Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

8122

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 22 / Thursday, February 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the ability to calibrate the relative importance of cash contributions in the prioritization of applications for enrollment in that State. No change is made to the regulation in response to these issues.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to ranking priority for actions related to the future, agricultural, and long-term viability of enrolled land.
Comment supported adding information to the succession plan portion of the ranking, such as specifically identifying OPAV, Purchase of Development Rights PDR, and other succession planning options that maintain agricultural viability or awarding points for innovative succession requirements.
Comment also:
Recommended expanding the ranking criteria to prioritize applications that increase opportunities for historically underserved farmers;
Supported the maintenance of agricultural viability as a ranking criterion; including supporting its inclusion as both a national and State ranking factor;
Suggested that such inclusion is duplicative;
Recommended that agricultural viability be included in the national ranking criteria; and Recommended that succession planning be removed from the ranking criteria.
Response: Based on national and State ranking criteria in the ACEP regulation, NRCS at the State level develops ranking factors and associated weights.
Broadly identifying State ranking criteria in the regulation provides the needed flexibility for States to develop the specific ranking criteria that best address State and local priorities.
Regarding long-term maintenance of agricultural viability, the national ranking criteria ensures, consistent with the statute, that this criterion is considered in every ACEPALE
application by assessing whether a succession plan exists.
The existence of State ranking criteria enables States to develop nuanced approaches to address long-term agricultural viability, which may include more specific identification or prioritization of certain types of succession plans or succession planning strategies. NRCS does not wish to limit agricultural landowners choices or restrict who could be involved in succession planning. Such specificity is not necessary in the regulation itself.
NRCS includes in the regulatory definition of a farm or ranch succession plan strategies that create opportunities for historically underserved landowners. NRCS also includes a State
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Feb 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

ranking criterion related to the multifunctional benefits of farm and ranch land protection, of which social and economic considerations may be included.
No change is made to the regulation in response to these issues.
Comment: NRCS received comment about eliminating the potential for prioritization of applications for which eligible entities agree to use the ACEP
ALE minimum deed terms.
Response: In the interim rule, NRCS
indicated that it may prioritize transactions where an eligible entity uses NRCSs standard set of minimum deed terms. This potential prioritization also existed for enrollment during the 2014 Farm Bill and its inclusion as a factor in the States ranking criteria is at the States discretion. An eligible entitys use of the standard set of minimum deed terms streamlines the easement approval process and eliminates the need for NRCS review of the conservation easement deed for individual transactions. The efficiency by which easement transactions are completed, including the use of available administrative streamlining options, is an appropriate consideration in ranking, and no change was made in this final rule. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to the State ranking criteria for multifunctional benefits for the protection of a particular farm or ranch, recommending that NRCS at the State level have the option to specify other related conservation benefits under this multifunctional benefits criterion.
Comment also recommended adding species of economic significance to the consideration for at-risk species protection under this ranking criterion.
Another comment recommended the criteria be other related benefits, striking conservation from the consideration, and other comments recommended that NRCS add ranking criteria about related conservation values.
Response: NRCS agrees that evaluating the multifunctional benefits that may result from parcel protection is an important prioritization criterion.
NRCS has enumerated in the regulation some potential benefits that may be considered and has included other related conservation benefits to provide States with the flexibility to identify such conservation benefits and establish the associated ranking factors and priorities. NRCS believes the State ranking criterion is sufficiently expansive for NRCS to tailor ranking factors at the State and local level. No
PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment and appreciation related to various State ranking criteria, including requesting that NRCS provide specific references to geographic differences for States to use in ranking. Other comment stated that prioritizing land in areas zoned for agricultural use may inadvertently exclude agricultural lands. Comment also recommended that protection of native prairie and other native habitats, including protection or improvement of habitat for pollinators, be added to the State ranking criteria related to the diversity of natural resources to be protected or improved, and requested that riparian buffers be ranked as the highest ACEPALE priority.
Response: NRCS believes that the regulation provides a sufficient framework under which the various items brought forth in these comments can all be addressed at the State level with input from the State technical committee. No change is made to the regulation in response to these issues.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to various national ranking criteria. One comment indicated that it is contradictory to limit forest land enrollment to two-thirds of an easement area while also having the extent of forestland as part of a ranking criterion.
Another comment encouraged NRCS to clarify in the regulation that it will use the median county average farm size and requested higher priority be given to parcels adjacent to existing easements or protected areas.
Response: Comment related to forest lands refers to the national ranking criteria for the percent of cropland, rangeland, grassland, historic grassland, pastureland, or nonindustrial private forest land permitted in a protected parcel. Each State is able to tailor the specific ranking factor to prioritize enrollment of land that contains the amounts and types of land and agricultural uses that are most at risk in their State. For example, a western State may establish the ranking factor to prioritize parcels with a larger percentage of historic grassland since those lands may be at the greatest risk of conversion. In contrast, a midwestern State may prioritize the percentage of cropland in a parcel since those lands may be at the greatest risk of conversion.
Comment regarding median county average farm size refers to the national ranking criteria that considers the ratio of the size of the parcel compared to the average farm size in the county. As identified in the regulation, the USDA
Census of Agriculture is the data source for this national ranking criterion; the
E:FRFM04FER1.SGM

04FER1