Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 22 / Thursday, February 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations matters in the expanded list of examples provided in 1468.2b regarding subjects on which the State technical committee may provide advice to the State Conservationist.
Comment: NRCS received comment regarding wetland restoration and management activities, encouraging that the technical requirements for grazing management plans and exhibits for ACEPWRE grazing reserved rights enrollments be developed in consultation with State technical committees and that the individual grazing management plans be dynamic to accommodate wildlife and habitat conservation along with producer needs. Comment also recommended that NRCS prioritize activities supporting migratory waterfowl and other wetlanddependent wildlife through sciencebased management and recommended levee setbacks and forested riparian buffers be allowed on all easements in Washington State.
Response: NRCS appreciates comment related to grazing management plans and ACEPWRE reservation of grazing rights enrollments. The ACEP interim rule provided clarifying changes consistent with these recommendations, including addition of a grazing management plan definition that is specific to ACEPWRE and provisions related to the review and modification of such plans for reserved grazing rights enrollments. NRCS conducts and supports monitoring and research on its wetland easements to obtain data and information that informs technical decisions related to prioritization and selection of new easements and restoration and management of existing easements. NRCS will continue to collaborate with partners and institutions to obtain the information needed to make science-based decisions to maximize wildlife benefits and wetland functions and values on every ACEPWRE easement. The concern related to restoration activities in the State of Washington do not rise to a nationwide level and are not addressed in the regulation. The ACEP regulation and other NRCS planning procedures provide the States the needed flexibilities to make technical decisions related to enrollment, restoration, and management of ACEPWRE lands.
NRCS recommends that stakeholders with concerns should work with their applicable State Conservationist.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to WRE land eligibility:
Recommending that NRCS allow cropping on the WRE easement area;
supporting the increase in the percentage of easements that can be enrolled on cropland in a county from
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:54 Feb 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

10 percent to 15 percent; and requesting flexibility with respect to the 2-year ownership requirement for land that the farmer has managed for numerous years prior to purchase.
Response: NRCS prohibits cropping on ACEPWRE enrolled lands because the purpose of the program is to restore the wetland functions and values and crop production is inconsistent with such purposes. NRCS appreciates the comments related to the county cropland limitation. The 2-year ownership provision in the ACEP
regulation is a specific statutory requirement, but flexibility exists through the waiver process. When deciding whether to waive the 2-year ownership requirement, NRCS
considers whether the land has been managed by the landowner as part of their operation prior to acquiring ownership of the land. No change is made to the regulation in response to these issues.
Comment: NRCS received comment relating to factors used to prioritize enrollments in ACEPWRE, including support for prioritizing permanent easements over non-permanent easements and including water quality as a conservation benefit.
Response: NRCS appreciates support for the ACEPWRE prioritization factors.
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending NRCS consider funds from other Federal sources as contributions for ranking purposes.
Response: Section 1265Cb3 of the ACEP statute authorizes as a ranking factor whether the landowner or other person offers to contribute to the cost of the easement and thereby leverage Federal funds. The statutory priority is that Federal funds, not just ACEPWRE
funds, be leveraged by other sources, and NRCS has incorporated this factor into the regulation. NRCS State Conservationists, with input from State technical committees, may consider other priorities that further program goals, including other sources of contribution. However, other Federal sources of contribution may have restrictions on the use of their funds and NRCS must ensure that there is no augmentation in contravention of appropriations law. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment supporting and encouraging NRCS to continue to seek advice and input on implementation of ACEPWRE from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies, and State technical committees.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

8127

Response: Both ACEP regulation and policy require the NRCS to seek continued engagement from these partners. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Comment: NRCS received comment related to the Wetland Restoration Enhancement Partnership WREP, recommending that NRCS restore the 5
percent match requirement for the WREP partner contributions and maintain historic levels of partner contributions at 25 percent. Another comment recommended that NRCS
provide an annual allocation for WREP
of between $3550 million per year.
Response: NRCS appreciates the support for WREP. NRCS has not established any regulatory level of match that is required for WREP and bases such determination upon the focus of each years WREP effort. No change is made to the regulation in response to this issue.
Notice and Comment, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Effective Date In general, the Administrative Procedure Act APA 5 U.S.C. 553
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involves matters relating to benefits and therefore is exempt from the APA requirements.
Further, the regulations to implement the programs of chapter 58 of title 16 of the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C.
3846, and the administration of those programs, are:
To be made as an interim rule effective on publication, with an opportunity for notice and comment;
Exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. ch. 35; and To use the authority under 5 U.S.C.
808 related to congressional review.
Consistent with the use of the authority under 5 U.S.C. 808 related to Congressional review for the immediate effect date of the interim rule, this rule is also effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
E:FRFM04FER1.SGM

04FER1