Je veux savoir à propos de…

8128

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 22 / Thursday, February 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget OMB designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866
and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full regulatory impact analysis is available on https www.regulations.gov/.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Clarity of the Regulation Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to the substantive comments NRCS
received on the interim rule, NRCS
invited public comments on how to make the rule easier to understand.
NRCS has incorporated these recommendations for improvement where appropriate. NRCS responses to public comment are described in more detail above.
Cost-Benefit Analysis One of the most significant ACEP
changes in the 2018 Farm Bill is to the existing contribution requirements for the non-Federal share under ACEP
ALE. Previously, there were only two sources of non-Federal contribution the entitys cash resources towards the purchase and the donation by the entitywith cash resources towards the purchase required for half of the nonFederal contribution. The 2018 Farm Bill eliminated the requirement for cash resources towards the purchase and allows the entity to consider other costs, previously not included, toward the non-Federal match. This change adds flexibility for eligible entities to meet the non-Federal share requirement by no longer specifying a minimum cash contribution amount to be provided by the eligible entity and allowing the total of the non-Federal share to be comprised of a charitable donation or qualified conservation contribution from the private landowner. It also includes provisions for costs related to securing the easement to be included in the calculation of the non-Federal share.
While removing a potential hurdle to entity participation, the additional flexibility is not intended to supersede the conservation benefits possible under ACEP.
There are six states and one territory Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Feb 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

Missouri, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico that currently have no enrollment in ACEPALE. This may have been due to a lack of available financial resources for an eligible entity to meet the minimum cash contribution requirement or may be due to a lack of entities that meet the eligibility requirements to participate in ACEP
ALE. The changes to the non-Federal share requirements may result in increased ACEPALE enrollments in areas where enrollment has been limited due to a lack of financial resources available for entities that meet the ACEPALE eligibility requirements. To address these statutory changes, in this final, we eliminated a specified minimum cash contribution amount and incorporated provisions for considering costs related to securing the easement.
These changes are applicable to all eligible entities in all States and as a result, it is anticipated that the amount of the Federal contribution toward ACEPALE easements will increase by 8
to 10 percentage points.
Another change under the 2018 Farm Bill provides NRCS with authority to enter into legal arrangements with eligible entities to conduct BPS
transactions under ACEPALE. Under a BPS transaction, NRCS may provide ACEPALE cost-share assistance to an eligible entity for the purchase of an agricultural land easement on private or Tribal agricultural land owned on a transitional basis by an eligible entity when the ownership of that land will be timely transferred to a qualified farmer or rancher. BPS transactions are intended to help farmers and ranchers acquire agricultural land they could not otherwise afford and to protect agricultural land that may have otherwise been developed or removed from agricultural production.
NRCS continues to have the discretion to rank and prioritize projects and to select individual applications based on their ability to achieve program purposes and to assess and determine the appropriate allocation of funds for the acquisition of agricultural land and wetland easements. The 2018
Farm Bill does not limit NRCSs discretion to determine the allocation of funds between ACEPWRE and ACEP
ALE. The relative emphasis NRCS
places on these two program components depends on State and national priorities, environmental impacts, and local demand. It is anticipated that enrollment in ACEP
will be consistent with historic enrollment trends.
Land enrolled in ACEPWRE
easements produces onsite and offsite environmental benefits. Those include:

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Restoring and protecting high value wetlands; controlling sheet and rill erosion as lands are restored from cropland to wetlands and associated habitats; restoring, enhancing, and protecting habitat for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and migratory birds; improving water quality by filtering sediment and chemicals; reducing flooding and floodrelated damage; recharging groundwater; protecting biological diversity; controlling invasive species with planting of native vegetation; and providing opportunities for educational, scientific, and recreational activities.
Soil health and air quality are improved by reduced wind erosion, reduced soil disturbance, increased organic matter accumulation, and an increase in carbon sequestration.
For land enrolled in ACEPALE, the suite of conservation effects on protected grasslands are different than those on protected farmland; the impacts are not valued here as one being more beneficial than another. For example, ACEPALE easements on grasslands limit agricultural activities to predominantly haying and grazing, whereas easements on farmland allow crop cultivation and pasture-based agriculture. As such, farmland protection effects are derived from onsite and ecological services, as well as preserving highly productive agricultural areas from development or fragmentation. Impacts on grasslands are derived from onsite and ecological impacts as well as preventing conversion to nongrassland uses. The net conservation effects through time from farmland protection include direct access benefits pick-your-own, agritourism, and nature based activities like hunting, indirect access benefits open spaces and scenic views, and nonuse benefits wildlife habitat and existence values. Grassland protection conservation effects include direct, indirect, and nonuse benefits, and also on-farm production gains and carbon sequestration.
The authorized level of funding for ACEP for the period of FY 2019 through 2023 is $2.25 billion assuming future funding is set at authorized amounts.
This represents an increase in ACEP
average annual funding over the 2014
Farm Bill of 11 percentfrom $405
million per year to $450 million per year in nominal dollars.
The regulatory impacts of ACEP
funding consist of payments for the purchase of easements or real property interests; the costs incurred related to the acquisition, such as title companies, appraisers, licensed land surveyors; and the costs of restoring wetlands.

E:FRFM04FER1.SGM

04FER1