Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Tribal lands. In contrast, RCPP land eligibility includes certain public lands, and NRCS may allow States and local government agencies to enter into a BPS
transaction under RCPP. NRCS will announce any authorizations for such transactions through an APF.
NRCS has posted the minimum deed terms to provide a full range of options for US-held and entity-held easements.
The minimum deed terms provide eligible entities with maximum flexibility to use their own terms while NRCS ensures that RCPP purposes and requirements are met. NRCS will also maintain easement compensation flexibility under the final rule. Future APFs will provide information on the best approach for leveraging Federal funding and partner efforts.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
U.S.-Held Easement Compensation Comment: NRCS received comment about the range of easement types available under RCPP, expressing support for the flexibility and requesting that NRCS avoid competition between RCPP U.S.-held agricultural land easements and other farm protection programs. Comment also addressed the easement valuation structure identified in the APF, opposing the use of tiered easement compensation based upon level of U.S.-held RCPP easement protection. Comment also recommended that NRCS consider landowner charitable donation of easement value and landowner management activities on an easement as part of the partners contribution.
Response: The three tiers of compensation paid to landowners enrolling in a U.S.-held RCPP easement were established to emphasize the partnership nature of RCPP and to ensure that RCPP would not compete with other NRCS easement programs.
While partner contributions are encouraged to compensate landowners fully for enrollment of less restrictive easement types, landowner donations of easement value or associated management costs cannot be counted as partner contribution. Doing so would reduce the incentive for partners to provide assistance to producers. For example, when RCPP reimburses a producer for up to 75 percent of the cost of implementing a conservation practice, the remaining 25 percent is the producers responsibility. If the producer solely pays for the 25 percent share, it is not considered a partner contribution. A partner contribution only occurs if the partner assists the producer with the cost of the practice.
NRCS will continue to encourage greater
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:59 Jan 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

partner investment in project success through the competitive tiering of easement compensation. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Eligibility Comment: NRCS received comment about land eligibility in general, including support for the eligibility of certain public agricultural lands and some suggesting expansion of such eligibility to all public land. Comment also supported the eligibility of lands owned by non-governmental organizations, while other comment recommended that eligibility be expanded to include forest land under threat from grazing by ungulates.1
Commenters also expressed appreciation for the consistency of land eligibility between the CSP and RCPP
interim rules and urged NRCS to be flexible in determining whether such land is under the effective control of the producer.
Response: NRCS appreciates comments regarding land eligibility with respect to lands owned by public and non-governmental entities. The RCPP activity type informs whether or not public land or land owned by a nongovernmental entity is eligible given existing public trust protections and related restrictions and the relationship of those protections and restrictions to addressing resource concerns. As a result, NRCS believes that the current parameters best reflect the scope of land eligibility. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Funding Pools Critical Conservation Areas Comment: NRCS received comments related to Critical Conservation Areas CCAs, including recommending that NRCS:
a Add excess water as a concern for the Mississippi River basin;
b Consolidate the Columbia River basin and the California Bay Delta into a single CCA;
c Add water source protection to all eight CCAs;
d Add soil health or soil quality as a priority resource concern for all eight CCAs;
e Allow CCA projects to include areas outside of a CCA;
f Continue Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool CART use;
g Expand CCAs to include New England;
h Identify a new CCA focusing on coral reefs in the Pacific Islands Areas and the Caribbean Area;
1 Ungulates
PO 00000

are hooved mammals.

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

3737

i Identify a new CCA focusing on the Puget Sound;
j Continue the CCA in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
k Update CCAs to cover all 50 states;
and l Clarify that if a proposal is within a CCA it will only receive priority if it both achieves conservation benefits and addresses the CCAs primary resource concern.
Response: While lands outside a CCA
can influence resource concerns within a critical conservation area, NRCS
identified CCA boundaries to provide clear demarcation. This final rule clarifies that lands outside of a CCA are not eligible for proposals or applications in a CCA. The regulation is also amended to reflect that NRCS will give priority to proposals in CCAs that both 1 achieve conservation benefits and 2
address at least one of a CCAs priority resource concerns.
NRCS appreciates the comments related to CART and suggestions regarding RCPP and water resource, soil health, and soil quality. Regarding proposed changes to the eight designated CCAs, the Secretary identifies CCAs, including whether an existing CCA will be re-designated.
NRCS is working with the Office of the Secretary to determine whether the current designation status of CCAs, including the re-designation of current CCAs or new CCAs, should be undertaken. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Other Comment: NRCS received comment related to funding pools that did not address CCAs. Comment expressed concern that the National funding pool was eliminated and suggested that State Conservationists should be the selecting official for the State and Multi-State funding pool.
Response: The 2018 Farm Bill mandated removal of the National funding pool. NRCS provides State Conservationists with advisory allocations to guide the States ranking process. However, the Chief makes all final selections. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Renewals Comment: NRCS received support for the renewal process though some comment critiqued its competitive nature due to limited funds. Comment recommended that a renewal demonstrate the continued need for the project and requested that NRCS post renewal criteria prior to requesting renewal applications. Comment alternatively recommended funding all
E:FRFM15JAR1.SGM

15JAR1