Impact of High Crop Prices on Environmental Quality: A Case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program, 2007

Growing demand for corn due to the expansion of ethanol has increased concerns that environmentally sensitive lands retired from agricultural production into the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) will be cropped again. Iowa produces more ethanol than any other state in the United States, and it also produces the most corn. Thus, an examination of the impacts of higher crop prices on CRP land in Iowa can give insight into what we might expect nationally in the years ahead if crop prices remain high. We construct CRP land supply curves for various corn prices and then estimate the environmental impacts of cropping CRP land through the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model. EPIC provides edge-of-field estimates of soil erosion, nutrient loss, and carbon sequestration. We find that incremental impacts increase dramatically as higher corn prices bring into production more and more environmentally fragile land. Maintaining current levels of environmental quality will require substantially higher spending levels. Even allowing for the cost savings that would accrue as CRP land leaves the program, a change in targeting strategies will likely be required to ensure that the most sensitive land does not leave the program.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvement Project Tier 2, Segment 3 Pottawatomie County, Iowa Environmental Assessment, March 2011

This Tier 2 Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the results of studies and analyses conducted to determine the potential impacts of proposed improvements in Segment 3 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) in the Council Bluffs metropolitan area. This document is tiered to the Tier 1 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that evaluated impacts of the overall CBIS Improvements Project, which includes five segments of independent utility1 This EA on Segment 3 of the Project is divided into the following sections: and encompasses 18 mainline miles of Interstate and 14 interchanges along Interstate 80 (I-80), Interstate 29 (I-29), and Interstate 480 (I-480). More information about the tiering process is found below under Project Background. • Section 1 provides background information on the Project and discusses the relationship between the earlier Tier 1 EIS and this Tier 2 EA. It also discusses the proposed action and the area studied, the purpose of the Project, and the need for the Project based on transportation problems that currently exist or are expected in the future. • Section 2, Alternatives, identifies the range of alternatives considered for Segment 3 to address the transportation problems identified in Section 1. It also identifies the alternatives retained for further study in this EA and the preferred Segment 3 alternative. • Section 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, describes the general environment for each resource affected by the proposed improvements. It also describes the potential environmental impacts of the Segment 3 Project and methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. • Section 4, Disposition, lists the agencies and organizations that will receive copies of this EA and the locations at which this EA will be available for public review. • Section 5, Comments and Coordination, summarizes the agency coordination and public involvement efforts in conjunction with the Segment 3 Project. • Section 6, Conclusion and Recommendation, summarizes resource impacts. • Section 7, References, lists the sources cited in this EA. For Segment 3, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) determined that an EA is the appropriate level of Tier 2 study to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The primary purpose of an EA is to clearly establish the significance of a project’s environmental impacts. That analysis is included in this document.

Iowa Wetland Management District: Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

This Environmental Assessment documents the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district). In general, scoping reveals issues that drive alternative ways of managing the district. Implementation of each of those alternative management styles (including the No Action Alternative) may have different effects on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment. Analysis of these effects reveals the “preferred” alternative, which constitutes the CCP. The CCP includes goals, objectives, and strategies for the district to guide overall management for the next 15 years. The Iowa WMD consists of scattered tracts of habitat (both wetland and upland grassland) known as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). As of 2011, there are 75 WPAs in 18 counties in north-central Iowa totaling 24,712 acres in fee title primarily managed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Even though district acquisition has only occurred in 18 counties to date, a larger 35-county boundary is approved. This boundary follows the historic range of the poorly drained Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in Iowa, an area known for its waterfowl production. The district also includes 575 WPA acres and approximately 434 Farm Service Agency acres in conservation easements on private land. This plan was prepared with the intent that the strong partnership with the Iowa DNR will continue over the next 15 years.

Environmental Assessment: IA 12 in Mason City From S. Monroe Ave to S. Carolina Ave, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, NHSX-122-1(14)--3H-17, 2013

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This EA informs the public and interested agencies of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action in order to gather feedback on the improvements under consideration. Proposed Action The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are evaluating potential alternatives to improve IA 122 in the City of Mason City. IA 122/Business US 18 is a primary east-west travel route through the City that transitions from a 4- lane undivided roadway, to 2-lane one-way pairs, then back to a 4-lane undivided roadway (Figure 1-1). The Iowa DOT proposes to flatten the tight reverse curves on the east end of the project. The one-way pairs will be narrowed by eliminating on-street parking along the corridor to more clearly define travel lanes. This will serve to calm traffic flows and reduce crashes along the highway. Additionally, improvements to intersections as well as consolidating or removing access points to improve traffic operations are proposed within the project corridor. A new access road for the Mason City Fire Department on the west end of the project will allow emergency trucks better access to travel south and east. Study Area The primary area of investigation for the Project is generally bounded by IA 122 through Mason City, known locally as 5th and 6th Street Southwest from South Monroe Avenue to South Carolina Avenue. US 65, known locally as Federal Avenue, bisects the study area. At this intersection of US 65 and Iowa 122, the 5th and 6th Street SW changes to 5th and 6th St SE. For the purposes of this discussion, this area will be referred to collectively as the IA 122 corridor. The Study Area boundaries were established to allow the development of a wide range of alternatives that could address the purpose and need for the project. The Study Area is larger than the area proposed for construction activities for the Project. However, some impacts may extend beyond the Study Area; where this occurs, it will be noted and addressed in the Environmental Analysis Section (Section 5). Figure 1-1 outlines the Study Area of the proposed action.

Environmental Assessments: A How-To Manual, 2001

This manual is intended to provide complete but concise information on how to prepare an Environmental Assessment in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations. These regulations incorporate the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.lC, "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts," as found in 23 CFR 771 (Federal Regulations (F.R.) August 28, 1987) and the "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the Environmental Policy Act," as set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (i.e., 40 CFR Part 1500-1508).

Office of Location and Environment Manual, August 2009

This manual captures the experience of practitioners in the Iowa Department of Transportation’s (Iowa DOT’s) Office of Location and Environment (OLE). It also documents the need for coordinated project development efforts during the highway project planning, or location study phase and engineering design. The location study phase establishes: * The definition of, and need for, the highway improvement project * The range of alternatives and many key attributes of the project’s design * The recommended alternative, its impacts, and the agreed-to conditions for project approval The location study process involves developing engineering alternatives, collecting engineering and environmental data, and completing design refinements to accomplish functional designs. The items above also embody the basic content required for projects compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 19691, which directs federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach during the planning process whenever proposed actions (or “projects”) have the potential for environmental impacts. In doing so, NEPA requires coordination with stakeholders, review, comment, and public disclosure. Are location studies and environmental studies more about the process or the documents? If properly conducted, they concern both—unbiased and reasonable processes with quality and timely documents. In essence, every project is a story that needs to be told. Engineering and environmental regulations and guidance, as documented in this manual, will help project staff and managers become better storytellers.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project Pottawatomie County, Iowa and Douglas County, Nebraska Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54-13-78, November 2004

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to improve the interstate system around Council Bluffs with improvements extending across the Missouri River on I-80 to east of the I-480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska, see Figure 1-1. The study considers long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along I-80, I-29, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system1, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. These improvements, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 up to current engineering standards and modernize the roadway to accommodate future traffic needs. In 2001, Iowa DOT and FHWA initiated the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. The agencies concluded that the environmental study process would be conducted in two stages; that is, a tiered approach would be applied. The project is being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1502.20, and FHWA 23 CFR Part 771.111, that permit tiering for large, complex NEPA studies. Tier 1 is an examination of the overall interstate system improvement needs, including a clear explanation of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation is at a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. Tier 1 includes preparation of a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would disclose the potential environmental and social effects (evaluated at a planning level that considers a variety of conceptual designs) of the proposed improvements. The final EIS will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) that states the preferred plan for improvements to be implemented. Essentially, the Tier 1 document will establish the planning framework for the needed improvements. Because the scope of the overall system improvements is large, the interstate improvements would be implemented as a series of individual projects that fit into the overall planning framework. The Tier 1 Area of Potential Impact, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 is an alternative that considers a combination of the most reasonable concepts that have been developed, buffered by approximately 100 or more feet to ensure that any Tier 2 design modifications would remain inside the outer boundary.

Production and Abatement Distortions under Noisy Green Taxes, October 2005

Pigouvian taxes are typically imposed in situations where there is imperfect knowledge on the extent of damage caused by a producing firm. A regulator imposing imperfectly informed Pigouvian taxes may cause the firms that should (should not) produce to shut down (produce). In this paper we use a Bayesian information framework to identify optimal signal-conditioned taxes in the presence of such losses. The tax system involves reducing (increasing) taxes on firms identified as causing high (low) damage. Unfortunately, when an abatement decision has to be made, the tax system that minimizes production distortions also dampens the incentive to abate. In the absence of wrong-firm concerns, a regulator can solve the problem by not adjusting taxes for signal noise. When wrong-firm losses are a concern, the regulator has to trade off losses from distorted production incentives with losses from distorted abatement incentives. The most appropriate policy may involve a combination of instruments.