. The ability to access capital and markets allows landowners and operators to retain 

access to their lands or seek new lands/expansion of existing operations. Access activities covered under 

this category are anticipated to include but are not limited to: land acquisition through purchases and/or 

long-term leases; establishment of demonstration farms; establishment of loan, revolving loan, grant 

and/or other programs to provide funding to target audience for a variety of purposes including down 

payments for land purchase, term financing for land purchase, incubator farms, equipment purchase, 

operating/startup expenses and other farming expenses; and creating markets or market access for 

target audience. 

Due to the nature of activities, it is expected that there may be localized minor impacts to the physical, 

biological, and human environment from financial resources being made available for the purpose of 

establishing new agricultural operations. With the establishment of new agricultural operations, or 

returning an existing operation to production, there is the potential for vegetation clearing, change of 

land use, and ground disturbance. These activities may impact protected resources at the site-specific 

level, and as such will be evaluated at the local level consistent with procedures described in Chapter 6. 

Further analysis in this PEA will be focused on the national and regional implications of making funding 

available for access activities under the ILA program.

Land, Capital, and Market Improvements

Activities occurring under the land, capital, and market improvement category (hereinafter referred to as

improvement activities) will primarily be in the form of providing financial assistance opportunities to 

underserved producers for the purpose of improving existing operation or lands made available through 

access activities described above. Improvement activities will provide the opportunity for landowners 

and operators to improve business stability, operational efficiency, and market access. Improvement

activities covered under this category are anticipated to include but are not limited to: construction 

and/or installation of buildings, irrigation systems, wash and pack facilities, marketing facilities; 

equipment purchase; expansion of existing incubator farms, demonstration farms, buildings, facilities; 
expansion of existing markets; and expansion of existing loan, revolving loan, grant and/or other 

programs to provide funding to target audience for a variety of purposes related to farming expenses.

Sustainable agricultural practices such as no-till residue management, cover crop, crop rotation and 

other regenerative agricultural practices may be eligible for financial assistance. 

Due to the nature of activities, it is expected that there may be localized minor impacts to the physical, 

biological, and human environment from financial resources being made available for the purpose of 

improving existing agricultural operations. Improvement activities will often involve construction, which 

is expected to result in associated vegetation clearing and ground disturbance. These activities may 

impact protected resources at the site-specific level, and as such will be evaluated at the local level 

consistent with procedures described in Chapter 6. Further analysis in this PEA will be focused on the 

national and regional implications of making funding available for access activities under the ILA 

program. 

1.2 NEPA Compliance

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

1969 to establish a national policy for the protection of the environment. It applies to Federal agency 

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

agency decision-makers to conduct a review to ensure consideration of potential environmental impacts 

through a systematic and interdisciplinary approach, including consideration of the natural and social 

sciences in planning, evaluation, and decision-making. Federal agencies are obligated to comply with 

NEPA regulations adopted by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 C.F.R. Parts 

1500-1508). These regulations outline the responsibilities of Federal agencies under NEPA and provide 

specific procedures for preparing environmental documentation to comply with NEPA. FSA’s NEPA 

Implementing Regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 799) describes FSA’s policies, requirements, and procedures for 

complying with NEPA and the implementing regulations (FSA, 2016).

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

three levels of NEPA analysis:

1) By preparing an environmental screening worksheet (EWS) to document that the activity 

qualifies for a categorical exclusion (CE);

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

Impact (FONSI); or

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

1.2.1 Purpose of Using a Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Generally, Federal agencies prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether an action 

would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (40 C.F.R. 1508.27). One of the 

overall goals is to provide decision makers and the public with information about the potential for 

impacts due to FSA’s proposed action before a final decision is made. Once this process is final, FSA has 

performed the necessary analysis to determine if the effects may be significant. If there is potential for 

significant impacts, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. If the impacts are not 

expected to be significant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared.
A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) would allow the ILA program more effectively address 

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

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

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

1. summarizing the current environmental situation;

2. describing the purpose and need for the activities;

3. identifying alternative actions; and

4. assessing the potential environmental impacts of all alternatives.

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

formal consideration of major Federal actions and analyses of potential impacts associated with 

alternatives to the action. Most NEPA documents focus on site-specific projects. However, by changing 

the scope of analysis, Federal agencies can assess potential impacts stemming from policies, programs, 

and plans. Such programmatic documents are inherently broader in scope, due to a wider geographic 

area of potential effect, and therefore, the potential to affect a larger portion of the U.S. population 

(Plater et al., 1992).

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

to the extent assessment of potential impact have already been addressed in the PEA. Programmatic 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

review could involve the preparation of an ESW documenting the applicability of a CE, a supplemental EA 

tiered from this PEA, a new EA, or an EIS. This PEA addresses NEPA compliance at the program level. 

Evaluation of project-specific impacts would be addressed during the planning and selection process for 

each project to ensure that any significant environmental issues are identified; that consultation among 

agencies, other area programs, and the public occurs; and that a decision may be made on whether an 

EA, EIS, or a CE determination is the appropriate level of analysis. This process is further documented in 

the implementation chapter below (see Chapter 6). 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.3.1 Purpose of the Action

The purpose of ILA and the proposed action are to meet the congressional mandate of Section 1006 of 

the ARPA to “provide grants and loans to eligible entities . . . to improve land access (including heirs’ 

property and fractionated land issues) for underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners.” The 

ILA supports local, state, and national partnerships with agencies, educational institutions, NGOs, and 
community groups focused on addressing core barriers to attain land, including capital and market 

access.

1.3.2 The Need

Land access is critical to the success of agriculture. Land access assistance is particularly important for 

underserved producers, either based on access to resources, geographic location, choice of crop or 

livestock production systems or because the producers are underserved in their access to programs and 

services. Across the agricultural sector, not all agricultural producers have been provided equal access to 

specialized technical support that would benefit the launch, growth, resilience, and success of their 

agricultural enterprises. These underserved producers—the target audiences of 1006 as amended — are 

more likely to operate lower-revenue farms and have weaker credit histories and may lack clear title to 

their agricultural land, which increases difficulty in securing loans to own or operate their businesses and 

to ensure the success and resiliency of their operations.

Stakeholder groups have reported, and data has shown, that many underserved producers and would-be 

producers have lower awareness of capital access options and lending requirements, which in turn limits 

land access. These producers are also less likely to have access to technical assistance to develop 

business plans or be in communities with specialized agricultural tax expertise, particularly beginning 

farmers and ranchers. Limited resource producers also often bear the greatest financial burden for 

accessing land for their operations and disproportionately suffer from heirs’ property and fractionated 

land title issues, which also negatively impact agriculture operations.

In addition, USDA has few programs directed at supporting specialty crop production, which is a 

predominant production system for many of these underserved producers, and existing livestock 

programs may not always be designed to focus on the needs of small, diversified farms and ranches. 

Common barriers experienced by these underserved producers include challenges with accessing 

Federal agricultural programs including communication about programs, problems with the application 

process, lack of standardization and transparency, limited knowledge on qualification requirements for 

all programs, lack of mentorship programs, reduced technical assistance, and complicated reporting 

requirements. 

Through the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILA), USDA seeks to address the 

limited support provided to these producers through cooperative agreements and grants, as 

complementary activities to existing loan programs. Priority will be awarded to proposals that focus on 

increasing land access, mitigating and preventing land loss, providing specialized project design and 

focus to address the challenges with land access, innovative ways to connect available land to 

underserved producers who have challenges in accessing land, or restore lands into the hands of those 

who have been underserved.

1.4 Decision To Be Made

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

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

Impact (FONSI) will be prepared and signed. Cooperative agreements and/or grants entered under ILA 

would be analyzed individually to determine the need for subsequent environmental reviews. 
1.5 Regulatory Compliance

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

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

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508); 7 CFR Part 799, FSA NEPA Implementing Regulations; 

the FSA 1-EQ Environmental Quality Programs Handbook, and FSA’s National Funding Opportunity for 

the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (FSA, 2022).

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

Federal decisions. The following non-exclusive list of higher-tier executive orders (EOs), acts, and relevant 

decision and guidance documents apply to actions undertaken by Federal agencies and form the basis of 

the analysis presented in this PEA:

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

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

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

• EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (35 Federal Register 

[FR] 4247, 1977)

• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low- Income Populations (59 FR 32, 1995)

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

106 process (54 USC 306108, 2014)

1.6 Public Involvement and Consultation

Scoping is an early and open process to involve agencies, organizations, and the public to determine the 

issues to be addressed in the environmental document. Among other tasks, scoping determines 

important issues and eliminates issues determined not to be important; identifies other permits, surveys 

and consultations required with other agencies; and creates a schedule that allows adequate time to 

prepare and distribute the environmental document for public review and comment before a final 

decision is made. Scoping is a process that seeks opinions and consultation from the interested public, 

affected parties, and any agency with interests or legal jurisdiction.

This document was made available for public review and comment from Wednesday, June 14, 2023 to 

Friday, July 14, 2023 through the FSA Environmental and Cultural Resources webpage and the FSA 

Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program webpage. A notice of the availability of the 

document was published in a stakeholder notification from the Secretary’s office on Wednesday, June 14

(Appendix C). An additional notification of availability to comment was included in a press release on 

June 22, 2023 announcing tentatively selected projects (Appendix D). 

Over 25 comments were received from both individuals and groups. Appendix E provides a summary of 

comments received, while Appendix F includes the letter received from the National Young Farmers 

Coalition. 
1.7 Organization of PEA

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

potentially affected environmental and economic resources.

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

Proposed Action, and identifies the scoping process for this PEA.

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

as those alternatives considered but not fully evaluated.

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

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

to result from the implementation of each alternative.

• Chapter 4 describes the cumulative impacts of the action. 

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

to proposed projects, as well as a description of compliance by the ILA.

• Chapter 6 outlines how the ILA would use this PEA for site-specific actions.

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

PEA.

• Chapter 8 includes the references utilized in this PEA’s preparation.
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives are evaluated in this PEA: The No Action Alternative (not preferred), and the Proposed 

Action Alternative (preferred). No potentially significant impacts to important resources were identified 

during scoping. Decisions about whether individual projects are technically and economically feasible, 

meet the ILA objectives, and resolve need are being considered as a part of the panel review. Further 

site-specific NEPA documentation will be developed as site-specific projects are ready for consideration.

2.1 Alternative A - No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, FSA would not undertake or fund cooperative agreements and/or 

grants for the purpose of expanding land access for historically underserved producers. Barriers to land 

and market access for underserved producers would continue to be unaddressed by USDA, resulting in 

the continued disproportionate lack of available resources for underserved producers. This alternative 

would further exacerbate difficulties the inequities experienced by underserved producers and does not 

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

which the impacts of the Preferred Alternative can be assessed.

2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative (Preferred)

The FSA OO’s Preferred Alternative is to undertake activities by awarding funds on a competitive basis 

(e.g., cooperative agreements, grants, etc.) to external entities to address one or more of the following 

categories of activities (described in more detail in Chapter 1):

1. Outreach and Education

2. Technical Assistance

3. Land, Capital, and Market Access

4. Land, Capital, and Market Improvements

Under this alternative, several activity types could be implemented under one project proposal or 

cooperative agreement or grant. For example, a project to address land access issues in a particular area 

could include deploying a year-long business development course for interested producers, assisting 

producers with land purchases, providing micro-grants for land improvements, developing educational 

materials, conducting community outreach, and organizing stakeholder meetings and workshops. The 

four categories are complementary in nature, and the Preferred Alternative would allow different 

entities to carry out work under each category. By supporting multiple partners from multidisciplinary 

fields of work, the Preferred Alternative promotes coordination of expertise that may not be readily 

available within FSA.
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

implementation of ILA, as well as the environmental consequences. 

This document is a programmatic EA; it evaluates the effects of implementing changes to a nationwide 

voluntary program. As such, the geographic scope of the program is both extensive and largely unknown

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

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

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

prior to the implementation of on-the-ground activities, such as access and improvement activities. This 

PEA and the following site-specific environmental review will provide the full NEPA coverage for activities 

under ILA. 

In compliance with NEPA, CEQ regulations, and FSA procedures for implementing NEPA, the description 

of the affected environment focuses on only those resources potentially subject to impacts and the level 

of analysis is commensurate with the anticipated level of impact. Applying the CEQ guidelines, the 

discussion of the affected environment and associated environmental impact analysis presented here 

focuses on Soils and Other Important Land Resources, Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, and 

Climate.

3.1 Resources Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

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

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

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

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

Part of the evaluation process for ILA will involve the completion of a site-specific Environmental 

Screening Worksheet (ESW) for access and improvement activities, as further discussed in Chapter 6. 

This evaluation process includes collecting and documenting the data, consultation and permitting 

needed for FSA to ensure compliance with NEPA, the NHPA, the ESA, and other related laws, regulations, 

and EOs. The site-specific ESW process follows guidance in FSA’s Handbook on Environmental Quality 

Programs for State and County Offices (1-EQ). Several resources can only be evaluated on a site-by-site

basis. For example, the ESW requires that FSA activities are evaluated for the potential for the presence 

of or proximity to wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, wilderness areas, etc. which can only be 

evaluated once project locations are known. Given that the proposals received in response to the ILA 

NFO did not include specific project locations, it is expected that the exact location for access and 

improvement activities will be available for further site-specific analysis following partner-led outreach 

activities. Once the partners identify a specific location for desired access and improvement activities, 

additional tiered analysis will be performed. As such, the following resource areas have been eliminated 

from detailed analysis in this PEA: Water Quality, Vegetation and Wildlife, Cultural Resources, Coastal 

Barriers, Coastal Zone Management Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 

Wilderness Areas, National Natural Landmarks, Floodplains and Wetlands.
Water Quality. This PEA does not address specific locations where access and improvement activities 

under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to water quality are not analyzed here. As with all access and 

improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted prior to approval of 

any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected partners have identified those specific 

locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the purpose of the ILA. 

Outreach and education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected to result in any 

impacts to water quality, as all activities under these categories would not involve discharge to surface or 

ground waters and therefore would not have the potential to adversely impact water quality. The sitespecific review process for ILA activities that may impact water quality (access and improvement) 

protected under the Clean Water Act is discussed in further detail in Section 5.1.

Vegetation and Wildlife. This PEA does not address specific locations where access and improvement 

activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to vegetation and wildlife are not analyzed here. As 

with all access and improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted 

prior to approval of any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected partners have 

identified those specific locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the 

purpose of the ILA. Outreach and education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected 

to result in any impacts to vegetation and wildlife, as all activities under these categories will be 

performed without permanent alterations to the environment or potential habitat for at-risk species. 

The site-specific review process for ILA activities that may impact species or their critical habitat (access 

and improvement) listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is discussed 

in further detail in Section 5.4 and 5.6, respectively.

Cultural Resources. This PEA does not address specific locations where access and improvement 

activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to cultural resources are not analyzed here. As with all 

access and improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted prior to 

approval of any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected partners have identified 

those specific locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the purpose of

the ILA. The likely impact of ILA access and improvement activities on cultural resources would not be 

greater than expected for normal agricultural production, as the program simply increases access to

normal agricultural production for historically underserved producers. In some cases, land that was 

previously in pasture or forest may be broken out into row crops. In these situations, consultation with 

the appropriate SHPO, THPOs, and Tribes would be performed before any action is undertaken. Outreach 

and education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected to result in any impacts to 

cultural resources, as all activities under these categories would not result in ground disturbance or 

permanent alterations to historic structure. The site-specific review process for ILA activities that may 

impact cultural or historic resources (access and improvement) listed under National Historic 

Preservation Act is discussed in further detail in Section 5.7.

Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zones. This PEA does not address specific locations where access and 

improvement activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to coastal barrier and coastal zones are 

not analyzed here. As with all access and improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW 

would be conducted prior to approval of any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected 

partners have identified those specific locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that 

align with the purpose of the ILA. Access or improvement projects that are anticipated to occur in a 

coastal barrier system unit will not be funded and alternative locations will be identified. Outreach and 
education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected to result in any impacts to coastal 

zones or coastal barriers, as all activities under these categories would not result in permanent 

structures or other development that impedes the ecological services provided by coastal ecosystems.

Additionally, technical assistance provided in coastal areas will emphasize the importance of 

environmental stewardship to reduce non-point source runoff into coastal ecosystems. The site-specific 

review process for ILA activities that may impact protected coastal areas (access and improvement) 

listed under the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Barrier System Act is discussed in further 

detail in Section 5.2 and 5.3, respectively.

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory. This PEA does not address specific locations 

where access and improvement activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers or rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory are not analyzed here. As with all access 

and improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted prior to approval 

of any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected partners have identified those specific 

locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the purpose of the ILA. 

Outreach and education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected to result in any 

impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers or rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, as all activities 

under these categories would not result in permanent structures or other development that would 

impact the scenic nature of these rivers. The site-specific review process for ILA activities that may 

impact designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (access and 

improvement) listed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is discussed in further detail in Section 5.8.

Wilderness Areas and National Natural Landmarks. This PEA does not address specific locations where 

access and improvement activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to designated wilderness 

areas and national natural landmarks are not analyzed here. As with all access and improvement 

activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted prior to approval of any site-specific 

access or improvement activities once selected partners have identified those specific locations that 

have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the purpose of the ILA. Most lands 

expected to be selected for ILA funding are privately owned; therefore, there is limited potential for 

impacts to National Natural Landmarks, Federal Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National or State 

Parks, or Federal or State Wildlife Refuges. The site-specific review process for ILA activities that may 

impact designated wilderness areas or national natural landmarks (access and improvement) listed 

under the Wilderness Act is discussed in further detail in Section 5.9.

Floodplains and Wetlands. This PEA does not address specific locations where access and improvement 

activities under ILA will occur; therefore, impacts to floodplains and wetlands are not analyzed here. As 

with all access and improvement activities undertaken by ILA, a site-specific ESW would be conducted 

prior to approval of any site-specific access or improvement activities once selected partners have 

identified those specific locations that have been determined to be feasible locations that align with the 

purpose of the ILA. Outreach and education or technical assistance activities under ILA are not expected 

to result in any impacts to floodplains or wetlands, as all activities under these categories would not 

involve permanent construction activities and therefore would not have the potential to adversely 

impact or otherwise degrade the floodplain or wetlands. The site-specific review process for ILA 

activities that may impact floodplains (access and improvement) protected under Executive Order 11998

or wetlands protected under Executive Order 11990 is discussed in further detail in Section 5.11 and 

Section 5.10, respectively.
3.2 Resources Considered with Detailed Analysis

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

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

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

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

resource uses in the project area.

3.2.1 Soils and Other Important Land Resources

Definition of Resource

Soil is composed of minerals and organic matter formed from the weathering of bedrock and other 

parent materials, as well as decaying plant matter. Soils are described and classified in terms of their 

properties including color, texture, particle size, moisture, and chemistry. The national system of soil 

classification identifies sets of soil properties and groups them into 12 taxonomic orders, which are 

further divided into groups, families, and series (NRCS, 2019). Further, the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

(FPPA) identifies prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance to be 

protected from conversion to non-agricultural uses. The FPPA defines prime farmland as land that has 

the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics and unique farmland as land other than 

prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food and fiber crops.

Affected Environment

Soil functions include regulating water, sustaining plant and animal life, filtering pollutants, cycling 

nutrients, and supporting buildings and structures. Conventional agricultural practices can pose a threat 

to the ability for soil to provide these ecosystem services. Practices such as mechanical tilling, intensive

pesticide application, and the use of inorganic fertilizers have been known to contribute to erosion, loss 

of biodiversity within the topsoil, and decline in organic matter. Conventional agricultural practices can 

often result in soil degradation over time due to inadequate and imbalanced nutrient management (Yang 

et al., 2020). Alternatively, conservation-minded agricultural practices such as cover crop, crop rotation, 

and no-till management can result in improved soil health conditions that retain the natural ecosystem 

services provided by healthy soils (Alori et al., 2020). 

The 2017 Agricultural Census found that between 2012 and 2017, the number of farms utilizing intensive 

tillage techniques has declined by 35% (Figure 1). Further, at the same time there was an increase in the 

number of farms planting cover crops by 15%. The positive trend towards more conservation practices 

being applied across the landscape is also supported by the recent findings of NRCS’ 2022 CEAP report 

“Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland.” NRCS found that since the initial CEAP survey 

conducted between 2003 and 2006, farmers were increasingly integrating conservation management 

techniques and structural treatments in a systems approach to improve results on their operations. By 

CEAP II, the combined practices had increased by 66 percent and were in place on over 107 million acres,

or 34 percent of all cultivated cropland. 
Figure 1. Changes in tillage methods between 2012 and 2017 (NASS, 2017). 

In the U.S., the amount of land that has been used as cropland has remained relatively consistent with 

only 4,778 km2 of growth between 2001 and 2016 based on the National Land Cover Database (Homer 

et al., 2020). Based on further spatial analysis, a study found in that time, nearly 11 million acres of 

farmland and ranchland were converted to either urban and highly developed land use or low-density 

residential land use. Of the 11 million acres converted, 4.4 million acres of land that is best suited for

long-term cultivation and food production were converted and removed from agriculture (Freedgood, 

2020). As agricultural acres are taken out of production in favor of more developed land uses, protected 

land resources, such as prime and unique farmland, are expected to decline over time. 

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, USDA would not make funds available under the ILA program for land, 

market, and capital access assistance to underserved producers. Without targeted assistance to increase 

land access, it is expected that land will continue to transition from agriculture to more developed land 

uses as land ownership changes. Nearly 34% of producers are over the age of 65, which will likely result 

in nearly 370 million acres of farmland transferred to new ownership in the near future (NAAS, 2017).

Based on the current trajectory of land use patterns and transfer of ownership trends, it is expected that 

18.4 million acres of farmland and ranchland would be lost or compromised by conversion to more 

developed land uses with smaller operations being disproportionately impacted (Hunter et al., 2022). 

Without the introduction of comprehensive programs that are designed to address land access and 

affordability for new producers, such as the ILA program, minor long-term adverse impacts to the 

conservation of prime and unique farmland are expected. Further, as agricultural producers continue to 

implement more sustainable farming techniques it is anticipated that soil health across the landscape 

will experience long-term negligible beneficial impacts. 

Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, USDA would make funds available through the Increasing Land, 

Capital, and Market Access Program. It is expected that the successful implementation of ILA projects 

will result in both short-term and long-term minor beneficial impacts for other protected land resources, 
such as prime and unique farmland. Short-term benefits are expected to be realized at the local level as 

farmland or rangeland that is transferring owners will have the opportunity to remain in agriculture with 

assistance provided through ILA. As some ILA projects will result in long-term funding mechanisms for 

land and market access, it is expected that there will be long-term minor beneficial impacts to these 

resources as well. 

While ILA will provide beneficial impacts for the short- and long-term preservation of important 

agricultural land resources, it is expected that the land that is targeted for ILA funding may currently be 

abandoned, out of active production, or a change in land use from undeveloped land to agricultural land. 

In these cases, the implementation of ILA will likely result in short-term adverse impacts to soil quality as 

more intensive agricultural practices will be required to ensure long-term viable and productive land. 

Over time, it is expected that these short-term adverse impacts will be minimized as producers begin to 

adopt sustainable conservation practices.

In instances where financial assistance is provided to support sustainable agricultural practices, longterm localized beneficial impacts to soil health are expected. In 2022 the National Young Farmers 

Coalition surveyed over 10,000 farmers and ranchers across the country and found that 86 percent of 

young farmers identify the practices they use on their farm or ranch as regenerative, and 97 percent 

identify their practices as sustainable. The majority of young farmer respondents (83 percent) stated that 

“one of their farm’s primary purposes for existing is engaging in conservation or regeneration.” That 

number is 87% for young Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers (National Young 

Farmers Coalition, 2022). Given the target population for the ILA program, we expect that use of more 

sustainable and regenerative farming techniques will lessen any short-term adverse impacts resulting 

from bringing new or retired land into active agricultural production. 

Further, the ILA program will include technical assistance for producers to seek additional funding 

opportunities from USDA agencies, such as NRCS and FSA conservation programs. As such, FSA 

anticipates that the long-term benefits of the ILA program for soil quality and other protected land 

resources will outweigh the short-term negative impacts associated with new farming operations. 

3.2.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Definition of Resource

This socioeconomic and environmental justice analysis evaluates how the conditions of a community or 

Region of Influence would be affected by the implementation of ILA in the rate of population growth, 

changes in the demographic characteristics, and changes in employment in the agricultural sector.

Additionally, the analysis considers how the ILA program will impact communities effected by 

environmental justice concerns. Environmental justice is defined by the EPA as “the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to 

the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” 

Affected Environment

A 1997 USDA report stated, “minority farmers have lost significant amounts of land and potential farm 

income as a result of discrimination by FSA programs and the programs of its predecessor agencies” 

(USDA, 1997). Between 1990 and 2010, USDA settled multiple lawsuits alleging that USDA discriminated 
against farmers based on race or national origin. These include lawsuits brought by Black farmers 

(Pigford v. Glickman and In re Black Farmers); Native American farmers (Keepseagle v. Vilsack), and 

Latino farmers (Garcia v. Vilsack) (CRS, 2021). Table 2 illustrates the long-term disproportionate 

availability of government assistance for limited resource producers. 

Not limited 

resource 

Limited resource 

farms All farms

Farms receiving government 

payments (number)

577,114 35,987 613,101

Average government payment (all 

farms) 

4,720 1,190 4,469

Average government payment (dollars 

per payment farms) 

15,403 4,754 14,778

Percent of all payments 98.1% 1.9% 100%

Table 2. Producers receiving government payments in 2016 (ERS, 2019). 

The ERS defines limited resource farmers as “farm households ... having low farm sales and low 

household income for 2 years in a row.” About 7 percent of principal operator farm households were 

classified as being in the limited-resource classification in 2016. Limited resource farms on average are 

smaller than other farms (having an average of 209 acres versus 411 acres). Principal operators of limited 

resource farms are also older (average principal operator age was 65 versus 59 for other farms) and 

more often indicated they were not in the paid workforce, suggesting they may be retired. On average, 

limited resource farms lost money farming on a cash basis (losing $11,890) compared to positive farm 

income for non-limited resource farms ($27,527).

While FSA has made significant progress towards more equitable services and lowering barriers to access 

existing programs, the long-term impacts of past policies have resulted in lower participation in FSA 

programs by underserved producers and therefore has contributed to overall the disproportionately 

small representation of minority producers when compared to the overall U.S. population, as shown in 

Table 3.

Race # of Producers % of Total Producers % of U.S. Population

American Indian or Alaska 

Native

58,199 1.71% 1.12%

Asian 22,016 0.65% 6%

Black or African American 45,508 1.34% 12.4%

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander

3,018 0.09% 0.21%

More than One Race 

Reported

26,749 0.78% 10.21%

White 3,244,344 95.43% 61.63%

Table 3. Producer demographics data from the 2017 Ag Census (NASS, 2017) compared to 2020 

Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Note: 112,451 producers (3.3%) were of Hispanic, Latino, 

or Spanish origin in the 2017 Ag Census. Additionally, 8.42% of the population was identified as “some 

other race alone” in the 2020 Decennial Census. 
Additionally, between 2014 and 2019 the USDA Economic Research Service estimated only 2.3% (21 

million acres) of farmland was expected to be available for purchase through the competitive market.

Given underserved producers’ limited farming experience or financial resources, the small amount of 

viable farmland that becomes available for purchase has created a long-term disproportionate barrier for 

minority and low-income producers to enter the agricultural industry.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, USDA would not make funds available under the ILA program for land, 

market, and capital access assistance to underserved producers. Without targeted assistance to 

underserved producers through ILA, underserved producers will continue to rely on existing programs 

such as direct ownership loans through FSA. While existing FSA programs are working towards more 

equitable delivery, these programs cannot address issues such as lack of awareness of available 

programs. A recent study done in Ohio found that 62% of survey respondents had never applied for a 

farm loan through FSA and that of those respondents, a majority were entirely unaware of USDA farm 

loan programs (Bashir et al., 2020).

Without the introduction of comprehensive programs that are targeted to underserved producers, such 

as the ILA program, long-term adverse impacts to historically underserved producers are expected. 

These impacts include the continued lack of diverse representation throughout the agricultural sector

and the disproportionately small amount of government assistance to limited resource producers due to 

lack of awareness. 

Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, USDA would make funds available through the Increasing Land, 

Capital, and Market Access Program. Individuals that are the ultimate beneficiaries of the program 

investments and accompanying technical assistance must be underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest 

landowners, including women, minorities, Tribes, low-income, veterans, limited resources producers, 

beginning farmers and ranchers, and/or farmers, ranchers and forest landowners living in high poverty 

areas. Further, priority points will be awarded to projects that focus on increasing land access, mitigating 

and preventing land loss, providing specialized project design and focus to address the challenges with 

land access, innovative ways to connect available land to underserved producers who have challenges in 

accessing land, or restore lands into the hands of those who have been underserved.

It is expected that the successful implementation of ILA projects will result in both short-term and longterm beneficial impacts for low-income and minority individuals and populations. Short-term benefits 

are expected to at the individual-level, where underserved producers will receive targeted outreach, 

direct technical assistance that helps meet their operational goals, and financial assistance. Additional 

benefits to underserved producers are expected at the regional and national level for ILA projects funded 

under Tier I and Tier II, as those projects have national and regional scope. Through these projects 

underserved producers, at large, will have resources more readily available for the purpose of beginning 

or operating an agricultural operation. The long-term benefit of these additional resources will be 

improved access to land, capital, and markets for historically underserved producers. 
3.2.3 Climate Change

Definition of Resource

According to the EPA, “climate change refers to significant changes in average climatic conditions—such 

as temperature, precipitation, wind patterns—that occur over years, decades, centuries, or longer. 

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

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

add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere like burning fossil fuels for energy” (EPA, 2022). 

Affected Environment

Climate change presents real threats to U.S. agricultural production, forest resources, and rural 

economies. These challenges are complex as agriculture generates 10% of GHG emissions in the U.S. 

(Figure 2) through sources such the operation of internal combustion engines, enteric fermentation by 

livestock, agricultural soil management, manure management, field burning, and other practices. 

Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). However, land use, land-use change, and forestry in the U.S. are together 

a net sink and remove approximately 12% of GHG emissions through carbon sequestration (EPA, 2023).

Carbon sequestration can mitigate GHG emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it 

in plant matter and soils. Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric CO2 is taken up by 

trees, grasses, and other plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass and soils. There 

are substantial implications for farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. 

Figure 2. Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2021.

Land managers across the country are already feeling the pressures of a changing climate and its effects 

on weather. As these risks continue and amplify, producers will be faced with the challenges of adapting. 

Nearly a third of census tracts throughout the United States are disadvantaged due to disproportionate 

burdens associated with climate change, energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water 
and wastewater, and workforce development (The White House, 2022). Of those 27,251 communities 

identified as disadvantaged, 8,254 of those communities have an expected agricultural loss rate of 50% 

or greater due to increasing natural disasters (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Disadvantaged census tracts with an expected annual loss rate for agriculture of 50% or greater. 

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, USDA would not make funds available under the ILA program for land, 

market, and capital access assistance to underserved producers. Without targeted assistance to increase 

land access, agricultural producers will likely continue to access existing loan programs to purchase 

operations as the aging producer demographic retires. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be 

less resources available for potential producers to purchase existing operations. As a result, it is expected 

that more land would continue to transition from agriculture to more developed land uses as land values 

continue to increase, especially in more densely populated and urban areas. When agricultural lands 

transition to housing or other commercial uses it has been found that emissions from that piece of land 

may be 58-70 times greater than if it had remained in farming (AFT, 2018). Further, as impermeable 

surfaces increase, particularly around urban areas, there is a potential for slight increases in 

temperatures for those densely populated areas. 

Without the introduction of comprehensive programs that are designed to address land access and 

affordability for new producers, such as the ILA program, minor long-term adverse impacts to climate 

change conditions are expected, especially in urban and suburban environments where agricultural land 

becomes available for purchase. These impacts will likely compound with environmental justice concerns 

to result in continued disproportionate climate related impacts on underserved communities.

Proposed Action Alternative
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, USDA would make funds available through the Increasing Land, 

Capital, and Market Access Program. It is expected that the successful implementation of ILA projects 

will ultimately result in negligible impacts to overall climate trends. There is expected to be both shortterm minor adverse impacts to and the potential for long-term minor beneficial impacts relating to 

greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration. Short-term adverse impacts are expected to occur 

where ILA funds will be used to purchase an existing operation or otherwise undeveloped land that has 

not been in active agricultural production. This will likely result in reduced carbon sequestration benefits 

as land becomes actively managed, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions through soil management 

activities. Alternatively, there will likely be minor long-term beneficial impact at the national scale as a 

proportion of agricultural land that will change ownership will benefit from the assistance available 

through ILA and as a result stay in agriculture rather than transition to housing or commercial use.

Further, the ILA program will include technical assistance for producers to seek additional funding 

opportunities from USDA agencies, such as NRCS and FSA conservation programs. As such, FSA 

anticipates that the long-term benefits of the ILA program relating to climate change will outweigh the 

short-term negative impacts associated with new farming operations.
4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 Definition 

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

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

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other 

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

other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar period. An action which overlaps

with or is in proximity to other proposed actions would be expected to have more potential for a 

cumulative effect on the same resources than actions that are more geographically separated. Similarly, 

actions that coincide, even partially, in time tend to have potential for cumulative effects.

4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The affected environment for this cumulative impact analysis includes the lands within the U.S. and its 

territories eligible for assistance through ILA, and those agricultural lands that become available for 

transfer of ownership during the lifespan of the program. 

There are other agricultural programs that help to make land, capital, and market available to producers. 

A brief overview of the relevant Federal programs is provided below. Other programs could be used on 

the same or adjacent agricultural and forestry lands and, therefore, may result in overlapping cumulative 

effects. Some USDA programs that may potentially contribute to beneficial cumulative effects are:

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) is a voluntary easement program comprised of 

an agricultural land easement (ALE) component on farms and ranches that protects them from 

development and a wetland reserve easement component (WRE) for restoring and protecting wetlands 

that have previously been impacted by agricultural practices. The 2014 Farm Bill created the ACEP by 

merging the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grassland Reserve Program, and the 

Wetlands Reserve Program, each of which was in effect during the period of the 2008 Farm Bill.

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays producers to establish vegetative cover on 

environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pastureland. The intent of the program is to 

temporarily retire from production croplands and other lands that also contribute considerable amounts 

of pollutants to surface waters when used for agricultural production or provide important wildlife 

benefits if idled with appropriate vegetative cover, or both. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides financial and technical assistance to 

landowners and operators to voluntarily address resource concerns on working agricultural and forestry 

lands through the installation or implementation of structural and management practices. Payments 

representing up to 75 percent of the average incurred costs and income foregone of certain conservation 

practices and activities are provided. 
Farm Loan Programs

Farm Loan Programs (FLP) provides direct and guaranteed loans to help farmers and ranchers get the 

financing they need to start, expand or maintain a family farm. Farm ownership, operating, and 

conservation loans are available under the Guaranteed Loan Program, while farm ownership, operating, 

and emergency loans are available under the Direct Loan Program. In addition, FSA provides funding to 

intermediary lenders for the Highly Fractionated Indian Land Loan Program.

Heirs Property Relending Program 

The Heirs' Property Relending Program (HPRP) provides funds to eligible entities to relend with the 

purpose of assisting heirs to resolve ownership and succession issues on farmland with multiple owners. 

Once USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) selects lenders, heirs can apply directly to those lenders for 

loans and assistance. HPRP is a loan program and loans to intermediaries will need to be repaid as 

directed by the 2018 Farm Bill.

Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities

Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) provides grants for pilot projects that create market 

opportunities for U.S. agricultural and forest products produced using climate-smart practices and 

include innovative, cost-effective methods for quantification, monitoring and verification of greenhouse 

gas and carbon sequestration benefits. USDA will support the production and marketing of climate-smart 

commodities through a set of pilot projects that provide voluntary incentives through partners to 

producers and landowners to implement climate-smart production practices, activities, and systems on 

working lands; measure/quantify, monitor, and verify the carbon GHG benefits associated with those

practices; and develop markets and promote the resulting climate-smart commodities.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) encourages partners to join in efforts with 

producers to increase the restoration and sustainable use of soil, water, wildlife, and related natural 

resources on regional or watershed scales. Through the program, NRCS and its partners help producers 

install and maintain conservation activities in selected project areas. Partners leverage RCPP funding in 

project areas and report on the benefits achieved. 

4.3 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action

The cumulative total of environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Increasing Land, 

Capital, and Market Access Program is difficult to measure and varies depending upon the location and 

timing of application of activities across the landscape. Overall, ILA is not anticipated to have a 

cumulative positive or negative impact to the environment, as the relative extent of activities is 

negligible compared to the agricultural industry as a whole. The program anticipates making nearly $300 

million available, which is only approximately 3% of the total funds available for fiscal year 2023 through 

the various FSA farm loan programs. Income stability from agricultural or forest production, community 

economic returns, and often human health and safety are expected to improve on a cumulative level 

when funds are made available for increasing land, capital, and market access across the landscape.
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

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

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

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

that the use of these resources has on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the 

use or destruction of a specific resource that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. 

Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be 

restored because of the action. The implementation of ILA would result in no irreversible or irretrievable 

resource commitments.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

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

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

Consultation, permits, authorities, and actions relative to water quality, endangered, threatened, and 

protected species, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, and wetland protections are 

described in Chapter 5 below, and would be required as applicable. 

5.1 Clean Water Act

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

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Pursuant to this goal, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States 

(WOTUS) under Section 404 of the CWA, which includes adjacent wetlands. Work and structures located 

in, or that affect, WOTUS, including work below the ordinary high-water mark in non-tidal waters, also 

are regulated by USACE and require permits.

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

sets forth conditions and permitting requirements for point source discharges into WOTUS, including 

wetlands. In most cases, EPA has delegated NPDES authority to the States and Tribes. Point sources of 

pollution are primarily defined as direct discharges into surface waters from pipes, ditches, and channels, 

but also include CAFO’s and construction sites. Nonpoint sources of pollution, such as runoff from an 

agricultural field, are defined as an exclusion to the NPDES program under CWA and are not considered a 

point source of pollution according to CWA.

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

the states and Tribes. Section 319 of the CWA requires states and Tribes to identify waters impaired by 

non-point source pollution and adopt a management program. States and Tribes are also required to 

establish water quality standards under Section 303(d) of the CWA and allowable Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs) that meet water quality standards. Section 401 of the CWA requires states to certify that 

Federal permits, such as Section 404 CWA permits issued by USACE, are not in violation of any state 

water quality standards. . 

Site-specific access or improvement activities performed under ILA may require consultation with the 

USACE and a Section 404 permit or require a Section 402 NPDES permit from the state or Tribal authority 

and undergo an extra level of regulatory review. Additionally, the ILA may provide funds in some cases 

that allow for the establishment or expansion of CAFOs. In situations where this will occur, a Nutrient 

Management Plan (NMP) will be required alongside an NPDES permit from the state or Tribal permitting 

authority. Each project will be evaluated for compliance with the CWA and incorporate the information 

into the NEPA compliance documentation and decision-making. 

5.2 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

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

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

natural resources for their benefit and the benefit of the Nation. The CZMA Federal consistency provision 
(16 U.S.C. § 1456 and 15 C.F.R. part 930) provides states with an important tool to manage coastal uses 

and resources and to facilitate cooperation and coordination with Federal agencies. Under the CZMA, 

Federal agency activities that have coastal effects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable 

with federally approved enforceable policies of a state’s NOAA-approved coastal management program. 

In addition, the CZMA requires non-federal applicants for federal authorizations and funding to be 

consistent with enforceable policies of state coastal management programs.

Site-specific activities performed under ILA may require a federal consistency review for activities taking 

place within a state-designated coastal zone management area. Each project will be evaluated for 

consistency with the CZMA, and additional regulatory review will be performed on a case-by-case basis. 

As Florida has designated all counties within the CZMA, it is expected that any ILA projects providing 

funding for access or improvement activities that will occur, wholly or in-part, in Florida will require a 

federal consistency review through the Florida State Clearinghouse.

5.3 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)

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

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

funding and financial assistance within designated System Units. The CBRS includes 588 System Units, 

which comprise nearly 1.4 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. There are also 282 

“Otherwise Protected Areas,” a category of coastal barriers that are mostly held for conservation and/or 

recreation purposes that include an additional 2.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat.

Section 6 of the CBRA permits certain federal expenditures and financial assistance within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS), but only after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

It is not anticipated that any available exceptions under Section 6 of CBRA would apply to ILA projects. 

Therefore, FSA will not provide funding under the ILA to undertake access or improvement activities 

within System Units designated under the CBRA. 

5.4 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Section 9 of the ESA, as amended, and federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit 

the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption such as by a 

permit.

Section 7 requires Federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by 

carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Agencies are further 

required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat for such species. If FSA proposes to fund or undertake an action that may affect 

ESA-listed species, it must initiate a Section 7 consultation with the Department of the Interior (US Fish 

and Wildlife Service – FWS) or Commerce (NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS). Regulations 

specify the procedural requirements for these consultations (50 Part C.F.R. 402). Federal agencies must 

determine whether their proposed actions will have no effect on threatened and endangered species or 

whether informal or formal consultations is required with the FWS or NMFS. Informal consultation 

requires that the action agency prepare a Biological Assessment for concurrence by the FWS or NMFS.
A formal section 7 consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the NMFS or FWS. If 

unintentional but not unexpected take of ESA-listed species may result from the MDP action, and it is 

determined that the take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, the Biological 

Opinion may include an incidental take statement. The incidental take statement specifies the amount or 

extent of anticipated take that is allowable due to the Federal action. It also outlines reasonable and 

prudent measures to minimize the take, and terms and conditions that must be observed when 

implementing those measures.

FSA has not made any effects determinations or initiated informal or formal consultation with NMFS or 

the FWS on the Proposed Action in this PEA. It is impractical to predict which listed species may be 

affected, or the way they may be affected, until site-specific actions are known. The action area for the 

PEA is too broad, and the geographic and temporal parameters of actions that may affect listed species is 

too speculative, to enable meaningful consultations. Therefore, consultations would be initiated at the 

earliest planning stage for site-specific actions when FSA determines the action may affect listed species.

5.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)

The FPPA, implemented by NRCS, aims to minimize the impacts Federal programs have on the 

irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, 

unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements 

does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other 

land, but not water or urban built-up land.

Activities under the ILA are not expected to result in irreversible conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses, as it defies the purpose of the program. Additionally, NRCS has identified an 

exemption to the FPPA for “the construction of on-farm structures necessary for farm operations” (7 CFR 

658.3). This exemption would be applicable for all access and improvement activities that occur on prime 

or unique farmland. Therefore, FSA has determined any site-specific projects that would result in the

permanent and irreversible conversion of farmland, as defined by the FPPA, is not eligible for funding 

under the ILA.

5.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA protects over 1,000 species of migratory bird species from any attempt at hunting, pursuing, 

wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof, unless 

permitted by regulations (i.e., for hunting and subsistence activities). Additional protection is allotted 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for the identified species. Compliance with the MBTA 

does not usually require a permit or authorization; however, the FWS is currently working on proposed 

rulemaking that may impact whether permits for certain Federal activities is required.

Generally, activities under the ILA are expected to have no adverse impacts on migratory bird species. To 

ensure no adverse impacts to migratory birds, FSA will evaluate site-specific projects involving access or 

improvements for potential impacts. If ILA activities have the potential for migratory bird impacts, FSA 

will consult with the FWS to identify avoidance and minimizations measures. These measures would be 

incorporated into the information in the NEPA compliance documentation and decision-making.
5.7 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, amended in 1992, requires that responsible agencies taking action that may 

potentially affect any property with historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural value that is listed on 

or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) comply with the procedures for 

consultation and comment issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The responsible 

agency also must identify properties affected by the action that are listed on or potentially eligible for 

listing on the NRHP, usually through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO).

The ILA, and all associated site-specific projects, must comply with the NHPA by coordinating with the 

SHPO, THPO, or relevant Tribes, when necessary. Improvement activities that involve ground-disturbing 

work will be considered supported categorical exclusions which will require a heightened environmental 

review, as defined in FSA NEPA Implementing Regulations (7 CFR 799.31). Therefore, consultations would 

be initiated at the earliest planning stage for site-specific actions when FSA determines the action may 

affect historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural resources. 

5.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)

The WSRA established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to preserve rivers deemed to have 

outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values. The National Wild and Scenic River System consists 

of a river or river segments that are in free-flowing condition which have been categorized as wild, 

scenic, or recreational. The National Wild and Scenic River System is administered by various land 

management agencies. To ensure continued protection of these waterways, Federal agencies may not 

provide financial assistance for projects which would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for 

which a river was designated.

When an ILA project involves access or improvement activities that has the potential to adversely impact 

a river or river segments listed under the WSRA, FSA will coordinate with the jurisdictional lead agency 

so that adverse impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Access and improvement activities under 

the ILA are not expected to have more than short-term minor adverse impacts on wild and scenic rivers.

Any avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures provided by the jurisdictional agency would be 

incorporated into the information in the NEPA compliance documentation and decision-making.

5.9 Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act established the Wilderness Preservation System to protect and preserve the 

wilderness character of designated areas by prohibiting certain uses, such as timber harvest, new grazing 

and mining activity, or any other kind of development. The Wilderness Preservation System is 

administered by various land management agencies. To ensure the continued wilderness character of 

designated wilderness areas, Federal agencies must consider whether proposed actions will result in an 

adverse impact on wilderness areas within the action area. 

As areas designated as part of the Wilderness Preservation System are Federal lands, it is not anticipated 

that any available ILA projects would occur within wilderness areas. Access or improvement activities 

that occur adjacent to any wilderness areas will require consultation with the jurisdictional Federal 
agency to ensure consistency with the Wilderness Act. FSA will not provide funding under the ILA to 

undertake access or improvement activities that are not consistent allowable land uses as defined in the 

Wilderness Act. 

5.10 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands

The purpose of Executive Order 11990 is to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands 

and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. To meet these objectives, 

the order requires Federal agencies, in planning their actions, to consider alternatives to wetland sites 

and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided.

When an ILA project involves improvement activities impacting a wetland, an alternative site will be 

considered. Where an alternative site is not feasible, FSA will ensure proper USACE permitting (with 

appropriate mitigation measures) is obtained prior to initiating the site-specific activity. Improvement

activities under the ILA are not expected to have more than short-term minor adverse impacts on 

wetlands and can sometimes result in longer term beneficial impacts as individual projects may help 

restore habitats within wetlands or ensure long term exclusion of livestock from wetland areas in a 

pasture through fencing. FSA staff will consider potential adverse impacts to wetlands on a project-level 

basis and implement best practices to ensure permanent damage is avoided.

5.11 Executive Order 11998: Floodplain Management

The purpose of Executive Order 11998 is to avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated 

with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a practicable alternative. It requires each Federal agency take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Each agency should 

determine if any actions undertaken would occur in a floodplain and evaluate the potential effects of any 

actions. If an agency has determined to, or proposes to, conduct, support, or allow an action to be in a 

floodplain. The agency shall consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible 

development in the floodplains.

When an ILA project involves access or improvement activities impacting a floodplain, an alternative site 

will be considered. Where an alternative site is not feasible, FSA will ensure a floodplain development 

permit, is obtained prior to initiating the site-specific activity. Access and improvement activities under 

the ILA are not expected to have more than short-term minor adverse impacts on floodplains. Where ILA 

access or improvement activities involve constructing or restoring a structure within the floodplain, the 

property owner will be required to obtain a flood insurance policy or meet floodproofing requirements 

as required in the development permit for that federally supported structure. FSA staff will consider 

potential adverse impacts to floodplains on a project-level basis and ensure proper permitting is in place 

to ensure permanent damage is avoided.
5.12 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The purpose of Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 is to focus Federal attention on the environmental and 

human health effects of Federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of 

achieving environmental protection for all communities. It directs Federal agencies to identify and 

address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions 

on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. FSA 

complies with Executive Order 12898 by reviewing a proposed project to identify the presence of lowincome and/or minority populations that could be affected by the project. FSA then analyzes if those 

populations/communities would bear any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects from the project’s implementation. If FSA determines that the proposed project 

could cause disproportionately high and adverse effects for low-income or minority populations,

measures to minimize, mitigate, or avoid those impacts would be implemented. 

Activities under the ILA are not expected to result in disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and 

low-income populations, as an adverse impact would defy the purpose of the program. Further, the NFO 

states that all “individuals that are the ultimate beneficiaries of the program investments and 

accompanying technical assistance must be underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners, 

including veterans, limited resources producers, beginning farmers and ranchers, and/or farmers, 

ranchers and forest landowners living in high poverty areas.” Therefore, it is expected that ILA will have 

beneficial long-term and short-term impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns.
6. IMPLEMENTATION

Site-specific actions are projects undertaken or funded by FSA through the ILA that are consistent with 

the categories identified in Section 1.1.3 and the Proposed Action Alternative. FSA anticipates using this 

PEA to guide decision-making for site-specific actions for the FY2022 National Funding Opportunity and 

future funding opportunities that are substantially similar. For any future funding opportunities 

considered substantially similar, FSA would review the PEA, and relevant environmental concerns, to 

determine whether the PEA’s scope and analysis remain applicable to the program. If the program’s 

mandate or focus shifts substantially during that time a new PEA may be prepared or this PEA may be 

supplemented.

As site-specific actions are being considered under the ILA, this PEA would be reviewed to determine 

whether they are within the scope of its analysis. It is expected that most activities occurring under ILA 

will be consistent with FSA’s categorical exclusions (7 CFR 799.31 – 33). If additional NEPA analysis is 

warranted for a specific decision, it may be tiered from this PEA as appropriate. Consistent with CEQ 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. 1508.28, the tiered NEPA documents would incorporate by reference the 

applicable general discussions in this PEA and concentrate solely on the issues specific to the analysis 

being prepared. 

Supplemental EAs would be prepared consistent with CEQ regulations at 40 C.F.R. 1502(c) if:

• the ILA is considering an action that is substantially different from the proposed action and the 

changes are relevant to environmental concerns, or

• there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 

bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 

6.1 Process for Screening Site-Specific Projects

Evaluation of project-specific impacts would be addressed by FSA staff during the planning process for 

each ILA project at the earliest possible time to ensure that any significant environmental issues are 

identified; that consultation among agencies, other area programs, and the public (where applicable)

occurs; and that a decision may be made on whether the PEA appropriately addresses all components of 

the ILA project or whether a more detailed analysis of the project is required.

A step-wise approach would be used to evaluate each project, as outlined below in Figure 4, the ILA

NEPA Process. The first step is to determine whether the project is consistent with one or more of the 

four overarching categories identified in Section 1.1.3 and analyzed throughout the PEA. If the project 

does not clearly fall within a category, it is not covered by this PEA. However, it may be considered for 

approval to the extent that it is consistent with the ILA. In such case, a separate NEPA analysis would be 

prepared, which may tier from this PEA where there is overlap in resources affected or potential impacts. 

If the project proposal is deemed to be consistent with the PEA, the cooperative agreement or grant will 

be signed with special award conditions (see Section 6.2) for site-specific analysis. Once the cooperative 

agreement or grant is signed, partner organizations will be able to perform outreach/education and 

technical assistance activities as identified in Section 1.1.3. In addition to beginning the outreach and 

technical assistance activities, partners will begin identifying site-specific access and improvement 
activities. Once these activities are identified for assistance under the cooperative agreement or grant, 

FSA will perform site-specific environmental reviews using the Environmental Screening Worksheet (FSA850) (Appendix B). Activities will be evaluated consistent with FSA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (7 

CFR 799).

Project is consistent 

with ILA activity 

categories?

Is activity still 

relevant to ILA?

Project qualifies as a 

categorical exclusion 

under 7 CFR 799?

Are there 

extraordinary 

circumstances?

Are impacts 

covered under 

the ILA PEA?

Yes No

Yes No

Yes

Utilize appropriate 

categorical exclusion 

and prepare ESW 

accordingly

Prepare a complete 

ESW and document 

PEA inclusion

No Yes

Prepare a 

supplemental 

PEA

No 

Implementation No

Similar to 

activities 

described in PEA?

Yes

Same impacts?

Finding of No 

Significant 

Impact?

IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT

Yes

No

No

Yes

Complete necessary consultation, coordination, and permitting processes

Prepare EIS 

and ROD

No

No

Figure 4. ILA NEPA Decision Tree Process. 

6.2 Special Award Conditions and Conditional Approval of Specific Projects

Conditional approval is a mechanism whereby an applicant is provided an opportunity to satisfy 

additional NEPA or other environmental compliance requirements before an action may occur. 

Cooperative agreements and/or grants entered under ILA will include requirements that prior to any 

expenditures associated with access or improvement activities, a site-specific environmental review 

must be completed. Additionally, partners must demonstrate compliance with applicable laws for 

environmental protection by providing proof of permits, licenses, and authorizations prior to 

implementing the project.
For example, if a lead partner under a funded ILA cooperative agreement or grant performs an outreach 

event that results in a producer application for access assistance that requires tree removal, a sitespecific environmental review of the access assistance application will be performed. At the time of the 

site-specific environmental review, FSA will take inventory of the protected resources present within the 

action area and assess whether there is a potential to adversely impact those resources present. FSA will 

perform environmental reviews consistent with the descriptions provided in Chapter 5. If the sitespecific project will result in adverse impacts to any protected resource, and the applicant cannot modify 

their action to avoid take or other adverse impacts, FSA may determine that the action is not appropriate 

for funding under ILA.

A standard condition of awards is that recipients comply with applicable Federal, state, and local laws 

during project implementation. It is not practical or possible for applicants to have secured all applicable 

permits at the time the proposal, as specific sites are to be identified throughout the life of the 

cooperative agreement or grant. As such, proposals will be reviewed for high-level consistency with this 

PEA to determine whether it would threaten violation of laws analyzed throughout this document. If 

monitoring of the activity suggests the recipient has not complied, or is not capable of complying, the 

award may be rescinded, or future awards withheld.
7. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED

List of Preparers

Name and Title Education and Experience

Rose Vath, FPAC BC, Eastern 

Regional Environmental 

Coordinator

Natural Resource Specialist with 7 years of environmental 

compliance experience with State of Florida and the Federal 

government. M.S. Oceanography, Florida State University. B.S. 

Environmental Science, Florida State University. 

Kara Winslow, FPAC BC, Farm 

and Conservation Program 

Specialist

Natural Resource Specialist with 10 years of NEPA experience. B.S. 

Biology and Environmental Science, The College of William and 

Mary.

Michael Mannigan, FSA, Grants 

Management Specialist

Grants Management Specialist with more than 30 years of NEPA 

and environmental compliance experience with USDA.

List of Reviewers

Name and Title Education and Experience

Robyn Rose, FPAC BC, Deputy 

Director

Deputy Director for USDA Farm Production and Conservation 

Business Center Environmental Activities Division with 27 years of 

Federal government experience. Ph.D. Entomology.

Conisha T. Brumfield, FSA, 

Senior Advisor for Equity

Senior Advisor for Equity to Administrator and Policy Advisor to 

FSA. Specialized in research on past Farm Bill legislation, USDA 

rules and regulations, manuals, handbooks and conducted and 

coordinated research studies and projects by multiple 1890 

universities and community-based organizations. B.A. Tougaloo 

College, M.A. Mississippi State University, J.D. Mississippi School of 

Law.

Beth Baragary, FSA, Grants 

Management Specialist

ILA Grants Management Specialist with 22 years' Federal 

conservation planning experience. B.S. Agronomy, Northwest 

Missouri State University
8. REFERENCES

Alori, E. T., Adekiya, A. O., & Adegbite, K. A. (2020). Impact of agricultural practices on soil health. Soil 

Health, 89-98.

American Farmland Trust (AFT). (2018). Greener Fields: California Communities Combating Climate

Change. American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C. Available: https://s30428.pcdn.co/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/AFT_CA-GrFields-web3_0.pdf. 

Bashir, S., Kitenge, E., & Berry-West, W. (2020). Barriers to Financial Access in the US Agricultural Sector. 

Available at SSRN 3654643.

Canter, L. (1996). Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). (2021). Racial Equity in U.S. Farming: Background in Brief. 

Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46969. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). The National Environmental Policy Act: a study of its 

effectiveness after twenty-five years. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. Available: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/nepa25fn.pdf. 

Economic Research Service (ERS). (2019). Characteristics of principal farm operator households, by 

limited-resource farm status, 2016. Available: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/48870/table11.xls?v=6191.3. 

Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change [Website]. 

Available: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/frequently-asked-questions-about-climatechange#climate-change. 

Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-

2021. EPA 430-R-23-002. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-andsinks-1990-2021. 

Farm Service Agency. (2016). FSA Handbook Environmental Quality Programs. Available: 

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/1-eq_r03_a02.pdf. 

Farm Service Agency. (2022). Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program 

National Funding Opportunity (NFO). USDA-FSA-LANDACCESS-22-NOFO0001219. Available: 

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Increasing-Land-Access/pdfs/usda-fsalandaccess-22-nofo0001219-modification.pdf. 

Freedgood, J., M. Hunter, J. Dempsey, A. Sorensen. (2020). Farms Under Threat: The State of the States. 

American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC.

Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Jin, S., Xian, G., Costello, C., Danielson, P., Gass, L., Funk, M., Wickham, J., Stehman, 

S. and Auch, R. (2020). Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 

2016 national land cover database. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 162: 184-199.

Hunter, M., A. Sorensen, T. Nogeire-McRae, S. Beck, S. Shutts, R. Murphy. 2022. Farms Under Threat 

2040: Choosing an Abundant Future. American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force. (2003). The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council 

on Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation. Executive Office of the President, 

Washington, D.C. Available: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/report/totaldoc.html. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2019). National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. 

Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2022). Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland: A 

Comparison of CEAP I and CEAP II Survey Data and Modeling. Available: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/CEAP-CroplandsConservationPracticesonCultivatedCroplands-Report-March2022.pdf. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2017). 2017 Census of Agriculture. Available: 

www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus. 

National Young Farmers Coalition. (2022). Building a Future with Farmers. Available: 

https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/NationalSurveyReport2022.pdf

Plater, Z.J.B., R. Abrams, and W. Goldfarb. (1992). Environmental Law and Policy: A Coursebook on 

Nature, Law, and Society. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

The White House. (2022). Biden-Harris Administration Launches Version 1.0 of Climate and Economic 

Justice Screening Tool, Key Step in Implementing President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative [Press release]. 

Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/11/22/biden-harris-administrationlaunches-version-1-0-of-climate-and-economic-justice-screening-tool-key-step-in-implementingpresident-bidens-justice40-initiative/.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2020 Decennial Post-Enumeration Survey. Available: 

https://data.census.gov/. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Action Team. (1997). Civil rights at the 

United States department of agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Yang, T., Siddique, K. H., & Liu, K. (2020). Cropping systems in agriculture and their impact on soil healthA review. Global Ecology and Conservation, 23, e01118.
Appendix A: Preliminary 

Environmental 

Considerations Review
Environmental Considerations Review 

(Only for use during Panel Review for FSA Increasing Land Access Funding Opportunity)

1. Application Proposal Number: 2. State(s) Involved:

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS

3. Provide a brief description of the proposal’s objectives. 

Include any target values provided (ex: 50 farm purchases, 25 grants to support startup infrastructure, etc.). 

4. Does the proposal indicate the potential for: Ground Disturbance Tree or Vegetation Clearing Change of Land Use

Please describe the components of the proposal that will result in these impacts.

5. Were specific sites provided within the proposal? Yes No

If yes, please list all locations below or provide an attachment listing all locations.

6. Does the proposal involve any public lands (i.e., Federal, State, or locally owned land)? Yes No

7. Does the proposal target Tribal lands or Tribal producers? Yes No

8. Other Considerations or Notes
Appendix B: Environmental 

Screening Worksheet
FSA-850 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(03-23-22) Farm Service Agency

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING WORKSHEET

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1A. Producer or Applicant Name

 

1B. State & County Code

 

1C. Location of Proposed Action (Farm, Tract, Field numbers, GPS location, etc.)

 

2A. BACKGROUND

(1) FSA’s proposed action is: (Describe Action Below)

(2) Describe the site and its present use:

(3) Describe the surrounding land uses; indicate the directions and approximate distances involved. The extent of the surrounding 

 land to be considered depends on the extent of the potential impacts of the project and its related activities:

(4) Will the action involve ground disturbance below the previous level of disturbance or change in land use?

(5) Has another Federal Agency already completed an environmental evaluation for this specific action?

2B. LISTED CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS (L-CATEX) YES NO

(1) Do any of the “L” CATEX’s fully cover the proposed action, as listed in Handbook 1-EQ

(Rev. 3) Exhibit 17 (7 CFR Part 799.31)?

 

 If “YES”, record the assigned code for the applicable “L” Categorical Exclusion:

 

 

(2) Are there extraordinary circumstances, as listed in Handbook 1-EQ Paragraph 25,

triggered?

IF ITEM 2B1 IS ANSWERED ‘YES”, AND ITEM 2B2 IS ANSWERED “NO”, PROCEED TO ITEM 15.

2C. SUPPORTED CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS (S-CATEX)

Do any of the “S” CATEX’s fully cover the proposed action, as listed in Handbook 1-EQ 

(Rev. 3) Exhibit 17 (7 CFR Part 799.32)? 

(If operation is a medium or large CAFOs see Instructions)

 

 If “YES”, record the assigned code for the applicable “S” Categorical Exclusion:

YES NO

 

IF ITEM 2B1 IS ANSWERED ‘NO” AND ITEM 2C IS ANSWERED “NO”, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED. 

PROCEED TO ITEM 15 AND SELECT FINDING B OR C, AS APPROPRIATE.
FSA-850 (03-23-22) Page 2 of 5

3. REQUIRED REVIEW

3A. Date of Site Visit:

For the below listed environmental resources, check the box in Column (1) to 

indicate the resources that are present on the site(s) of the proposed action 

or within the action's area of environmental impact, such as the areas 

adjacent to the proposed site(s). Attach appropriate documentation. Check 

the box as appropriate in Column (2) to the right to indicate land uses and 

environmental resources which may potentially be adversely impacted.

(1) 

Check if the resource is located within 

the area of potential effect.

(2) 

There is potential 

to impact the 

resource. YES NO

3B. Listed Endangered and Threatened Species or critical habitat. 

 Attach IPaC map to this form.

If the box in Column (2) is checked, then consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service, as applicable, to ensure 

that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect a listed species 

or destroy or modify its ''critical habitat'' in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act.

3C. Cultural Resources (NHPA Section 106 Compliance) 

 Does the action: (1) include ground disturbing activities below the level

of previous ground disturbance; (2) affect a building or structure that is 

at a minimum 50 years old or (3) affect a historic landscape?

 YES NO (Proceed to Item 3D.)

If “YES”, complete the check boxes in Column (1) & (2) to the right based 

on the results of the required consultations and attach the following:

(1) Conduct research to identify the presence of cultural resources.

(check National Register, State archaeological site files, tribal 

resources, and owner discussions)

(2) Consultation with SHPO, THPO and Indian Tribes, as appropriate, to 

determine if further consultation required (needed identification 

surveys)

3D. Coastal Barrier in Coastal Barrier Resources System 

3E. Approved Coastal Zone Management Area

3F. Wilderness

3G. Wild and Scenic River, or listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory

3H. National Natural Landmark

3I. Sole Source Aquifer (Designated by Environmental Protection Agency)

3J. Floodplains – Flood Map Panel # 

For actions with disturbances or development to occur within a 

floodplain, attach applicable floodplain development permit, elevation 

surveys, and maps, if available.

3K. Wetlands

(1) Does the proposed action have potential to adversely impact a wetland (e.g., ground disturbance, livestock, or 

nutrient waste)? 

 If “YES”, proceed to Item 3K(2) below. If “NO” proceed to Item 3L.

YES NO

 (2) Is there a NRCS CPA-026e, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and/or State wetland determination on 

 file or available based on the current AD-1026?

 If “YES”, attach determination (including any USACE or state permits).

 If “NO”, and a determination is not available, attach completed FSA-858.
FSA-850 (03-23-22) Page 3 of 5 

3. REQUIRED REVIEW CONT. YES NO

3L. SOILS (& HEL)

 (1) Does the proposed action involve the production of an agricultural commodity on Highly Erodible Land? 

 Attach a copy of one of the following: Producer Farm Data Report, Producer Subsidiary Print or 

 NRCS CPA-026e.

 If “NO”, proceed to Item 4.

 (2) Does the activity qualify for an exemption as discussed in Handbook 6-CP Paragraph 206? 

 If “NO”, attach conservation plan. 

4. WATER QUALITY

 A. Does the action have the potential to adversely affect surface or ground water quality?

 If “YES”, attach a discussion of impacts on water quality and include copies of: 

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and permit required for construction projects

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and nutrient or animal waste plans required for 

livestock operations

• Clean Water Act, USACE, or State water quality permits required

• State or County well or water use permits

 B. Will the proposed action impact the quality of surface or ground water?

 If “YES”, attach a discussion of any impacts to surface or ground water and supporting documentation.

5. AIR QUALITY

Will the proposed action produce air emissions or odors that are regulated by any Federal, State, or local laws 

or standards?

 If ''YES'', attach a discussion of any impacts to air quality and copies of any permits required.

6. NOISE

Will the proposed action result in permanent increases in noise?

 If ''YES'', attach a discussion of any noise impacts.

7. IMPORTANT LAND RESOURCES

A. Will the proposed action result in the conversion of prime or unique farmland to a nonagricultural use in 

violation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act? 

 B. Is the action consistent with local and state zoning requirements?

 If “YES”, list the zoning:

 

8. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

A. Will the proposed action cause any adverse human health or environmental effects to tribal, minority, or 

low-income communities as defined in the Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations"?

B. Will the proposed action have any negative impacts on the local social and economic conditions?

If “YES”, attach a discussion of any adverse effects.
FSA-850 (03-23-22) Page 4 of 5 

9. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)

 Is the proposed action subject to a SEPA? 

 If “YES”, attach a discussion of the results of compliance with these requirements.

YES NO

10. PUBLIC REACTION

 Have there been any negative reactions from the public related to the proposed action or similarly situated 

 actions? 

 If ''YES'', attach a discussion of any associated comments and related correspondence.

11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Are there any cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action?

 

If ''YES'', attach a discussion of the cumulative impacts of this action and the related activities. Give particular 

attention to land use changes and air and water quality impacts.

12. ALTERNATIVE AND MITIGATION

 A. Did the plan, as submitted, include alternatives or mitigation?

 B. Will alternative or other mitigation measures have to be considered?

 If ''YES'', to either question, attach a discussion of the feasibility of alternatives and any measures which will 

 be required to avoid or mitigate the action and their environmental impacts.

13. COMMENTS – Attach additional pages as needed.
FSA-850 (03-23-22) Page 5 of 5 

14. CHECKLIST

A. Permits & Consultations B. Forms and Notices

Required Not Required Required Not Required

Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 

404 and/or 401 Wetland 

Permit

Form FSA-851, Environmental Risk 

Survey (only complete for real estate 

security)

Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

associated with an NPDES 

Permit 

Form NRCS CPA-026e, HEL and WC

Determination

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permit – General or Individual

Form FSA-858, Determining If A 

Wetland May Be Present

Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) Permit

Public Notice for Floodplains as 

required by section 2(a)(4) of EO 

11988

Floodplain Development

Permit 

Public Notice for Wetlands as 

required by EO 11990

USFWS and/or NMFS 

consultation for Endangered 

and Threatened, Species or

critical habitats

C. Maps, Photos and Surveys

Location and Aerial Maps 

Topo Maps

State Historic Preservation 

Officer consultation

Site Photos

Soil Survey

Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer(s) consultation

Applicable Protected Resources 

Maps

NOTE: Other permits, forms, maps, surveys and letters may be required and should be attached, as applicable. All permits, forms, maps, 

 surveys and letters should be attached as exhibits corresponding to their appropriate section of this form.

15. FINDING

I have reviewed and considered the types and degrees of adverse environmental impacts identified by this evaluation. I 

have also analyzed the proposal for its consistency with FSA environmental policies implementing the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and have considered the potential benefits of the proposal. Based upon this 

consideration and balancing of these factors, I recommend one of the following:

A. Per 7 CFR Part 799.30, this proposed action fits within the description of an existing categorical exclusion(s)

and triggers no extraordinary circumstances. Neither an Environmental Assessment nor Environmental Impact 

Statement will be required. 

B. An Environmental Assessment should be completed to provide further and more complete analysis of any 

adverse impacts and approval of the action must be delayed pending the outcome of the assessment.

C. An Environmental Impact Statement should be completed to provide further and more complete analysis of any 

adverse impacts and approval of the action must be delayed pending the outcome of the assessment.

16. REQUIRED SIGNATURES: 

A. NAME OF PREPARER B. TITLE OF PREPARER

 

C. SIGNATURE OF PREPARER D. DATE DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED (MM-DD-YYYY)

 

E. NAME OF APPROVAL OFFICIAL F. TITLE OF APPROVAL OFFICIAL

 

G. SIGNATURE OF APPROVAL OFFICIAL H. DATE OF APPROVAL SIGNATURE (MM-DD-YYYY)

 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide 

in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Appendix C: Notice of Availability
7/27/23, 1:51 PM USDA Seeks Comments on Increasing Land Access Programmatic Environmental Assessment

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/stakeholder-information/2023/usda-seeks-comments-on-increasing-land-access-programmatic-environmental-as... 1/4

MENU

USDA Seeks Comments on Increasing

Land Access Programmatic

Environmental Assessment

WASHINGTON, June 14, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency

(FSA) today announced the availability of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the

Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program.

In August 2022, USDA announced up to $300 million in funding to support projects that

increased underserved producers access to land, capital, and markets.As provided in the

American Rescue Plan Act Section 1006, as amended by Section 22007 of the Inflation

Reduction Act, this program was part of a broader investment to help ensure underserved

producers have the resources, tools, programs, and technical support they need to succeed.

FSA expects to announce the final selected projects this spring.

These tentatively selected projects will likely result in the purchase of land, construction of

farm infrastructure, and other activities that could have potential impacts on environmental

resources. FSA has developed the programmatic environmental assessment to evaluate the

overarching environmental impacts of the program as they relate to the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The draft programmatic environmental assessment is available online for public review. FSA is

requesting comments on the program’s potential impact on the environment. The feedback

will be incorporated into the final programmatic environmental assessment, as appropriate,

prior to a decision.

FSA will consider comments received by Friday, July 14, 2023, at 5 p.m. EST. Comments

received after that date will be considered to the extent possible.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

About FSA

Ask USDA

Contact Us

Forms
7/27/23, 1:51 PM USDA Seeks Comments on Increasing Land Access Programmatic Environmental Assessment

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/stakeholder-information/2023/usda-seeks-comments-on-increasing-land-access-programmatic-environmental-as... 2/4

USDA Seeks

Comments on

Increasing

Land Access

Programmatic

Environmental

Assessment

WASHINGTON, June 14,

2023 – The U.S.

Department of

Agriculture’s Farm

Service Agency (FSA)

today announced the

availability of a

Programmatic

Environmental

Assessment for the

USDA

Extends

Application

Deadline for

Projects

Increasing

Land,

Capital, and

Market

Access for

Underserved

Producers

USDA

Extends

Deadline for

Seafood

Trade Relief

Program

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3,

2020 – The U.S.

Department of

Agriculture (USDA)

today announced a

one-month extension

to the signup period

for the Seafood Trade

Relief Program, which

supports the U.S.

seafood industry and

fishermen impacted by

Comments may be submitted:

Electronically at: Land.Access@usda.gov

By mail at: Attn: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Outreach Office, 1400

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-0506

For more information, contact Michael Mannigan at Land.Access@usda.gov. Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

 Return to the list of Stakeholder Information



Recent Stakeholder Information
7/27/23, 1:51 PM USDA Seeks Comments on Increasing Land Access Programmatic Environmental Assessment

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/stakeholder-information/2023/usda-seeks-comments-on-increasing-land-access-programmatic-environmental-as... 3/4

Increasing Land, Capital,

and Market Access

Program.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19,

2022 – The U.S.

Department of

retaliatory tariffs from

foreign governments.

Fishermen can now

Home

Programs & Services

State Offices

Online Services

Newsroom

Farmers.gov

USA.gov

USDA.gov

Whitehouse.gov

Accessibility Statement

Common Questions

Freedom of Information Act

No FEAR Report

Information Quality

Non-Discrimination Statement
7/27/23, 1:51 PM USDA Seeks Comments on Increasing Land Access Programmatic Environmental Assessment

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/stakeholder-information/2023/usda-seeks-comments-on-increasing-land-access-programmatic-environmental-as... 4/4

Policies and Links

Privacy Policy

Sitemap

Sign up for updates

Subscribe

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Appendix D: Supplemental Press

Release
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 1/6

MENU

Biden-Harris Administration Announces

Intended Investment of Approximately

$300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing

Land, Capital, and Market Access for

Underserved Producers

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced

its selection of 50 projects for potential award, totaling approximately $300 million. These

innovative projects will help improve access to land, capital, and markets for underserved

farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access

(Increasing Land Access) Program, which is funded by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction

Act, works to increase access to farm ownership opportunities, improve results for those with

heirs’ property or fractionated land, increase access to markets and capital that affect the

ability to access land, and improve land ownership, land succession and agricultural business

planning.

“Land access, market access and capital are critical to the success of the hardworking

producers who keep agriculture thriving,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

“Underserved producers have not had access to the amount of specialized technical support

that would increase opportunities to access and capital and benefit the launch, growth,

resilience, and success of their agricultural enterprises. The Increasing Land Access Program is

part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to advancing equity for all, including

people who have been underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by inequality, by

providing the resources, tools and technical support needed to directly help local farmers and

ensure we have a strong agricultural system across the country.”

Examples of selectees for potential award include:

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

About FSA

Ask USDA

Contact Us

Forms
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 2/6

Community Development Corporation of Oregon will work to provide long

term and sustainable land access to disadvantaged refugee and immigrant

beginning farmers in Oregon’s east Multnomah and Clackamas counties. A few

of the goals of the project are to purchase the currently rented farm, reduce

the net cost of the land through a conservation or working lands easement,

and provide an equitable and engaging process of education and training

about cooperative land ownership, finance concepts, and related USDA

programs.

The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin will work to establish an equity

capital fund to provide support for Tribal producers’ land, equipment, and

operational needs. Additionally, this project will work to provide targeted

technical assistance to Tribal producers in developing comprehensive farm and

food business plans, including conservation plans to support expanded

production and access to the full suite of USDA and other support resources.

Workin’ Rootz will work to increase access to land and capacity-building at

five urban farms/community market gardens in Detroit which include Workin’

Roots Farm, Love n’ Labor, Foster Patch Community Garden, Love Earth Herbal,

and Urban Bush Sistahs. These farms will serve as resource hubs by sharing

infrastructure (tiller, lawn tractor, wash and pack, cooler storage, etc.) with

other urban farmers and gardeners in their prospective neighborhoods.

Maine Farmland Trust will work with low-income farmers on access to lowinterest capital for land purchase or business operations, farm upgrades and

infrastructure investments that promote viability, technical assistance in the

areas of real estate and business planning, and more.

Alabama A&M University, in collaboration with four other 1890 land grant

universities (Southern University, Alcorn State University, Fort Valley State

University, and Tennessee State University) and many other local

organizations, will provide delivery of technical assistance to underserved

farm populations in chronically and economically depressed communities of

Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi to ensure the success of existing farmers

and ranchers and to rapidly increase the numbers of small farm operators in

the targeted communities.

The tentative selectees include national, regional, and local projects that cover 40 states and

territories including Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA will work

with the selected applicants to finalize the scope and funding levels in the coming months.

See the full list of Increasing Land Access Program selected projects.

Environmental Assessment
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 3/6

These projects will likely result in the purchase of land, construction of farm infrastructure and

other activities that could have potential impacts on environmental resources. USDA has

developed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Increasing Land Access Program

to evaluate the program’s overarching environmental impacts as they relateto the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The environmental assessment is available online for public review. USDA is requesting

comments on the program’s potential impact on the environment. The feedback will be

incorporated into the final assessment, as appropriate, prior to a decision.

USDA will consider comments received by Friday, July 14, 2023, at 5 p.m. EDT. Comments

received after that date will be considered to the extent possible.

Comments may be submitted:

Electronically at: Land.Access@usda.gov

By mail at: Attn: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Outreach Office, 1400

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-0506

For more information, contact Michael Mannigan at Land.Access@usda.gov. Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

More Information

The Increasing Land Access Program was originally announced in August 2022 as part of a

broader investment to help ensure underserved producers have the resources, tools, programs

and technical support they need to succeed and is being funded by the Inflation Reduction

Act.

The Increasing Land Access Program is part of USDA’s commitment to equity across the

Department and steps it has taken under Secretary Vilsack’s direction to improve equity and

access, eliminate barriers to its programs for underserved individuals and communities, and

build a workforce more representative of America. Earlier in the year, the USDA Equity

Commission, which is comprised of independent members from diverse backgrounds,

released its interim recommendations to remove barriers to inclusion and access at USDA. The

program is also an important component of the Department’s and President Biden’s vision to

Advance Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal

Government.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris

administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more

resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to

safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of

income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making

historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 4/6

Biden-Harris

Administration

Announces

Intended

Investment of

Approximately

$300 Million

in 50 Projects

Increasing

Land, Capital,

and Market

Access for

Underserved

Producers

WASHINGTON, June 22,

2023 – The U.S.

Department of

Agriculture (USDA) today

announced its selection

of 50 projects for

USDA

Reminds

Producers to

File Crop

Acreage

Reports by

July 17, Use

New Online

Map Features

on

Farmers.gov

WASHINGTON, June 21,

2023 - Agricultural

producers who have

not yet completed their

crop acreage reports

after planting should

make an appointment

with their local U.S.

Department of

Agriculture (USDA)

office before the

Farm Service

Agency Now

Accepting

Nominations

for Farmers

and Ranchers

to Serve on

Local County

Committees

WASHINGTON, June 15,

2023 — The U.S.

Department of

Agriculture (USDA) is

now accepting

nominations for county

committee members

for elections that will

occur later this year.

Additionally, USDA’s

Farm Service Agency

(FSA) is unveiling a new

GIS tool to make it

easier for producers to

participate in the

committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a

workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

 Return to the list of News Releases



Recent News
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 5/6

potential award, totaling

approximately $300

million. These innovative

projects will help

improve access to land,

capital, and markets for

underserved farmers,

ranchers, and forest

landowners. The

Increasing Land, Capital,

applicable deadline,

which for many places

and crops is July 17.

USDA’s Farm Service

Agency (FSA) also

reminds producers

with login access to

farmers.gov of several

features that can help

expedite acreage

nomination and

election processes for

county committee

members, who make

important decisions on

how federal farm

programs are

administered locally.

Home

Programs & Services

State Offices

Online Services

Newsroom

Farmers.gov

USA.gov

USDA.gov

Whitehouse.gov

Accessibility Statement

Common Questions

Freedom of Information Act

No FEAR Report

Information Quality
7/28/23, 1:37 PM Biden-Harris Administration Announces Intended Investment of Approximately $300 Million in 50 Projects Increasing Land, Capital...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-intended-investment-of-approximately-300-million-in-... 6/6

Non-Discrimination Statement

Policies and Links

Privacy Policy

Sitemap

Sign up for updates

Subscribe

Farm Service Agency

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Appendix E: Public Comment 

Summary Table
Topic Comment

Changes 

made to 

Final 

PEA? If yes, location in EA; if no, rationale

General Analysis

Use of a 

Programmatic 

Approach

Comments (2) commends USDA 

on developing a programmatic 

approach to assessing 

environmental impacts of the 

proposed action that incorporates 

feedback received by 

stakeholders. 

No No change required. 

Diversity Comments (2) express support 

for USDA’s efforts to diversify 

our farmers and farming through 

programs that support 

historically underserved 

producers, such as ILA. 

No No change required.

Flexibilities Comment urges USDA to 

provide a mechanism within 

conditional approval that would 

allow awardees to be approved, 

under certain circumstances, for 

parcel purchase before a specific 

parcel of land is identified prior 

to a site-specific NEPA review.

No Noted. Conditional approvals will occur on a 

project-by-project basis and will be clarified with 

partners prior to incorporation into final agreements. 

Proposed Action

General 

Support of 

Alternative B

Comments (25) express

enthusiastic support for

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Alternative, as the path forward 

for the FSA's new program, 

Increasing Land, Capital, and 

Market Access. Commenters fully 

support the FSA to direct program 

funding towards cooperative 

agreements that directly enable 

land access for socially 

disadvantaged producers, in 

addition to projects that provide 

technical support.

No No change required.

Alternative B Comment recommends including 

beneficial and sustainable farming 

practices, land management 

techniques, and mitigation 

measures in the proposed action 

alternative. 

Yes Chapter 1.1.3 has been updated to reflect the 

inclusion of sustainable agricultural practices such 

as cover crop, crop rotation, and no-till residue 

management under potential Land, Market, and 

Capital Improvement activities. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

Soils and Other 

Important 

Land 

Comment provides additional 

information showing that target 

population for this program are 

more likely to use conservation 

Yes Chapter 3.2.1 has been updated to include 

information from the 2022 survey completed by the 

National Young Farmers Coalition. This survey 
Resources practices; therefore, minimizing 

the potential of short-term 

negative impacts. 

shows that young and BIPOC producers implement 

regenerative and sustainable agricultural practices 

at a very high rate (~85%). This additional 

information further supports that the long-term 

benefit of Alternative B outweighs the potential 

short-term adverse impacts from transitioning new 

or retired land into active agricultural production.

 

Resources 

Analyzed

Comment requests that the final 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment thoroughly examines 

the potential impacts on 

environmental resources, such as 

soil health, water quality, and 

biodiversity conservation. 

No Chapter 3.2.1 assess the impacts of the alternatives

on soil health. Site-specific impacts to wildlife, 

habitat, and water quality will be analyzed at a 

local level through the FSA-850 process identified 

in Chapter 6. 

Implementation

ILA NEPA 

Decision 

Tree Process

Comment notes that Figure 4

“ILA NEPA Decision Tree 

Process is incomplete. 

Yes Updates have been made to Figure 4. If an action’s 

impacts are not analyzed under this PEA, the action 

may require the development of a supplemental 

PEA to assess the potential for significant impacts 

resulting from the action. 

Timeline and 

Process of 

PEA

Comment recommends that FSA

make it clear to awardees what 

actions are required of them at 

different stages in project 

implementation and funding 

reimbursement. This is necessary 

to avoid situations where an 

awardee has purchased land, 

applied for a reimbursement, and 

is then told that the specific parcel 

purchased does not meet NEPA 

review standards. 

No Information regarding the implementation timeline 

and the reimbursement process will be determined 

project-by-project. As such, limitations on actions 

prior to a NEPA review and explicit guidance 

regarding timing of activities will be made clear to 

selected partners following the execution of 

agreements. 

Program Communication

Need for 

Proactive and 

Explicit 

Communication

Comment urges USDA to be 

proactive and explicit in 

communicating to awardees how 

the PEA process works and the 

implications it may have on 

project activities, with a particular 

focus on providing detailed and 

digestible guidance to 

organizations that have not 

worked with USDA before. 

No Additional information regarding the 

environmental compliance process for the ILA 

program will be made available for program 

partners and applicants. This information will be in 

the form of outreach materials with an intended 

audience of new-to-USDA customers and partners

to ensure that the information is clear, concise, and 

easily understood. 

Monitoring

Monitoring & 

Evaluation

Comment emphasizes the 

importance of ongoing monitoring 

and evaluation to ensure that any 

unforeseen environmental impacts 

are addressed promptly.

No Environmental impacts of site-specific activities 

will be evaluated by regulatory agencies during the 

site-specific NEPA review process. If necessary, 

the regulatory authority will identify the need for 

monitoring and evaluation plans at the time of sitespecific review.
Appendix F: Letter from National 

Young Farmers Coalition
Increasing Land Access (ILA) Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) Comments

July 13, 2023

Attn: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Outreach Office

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C., 20250-0506

Dear Michael,

The National Young Farmers Coalition commends USDA for designing and implementing the historic 

Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILA). This program will provide transformative 

funding to community-led organizations across the country that are addressing the top challenges facing 

underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. Through this investment, USDA is helping to lay 

the foundation for a more secure, equitable, and profitable future for the next generation of producers.

We welcome the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

(PEA) for this program and to continue working with USDA throughout program implementation. In 

making changes to the PEA prior to the final version, we encourage USDA to consider the following 

recommendations.

1. Provide clear communication to awardees with limited experience navigating USDA 

cooperative agreements or grants. 

As the draft PEA points out, not all producers across the agriculture sector have been provided 

equal access to technical assistance, production support, and USDA programs. Given the focus of 

this program on resourcing underserved producers, we anticipate that many awardees will be new 

to USDA grant making and cooperative agreements. 

We urge USDA to be proactive and explicit in communicating to awardees how the PEA process 

works and the implications it may have on project activities, with a particular focus on providing 

detailed and digestible guidance to organizations that have not worked with USDA before. This 

may include phone conversations in addition to written materials and additional visualizations to 

help make text-heavy documents clear. 

2. Provide clear guidance around the timeline and process for PEA in relation to 

reimbursement for project costs
Given that awarded funds for ILA are expected to be delivered as a reimbursement to awardees 

after project-related expenses have been incurred, we urge USDA to provide clear guidance 

around the timeline for reimbursement in relation to the NEPA review process and project 

approval. This is particularly important since NEPA review is site-specific and many projects 

receiving funding are likely to involve purchasing multiple specific parcels of land. 

In Sections 6.1 and 6.2, the PEA should make it clear to awardees what actions are required of 

them at different stages in project implementation and funding reimbursement so there is never an 

instance where an awardee has purchased land, applied for a reimbursement, and then is told that 

the specific parcel purchased does not meet NEPA review standards. FSA should further clarify 

how and when to apply for reimbursement and NEPA review in instances where a project 

involves multiple sites that may be purchased at different times. We recommend adding 

additional information to Figure 4. NEPA Decision Tree Process that makes it clear to awardees 

when they should submit reimbursement requests and expect to receive funding in relation to 

NEPA review. 

3. Provide flexibility for projects to facilitate success in competitive real estate markets

We encourage USDA to provide flexibility in this review process to accommodate projects where 

awardees may need to react quickly to real estate opportunities in order to secure parcels of land. 

Section 6.2 concerning conditional approval states, “Conditional approval is a mechanism 

whereby an applicant is provided an opportunity to satisfy additional NEPA or other 

environmental compliance requirements before an action may occur.” This section goes on to 

state, “Cooperative agreements and/or grants entered under ILA will include requirements that 

prior to any expenditures associated with access or improvement activities, a site-specific 

environmental review must be completed.” 

We urge USDA to provide a mechanism within conditional approval that would allow awardees 

to be approved for parcel purchase before a specific parcel of land is identified, so long as some 

general parameters are established. Agricultural real estate comes on and off the market quickly 

and opportunities are easily lost. We fear that waiting for site-specific NEPA review prior to 

making an offer may cause awardees to lose out on valuable opportunities. We understand the 

importance of completing NEPA review and establishing controls, but would encourage 

flexibility and creative implementation where possible to allow for the full benefit of these 

program funds to be realized.

4. Additional Consideration for Section 3.2.1 “Soils and Other Important Land Resources”

Under Environmental Consequences (page 23-24), the Draft PEA cites potential for short-term 

adverse effects—“Practices such as mechanical tilling, intensive pesticide application, and the use 

of inorganic fertilizers have been known to contribute to erosion, loss of biodiversity within the 

topsoil, and decline in organic matter. Conventional agricultural practices can often result in soil 

degradation over time due to inadequate and imbalanced nutrient management (Yang et al., 

2020).” However, FSA concludes that long-term benefits will outweigh short-term negative 

impacts because many farmers are moving to minimal tillage, cover crops, and other conservation 

practices. 

We agree with the assessment that long-term benefits will outweigh any short-term negative 

impacts, and would point out that the target producers for this program are more likely to use 

conservation practices, therefore minimizing the potential of short-term negative impacts. In our 

2022 survey of over 10,000 farmers and ranchers across the country, we found that 86 percent of 

young farmers identify the practices they use on their farm or ranch as regenerative, and 97 
percent identify their practices as sustainable. The majority of young farmer respondents (83 

percent) stated that “one of their farm’s primary purposes for existing is engaging in conservation 

or regeneration.” That number is 87% for young Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) 

farmers. With the purpose of ILA and Section 1006 of the ARPA to “provide grants and loans to 

eligible entities . . . to improve land access (including heirs’ property and fractionated land issues) 

for underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners”, we anticipate that a high proportion of 

participants will be young and BIPOC farmers which could further reduce the magnitude of shortterm negative impacts. 

5. A minor note concerning Section 6.1 “Process for Screening Site-Specific Projects”

While reviewing Figure 4. “ILA NEPA Decision Tree Process” on page 40, we noticed that the 

box that includes the text, “Are impacts covered under the ILA PEA?” appears to be missing a 

branch with a “no” option. 

We are encouraged by many aspects of consideration given in the PEA and recommend USDA adopt the 

Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative B in Section 2.2). We want to thank USDA for directly 

addressing the importance of providing targeted funds to remove barriers to land, capital, and market 

access for underserved producers.

We agree with the numerous benefits outlined in the PEA that this program will have, including shortand long-term preservation of important agricultural land resources, increased resourcing of underserved 

producers, and increased climate resilience. In addition, we applaud the vision of cumulative benefits that 

these projects are building towards, including increased income stability from agricultural or forest 

production, community economic returns, and human health and safety. We look forward to continuing to 

work in partnership with USDA to achieve these outcomes. 

Sincerely,

Holly Rippon-Butler

Land Policy Director

National Young Farmers Coalition
United States Department of Agriculture 

Farm Service Agency

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program

August 2023

On behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture, in coordination with the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA), the Farm Program and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center (BC) 

Environmental Activities Division has prepared a Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

(PEA) on behalf of the Farm Service Agency Office of Outreach to evaluate the environmental 

consequences associated with implementing the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access 

Program (ILA). Section 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act, as amended by Section 22007 of 

the Inflation Reduction Act, included the provisions for USDA to ensure underserved producers 

have resources, tools, programs, and technical support they need to succeed. 

Through the funds provided by Section 1006 as amended, USDA will provide resources to 

entities by entering into cooperative agreements and/or grants to address land access issues that 

underserved producers face. Selected cooperative agreements and/or grants will ultimately focus 

on designing and/or deploying new programs or expanding successful existing models to address 

the three major barriers (land access, capital access, or market access), or a combination of those 

barriers, to producer and landowner success, resiliency, and viability. Selected cooperative 

agreements and/or grants will achieve, but are not limited to, the following outcomes:

• Increased access to farm ownership opportunities; 

• Increased access and improved results for heirs’ property and highly fractionated land 

access; 

• Increased land ownership, land succession, and agricultural business planning; and

• Increased access to markets and capital that affect the ability to access land.

Selected entities will work collaboratively with USDA and with other Section 1006 cooperators 

to deliver targeted outreach and technical assistance programs designed to address and meet the 

needs of underserved agricultural producers.

Since ILA is a national program, the geographic scope of this PEA covers the entire U.S.

Given the broad nature of the program, the Environmental Assessment (EA) is 

programmatic and is intended to provide the basis for the tiered, site-specific NEPA 

documentation that would occur prior to implementation of access and improvement

activities. The PEA was available for public review and comment from June 14, 2023,

through July 14, 2023, and was publicized through news outlets via multiple press releases.

Twenty-eight comments were received (27 individuals; and 1 NGOs/interested groups). 

Summaries of the comments can be found in Appendix D of the final PEA, and if changes 

were made to the document the section is also recorded on the table; however, none of the 
proposed edits to the PEA substantially changed the alternatives or impact analyses. The 

notice of availability of the final PEA and this signed FONSI will be announced in a press 

release through the Secretary’s office and will be available for public viewing following the 

announcement at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/environmental-culturalresource/nepa/current-nepa-documents/index for a period of 30 calendar days.

Proposed Action

FSA proposes to fund grants and cooperative agreements for projects that help move 

underserved producers from surviving to thriving through the Increasing Land, Capital, and 

Market Access (Increasing Land Access) Program. The Increasing Land Access Program would 

increase access to farm ownership opportunities, increase access and improve results for those 

with heirs’ property or highly fractionated land, increase access to markets and capital that affect 

the ability to access land, and increase land ownership, land succession, and agricultural business 

planning. Below are the broad categories of actions analyzed in the PEA:

• Outreach and Education. These activities will foster understanding and 

awareness of the various assistance opportunities available to underserved 

producers. Examples of activities under this category includes, but is not limited 

to, hosting educational workshops, website development, and content creation 

(flyers, handouts, etc.). These activities are anticipated to help the target audience 

identify the programs and services at USDA that are appropriate for their farming, 

ranching, or forest land operations. It is expected that partners will utilize these 

activities to inform needs assessments for future technical or financial assistance 

to be offered through the ILA project.

• Technical Assistance. These activities are primarily office-based in existing sites, 

involving no direct or indirect interactions with the biological or physical 

environment or alterations to the built environment. When activities do take place 

outdoors, such as field demonstrations or site-specific farm planning, they will be 

informative in nature and will not involve ground disturbance, vegetation 

removal, and/or change in land use.

• Land, Capital, and Market Access. These activities will primarily be in the 

form of providing financial assistance opportunities to underserved producers for 

the purpose of accessing land, capital, and markets. Examples of activities under 

this category includes, but is not limited to: land acquisition through purchases 

and/or long-term leases; establishment of demonstration farms; establishment of 

loan, revolving loan, grant and/or other programs to provide funding to target 

audience for a variety of purposes including down payments for land purchase, 

term financing for land purchase, incubator farms, equipment purchase, 

operating/startup expenses and other farming expenses; and creating markets or 

market access for target audience.

• Land, Capital, and Market Improvements. These activities will primarily be in 

the form of providing financial assistance opportunities to underserved producers 

for the purpose of improving existing operation or lands made available through 

access activities described above. Examples of activities under this category

includes, but is not limited to: construction and/or installation of buildings, 
irrigation systems, wash and pack facilities, marketing facilities; equipment 

purchase; expansion of existing incubator farms, demonstration farms, buildings, 

facilities; expansion of existing markets; and expansion of existing loan, 

revolving loan, grant and/or other programs to provide funding to target audience 

for a variety of purposes related to farming expenses. Sustainable agricultural 

practices such as no-till residue management, cover crop, crop rotation and other 

regenerative agricultural practices may be eligible for financial assistance.

Reasons for Finding of No Significant Impact

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

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

large geographic scope and the innovative nature of ILA, it is not possible to meaningfully

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

environmental conditions that exist on those lands. Thus, before implementing access or 

improvement activities, a site -specific environmental review is completed to evaluate any 

impacts that may require additional compliance with NEPA and other laws, regulations, and 

executive orders.

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

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the Proposed Action would not constitute a 

major Federal action that would significantly affect the human environment; therefore, an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. The determination is based on 

the following:

1. Potential beneficial and adverse impacts of implementing the Proposed Action

have been fully considered within thePEA. No significant adverse direct, indirect,

or cumulative effects were identified, based on the resource analyses provided in 

thePEA.

2. Site-specific environmental reviews would be conducted for all access and 

improvement activities and the impacts to the following resources would be 

evaluated in that analysis based on conditions of each site: Cultural Resources, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, Coastal Barriers, Coastal Zone Management 

Act Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory, National Natural Landmarks, Sole Source Aquifers, Floodplains, Noise, 

Important Land Resources, and Environmental Justice.

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

significantly affect soils and other important land resources, socioeconomics and 

environmental justice, or climate change. 

4. The Proposed Action would not involve effectsto the quality of the human

environment that are likely to be highly controversial.

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

effects and does not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.
6. The Proposed Action does not result in cumulative significant impacts when considered 

with other actions that also individually have insignificant impacts.

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

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

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

impact analyses, and no controversies were identified.

Determination

In accordance with the NEPA and FSA's environmental regulations at 7 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 799, which implement the regulations of the Council on Environmental 

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

action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, no Environmental 

Impact Statement will be prepared.

Steve Peterson

Associate Administrator

Farm Service Agency