Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 22 / Thursday, February 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations entity cash contribution amounts are sufficient. Other comment commended NRCS on including the requirement but requested clarification as to what would constitute specific evidence of funds available for stewardship.
Response: All entities must demonstrate capability and capacity as an eligibility requirement. Under the 2014 Farm Bill, NRCS could use an entitys ability to provide at least the required cash contribution amount for all ACEPALE transactions as an indication that the entity is able to meet capability and capacity requirements.
Where an entity is unable to provide at least a minimum cash contribution, questions arise as to the entitys financial capacity to assume responsibility for the easement acquisition. NRCS has, therefore, specified in the regulation the conditions under which additional capability and capacity evidence will always be required. However, it is always the entitys responsibility to establish that it meets basic ACEPALE
eligibility requirements and as identified in the rule, the entity must provide to NRCS sufficient information to establish that the applicable entity eligibility criteria have been met.
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that the definition of a farm or ranch succession plan be expanded to include transfers of land and deeds to non-relatives and other long-term protections for agricultural productivity. Also, comment recommended specifying that successions plans may include options to purchase at agricultural value or preemptive purchase rights.
Response: The key part of a succession plan is that the landowner makes arrangements for the future management of the land as a farm or ranch once the landowner retires or dies. NRCS does not limit those types of arrangements. The definition of the succession plan in the regulation used intra-family succession agreements or business asset transfer strategies as examples. NRCS has added language to clarify that the examples included in the definition are not all-inclusive.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to the easement valuation methods available under ACEPALE, encouraging NRCS to provide guidance on information required for easement valuation methods used other than the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice USPAP appraisals, including areawide market analysis or other industry-approved methods.
Comment also expressed support for the current availability of ACEPALE

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Feb 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

valuation options beyond USPAP
appraisals.
Response: NRCS provides guidance in policy with respect to what is required if an eligible entity elects to use an alternative easement valuation methodology, including a Specification and Scope of Work for Areawide Market Analysis for ACEPALE. These items are published and publicly available in NRCS directive Title 440, Conservation Programs Manual 440CPM, Part 528, Section 528.53, and in 440CPM, Part 527, Subpart E, which can be accessed on the NRCS Electronic Directives system at https
directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS be required to consult with the State technical committee on ACEPALE prioritization for ranking, special eligibility, and all other State-decided criteria.
Response: Statutory authority states that State technical committees assist in implementation and technical aspects of conservation programs under Title XII
of the Food Security Act, such as ACEP.
Sections 1468.2 and 1468.22 of the ACEP interim rule incorporate this role, including that State technical committees provide input on the development of ranking criteria and other matters. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to the ACEPALE application process and the new option for ALEprogram agreements, requesting that NRCS make the application form and new option for ALE-program agreements form more usable and that the process be streamlined. Other comments wished to have greater guidance about how producers could participate and supported the new ALE program agreement option and requested additional clarification regarding its availability.
Response: NRCS appreciates the complexity of easement transactions, including the extent of information that must be collected from applicants and participants on various program forms.
NRCS has made several efforts to streamline the ACEPALE enrollment process. In FY 2020, NRCS released various new or updated forms used to administer ACEPALE. Additionally, NRCS piloted in fiscal year 2019 and is implementing more widely in fiscal year 2020 the use of ALE program agreements, making available several automated eligibility and payment processes previously only available to NRCS financial assistance programs.
Also, the use of a program agreement
PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

8121

framework under ACEPALE allows NRCS and eligible entities to more easily address enrollment changes, such as parcel substitution or acreage modifications. Since NRCS does not receive landowner applications directly for ACEPALE enrollment, NRCS will provide outreach to States to help landowners interested in ACEPALE
identify eligible entities in their geographic area. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS allow water supply entities to participate in ACEP
ALE as eligible entities.
Response: An eligible entity must meet the definition of an eligible entity established by statute and incorporated into the ACEP regulation. NRCS does not have authority to expand the basic eligible entity definition. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
ALE Ranking NRCS received comment related to ALE ranking as follows:
Comment: NRCS received comment related to removing the factor associated with national ranking criterion that takes into consideration whether the cash contribution is being provided by the eligible entity toward the payment of easement compensation to the landowner. Other comments:
Recommended consideration of State and local tax incentives be added to this factor;
Recommended NRCS prioritization of landowner donation in the ranking;
and Agreed with including the eligible entitys cash contribution in the ranking.
Response: The Managers report introduced flexibilities to provide better access to ACEP in States where conservation easement funding is limited. The Managers stated that they did not intend for NRCS to reject cash matches entirely but broadened the options available to eligible entities.
NRCS recognizes that any time the eligible entitys cash contribution is reduced, the landowner receives less compensation for the sale of an easement on their land, which may result in ACEP funds being the only funds paid to the landowner for the easement. Additionally, the increased donation by the landowner will frequently satisfy the minimum nonFederal share requirement under ACEP
ALE. By considering the cash contribution as a positive attribute in ranking, NRCS is encouraging enrollment while ensuring that ACEP is implemented equitably. Each State has
E:FRFM04FER1.SGM

04FER1