[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71818-71855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24504]



[[Page 71817]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 201

October 18, 2016

Part III





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Commodity Credit Corporation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





7 CFR Part 1468





Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 71818]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1468

[Docket No. NRCS-2014-0011]
RIN 0578-AA61


Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC), United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NRCS published an interim rule, with request for comments, on 
February 27, 2015, to implement the Agricultural Conservation Easement 
Program (ACEP) that was authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014. 
NRCS received 1,055 comments from 102 respondents to the interim rule. 
In this document, NRCS responds to comments, makes adjustments to the 
rule in response to some of the comments received, and issues a final 
rule for ACEP implementation.

DATES: This rule is effective October 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Berns, Director, Easement Programs 
Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890; 
or email: [email protected], Attn: Farm Bill Program Inquiry.
    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 
communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact 
the USDA TARGET Center at: (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) is a 
voluntary program to help farmers and ranchers preserve their 
agricultural land and restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on 
eligible lands. The program has two easement enrollment components: (1) 
Agricultural land easements; and (2) wetland reserve easements. Under 
the agricultural land easement component, NRCS provides matching funds 
to State, Tribal, and local governments, and nongovernmental 
organizations with farm and ranch land protection programs to purchase 
agricultural land easements. Agricultural land easements may be 
permanent or the maximum duration authorized by State law. Under the 
wetland reserve easement component, NRCS protects wetlands by 
purchasing directly from landowners a reserved interest in eligible 
land or entering into 30-year contracts on acreage owned by Indian 
Tribes, in each case providing for the restoration, enhancement, and 
protection of wetlands and associated lands. Wetland reserve easements 
may be permanent, 30-years, or the maximum duration authorized by State 
law.
    The 2014 Act kept much of the substance of the statutory provisions 
that originally existed for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Farm 
and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), with land eligibility 
elements from the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) incorporated. In 
particular, ACEP as authorized by the 2014 Act:
     Consolidates FRPP, GRP, and WRP easement options into one 
program, and repeals these three programs; and
     Incorporates elements of FRPP and GRP into the 
agricultural land easement component of ACEP, and elements of WRP into 
the wetland reserve easement component of ACEP.
    The significant statutory differences from the source programs 
include:
     The agency has program-wide authority to subordinate, 
modify, exchange, or terminate an easement under certain circumstances, 
an expansion of authority that had previously applied only to WRP.
     The non-Federal contribution towards the purchase of the 
agricultural land easement varies slightly from the previous FRPP non-
Federal contribution. In particular, if a landowner makes a charitable 
donation of a large percentage of the agricultural land easement's fair 
market value, the landowner donation will reduce the Federal 
government's contribution to a greater extent than previously required 
under FRPP.
     All ACEP easements will be subject to an easement plan. 
Previously, WRP and GRP required some form of easement plan for all 
easements and FRPP only required a conservation plan on highly erodible 
cropland.
     The landowner tenure requirement for wetland reserve 
easements is 24 months compared to 7 years under the former WRP.
    On February 27, 2015, NRCS published an interim rule with request 
for comments in the Federal Register (80 FR 11032) that promulgated the 
ACEP regulations at 7 CFR part 1468. While ACEP required its own 
regulation for its implementation, there were very few new regulatory 
requirements for participants.
    NRCS organized the ACEP regulation into 3 subparts. Subpart A 
includes those provisions that affect the entire program, Subpart B 
includes those provisions that affect only the Agricultural Land 
Easement (ALE) component, and Subpart C includes those provisions that 
affect only the Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) component.
    In particular, Subpart A of the interim rule addressed:
     Identification of the following lands as ineligible--
    [cir] Federal lands except lands held in trust for Indian Tribes.
    [cir] State-owned lands, including lands owned by agencies or 
subdivisions of the State or unit of local government.
    [cir] Land subject to an existing easement or deed restriction that 
provides similar protection that would be achieved by enrollment.
    [cir] Lands that have onsite or offsite conditions that would 
undermine meeting the purposes of the program.
     Authorization for easement subordination, modification, 
exchange, or termination of easements under specific criteria.
     Identification that lands enrolled in FRPP, GRP, and WRP 
are considered enrolled in ACEP.
    Subpart B of the interim rule addressed the ALE component, 
including:
     Limiting the Federal share of the easement cost for 
projects that are not grasslands of special environmental significance 
to not exceed 50 percent of the fair market value of the agricultural 
land easement, while requiring the non-Federal share to be at least 
equivalent to the Federal share, with an eligible entity contributing 
at least 50 percent of the Federal share with its own cash resources.
     Identifying that eligible entities may include Indian 
Tribes, State governments, local governments, or nongovernmental 
organizations that have farmland or grassland protection programs that 
purchase agricultural land easements.
     Authorizing NRCS to pay up to 75 percent of the fair 
market value of the agricultural land easement for the enrollment of 
grassland of special environmental significance.
     Authorizing NRCS to waive the eligible entity cash 
contribution requirement with no increase in Federal share for projects 
of special significance where the landowner voluntarily increases the 
landowner contribution commensurate to the amount of the waiver and the 
property is in active agricultural production.

[[Page 71819]]

     Maintaining a certification process for eligible entities.
     Prohibiting the assigning of a higher priority to an 
application solely on the basis of lesser cost to the program.
     Requiring all easements to be subject to an agricultural 
land easement plan.
    Subpart C of the interim rule addressed the WRE component 
including:
     Maintaining most elements of the WRP eligibility and 
administrative framework.
     Authorizing a waiver process to allow enrollment of 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands established to trees.
     Allowing ranking criteria to consider the extent to which 
a landowner or other person or entity leverages the Federal investment.
     Reducing length of ownership requirement prior to 
enrollment from 7 years to 24 months.
     Exempting ``subclass w'' soils in the land capability 
classes IV through VIII from county cropland limitations.
     Keeping the WRP easement compensation framework for 
wetland reserve easements.
    NRCS originally solicited comments on the interim final rule for 60 
days ending April 28, 2015. NRCS extended the comment period an 
additional 30 days to May 28, 2015, to provide interested parties 
additional time to review the new regulatory provisions and associated 
policy.
    NRCS received 102 timely submitted responses to the rule, 
constituting of 1,055 discrete comments. NRCS welcomes this 
enthusiastic response to its new, consolidated, easement program, and 
will continue to obtain input from interested parties throughout its 
administration. This final rule responds to the comments received 
through the public comment period and makes changes that NRCS believes 
contribute to the effectiveness, equity, transparency, and clarity of 
the program.

Summary of ACEP Comments

    In this preamble, the comments have been organized in alphabetic 
order by topic. Given the range of the number of comments received on 
each topic, NRCS attempts to enumerate the level of interest received 
for each subtopic within a topic area. The topics include: ACEP general 
information; ALE agreements; ALE deed requirements; ALE entity 
certification; ALE entity eligibility; application process and 
requirements; cost-share assistance and match requirements; 
definitions; easement closing and payment procedures; easement 
valuation and consideration; easement monitoring, management, and 
enforcement; land and landowner eligibility; national and State 
allocations; national priorities and initiatives; participation in 
other USDA programs; planning; ranking; Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program (RCPP); restoration; State Technical Committees; 
subordination, modification, exchange, and termination; Wetland Reserve 
Enhancement Partnerships (WREP); WRE Reservation of Grazing Rights, and 
WRE-miscellaneous.
    The comments were generally supportive with recommendations for 
improvement. Most comments related to the ALE component of the program. 
In particular, most recommendations pertained to program eligibility, 
minimum easement deed terms and requirements, the criteria for the 
agricultural land easement plan, and ranking.

ACEP General Information

    Comment: NRCS received four comments related to the topic of ACEP 
general information. Two comments expressed support for the program, 
one comment opposed public grazing, and one comment supported education 
classes in Hawaii for small and micro farms.
    NRCS Response: ACEP does not enroll public lands and thus does not 
have a public grazing component to its program. NRCS is not authorized 
to use ACEP funds for education classes, but does provide technical 
assistance to applicants of all types of operations, including small 
and micro farms.

ALE Agreements

    Comment: NRCS received 11 comments on the basic topic of ALE 
agreements. One comment recommended that restrictions related to 
historical or archaeological features should be consistent with the 
Secretary of the Interior's standards, eight comments recommended that 
the NRCS State Conservationist have the delegated authority to approve 
substitutions of parcels under an ALE-agreement (including one comment 
that recommended that NRCS allow for more than a 1:1 easement 
substitution), and one comment recommended that certified entities 
obtain NRCS review and approval of a deed template prior to entering 
into a grant agreement. One comment recommended that NRCS allow 
negotiations with respect to ALE-agreements, including the ability to 
identify separately pre-closing and post-closing responsibilities.
    NRCS Response: NRCS restrictions related to historical and 
archaeologic features are consistent with the Secretary of the 
Interior's standards. With respect to substitutions, NRCS policy 
currently delegates authority to the State Conservationist to approve 
substitutions. Substitutions are on a 1:1 basis to ensure that equal or 
greater conservation benefit is being obtained as a result of the 
substitution. NRCS will continue with this policy since it ensures 
better administration of ALE-agreements by allowing better tracking of 
funds and benefits achieved from the substitution, and additional 
parcels can always be added through amending the agreement. NRCS will 
provide the template ALE-agreement sooner in the process to allow 
eligible entities sufficient opportunity to review. Use of standard 
template ALE-agreements allows NRCS to use a more streamlined review 
and approval process for ALE-agreements helping to ensure agreements 
can be entered into within the same fiscal year as the initial 
selection for funding. NRCS adopted the recommendation that NRCS 
separately identify post-closing responsibilities to ease eligible 
entities' review of the agreements.

ALE Deed Requirements

    NRCS received 182 comments related to ALE deed requirements. Prior 
to discussing the specific comments and NRCS responses, NRCS would like 
to respond to those comments that requested NRCS provide clarification 
regarding the difference between the inter-related concepts of 
``minimum deed requirements'' and ``minimum deed terms.''
    Section 1265B(b)(4)(C) of the ACEP statute identifies that an 
eligible entity will be allowed to use its own deed terms and 
conditions provided that NRCS determines that such terms and conditions 
are ``consistent with the purposes of the program'' and ``permit 
effective enforcement of the conservation purposes of such easements.'' 
To streamline program delivery, increase the transparency of program 
requirements, ease the deed review process and provide consistency and 
fairness between eligible entities, NRCS identified in the interim rule 
minimum deed requirements for ALE and then made available standard 
language that would meet these minimum deed requirements, i.e. a 
standard set of minimum deed terms. Minimum deed requirements that NRCS 
will now refer to as regulatory deed requirements, are the topics that 
must be addressed in an ACEP-funded agricultural land easement. Minimum

[[Page 71820]]

deed terms provide specific phraseology that NRCS has vetted as 
effective enforceable language for meeting the regulatory deed 
requirements. NRCS has revised Sec.  1468.25 by re-organizing and 
consolidating the paragraphs in Sec.  1468.25, without changing the 
substance, to better clarify the interface between regulatory deed 
requirements and minimum deed terms.
    NRCS explained in the preamble of the interim rule that an 
agricultural land easement deed may be determined to meet program 
purposes by the eligible entity drafting all of the deed terms and 
conditions for an individual easement and submitting the entire deed to 
NRCS for review to ensure that the regulatory deed requirements have 
been met. Alternatively, the eligible entity may adopt the NRCS minimum 
deed terms as a whole along with the entity's own deed terms. In either 
scenario, the eligible entity may use their own terms and conditions, 
the difference being the review process by which NRCS ensures the 
purposes and requirements of the program are met. NRCS may review and 
approve at the State level those deeds submitted by eligible entities 
that have the NRCS minimum deed terms attached as written, whereas NRCS 
at the national level must review and approve all other deeds submitted 
by eligible entities.
    NRCS further explained in the interim rule that the former approach 
was taken under FRPP and, based on the inconsistencies that arise with 
individual deed negotiations, NRCS decided it would provide more 
transparent and consistent implementation under ACEP to adopt the 
latter approach of requiring regulatory deed requirements and 
encouraging the adoption of minimum deed terms. An eligible entity, 
especially certified entities, can be confident that they have met ACEP 
funding and regulatory deed requirements if the easement deed 
incorporates the language from the available minimum deed terms.
    The subtopics addressed by the ALE deed requirement comments 
included the following: Regulatory deed requirements in general (61 
comments); modification and termination provisions (11 comments); 
incorporation of the ALE plan (8 comments); permitted and other uses (2 
comments); mining, minerals, oil, and gas (5 comments); construction 
and building envelope (14 comments); commercial activities (1 comment); 
impervious surface limitations (12 comments); subdivision (17 
comments); advisory committee (8 comments); right of enforcement (17 
comments); access (3 comments); acquisition purpose restrictions (8 
comments); and miscellaneous (10 comments).
    General Comments: The breakdown of the 61 general comments related 
to the regulatory deed requirements or the minimum deed terms, and the 
NRCS response to these comments, are as follows:
     Four comments expressed support for the minimum deed 
terms;
     Eight comments recommended eliminating the minimum deed 
term requirement; NRCS has determined that identifying regulatory deed 
requirements that address statutory purposes, including specific 
statutory requirements, provides an equitable and transparent basis 
upon which to achieve program purposes and make consistent programmatic 
decisions. In particular, this final rule retains the following 
regulatory deed requirements at Sec.  1468.25, including provisions 
that must address: (1) Right of enforcement--statutory requirement; (2) 
compliance with an agricultural land easement plan--statutory 
requirement; (3) impervious surface limitation--statutory requirement; 
(4) indemnification--standard clause in conservation easements; (5) 
amendments must be in compliance with ALE purposes--ensure that deed 
will further statutory program purposes for easement term; (6) 
prohibition of commercial and industrial activities except those 
activities determined consistent with the agricultural use of the 
land--statutory purpose for limiting conversion to non-agricultural 
uses or protecting grazing uses and related conservation values; (7) 
prohibition or limitation of the subdivision of the property subject to 
the agricultural land easement, except where State or local regulations 
explicitly require subdivision to construct residences for employees 
working on the property or where otherwise authorized by NRCS and the 
Grantee--statutory purpose for limiting conversion to non-agricultural 
uses or protecting grazing uses and related conservation values; (8) 
specific protections related to the purposes for which the easement is 
acquired--statutory requirement; and (9) other terms as identified by 
the Chief in the agreement between NRCS and the eligible entity--
necessary flexibility to address emerging resource issues. NRCS 
determined that these regulatory deed requirements ensure the financial 
and programmatic integrity of the program. This approach also retains 
flexibility for cooperating entities to determine regional, State, or 
local priorities within their deeds and for enrolling projects.
     Two comments recommended eliminating the minimum deed 
terms; NRCS did not adopt this recommendation because minimum deed 
terms provide consistency and transparency to eligible entities and 
landowners about NRCS program requirements, and are required to ensure 
effective program delivery.
     Nine comments recommended eliminating priority given to 
eligible entities that adopt the minimum deed terms, while two comments 
supported the priority. Given the mid-fiscal year publication of the 
interim rule and the requirement to incorporate into the ALE-agreement 
the agreed-upon terms for funded easements, NRCS identified that it 
would give fund priority in fiscal year (FY) 2015 to eligible entities 
who were willing to adopt NRCS minimum deed terms. Several eligible 
entities, especially those accustomed to negotiating deed terms 
required as a condition of receiving Federal funds, expressed concern 
about priority being given to eligible entities willing to adopt the 
minimum deed terms. NRCS reiterates that eligible entities are 
authorized to use their own deed terms and that the minimum deed terms 
are in addition to the entity's deed terms. As described above, 
participation in ACEP requires the regulatory deed requirements to be 
addressed in the deed. Therefore, NRCS will continue to encourage 
eligible entities to adopt NRCS minimum deed terms because such 
adoption addresses the regulatory deed requirements and greatly 
facilitates reviews of both the ALE-agreements and the deeds, 
streamlines program delivery, and ensures long term consistency and 
equitable treatment of eligible entities and landowners. This 
encouragement will be implemented through a National ranking factor 
among other factors, and if an eligible entity adopts the minimum deed 
terms then such eligible entity will receive priority in the ranking. 
Eligible entities may opt to negotiate an entity-specific template that 
incorporates the minimum deed terms and are encouraged to do this prior 
to the start of a funding year. States may also decide whether they 
wish to screen applications from eligible entities that request such 
individualized negotiation dependent upon the State's ability to manage 
its workload. If an entity has an entity-specific template deed that 
has been approved by the national level in the fiscal year prior to 
ranking, this entity-specific template deed will also be captured in 
the ranking. However, any subsequent requests for changes to either the 
minimum deed terms or

[[Page 71821]]

approved entity-specific template deed may affect this ranking 
consideration.
     Three comments recommended NRCS create a process to allow 
approved minimum deed terms to be developed at the State level and two 
comments recommended allowing for modification of the minimum deed 
terms to create a better balance between national oversight and local 
needs by allowing more flexibility for easements to include local deed 
restrictions. NRCS has determined that program consistency is better 
served by the development of a standard set of minimum deed terms at 
the National level. However, State Conservationists in consultation 
with the State Technical Committee, may propose additional minimum deed 
terms that are State specific to address actual, local concerns that 
are not adequately encompassed by the National set of minimum deed 
terms. The proposed State-specific terms must be submitted by the State 
Conservationist to the National office for review and if the National 
office approves the additional State-specific terms, such terms would 
then be utilized uniformly throughout the State as the standard set of 
minimum deed terms for that State. Submissions for additional minimum 
deed terms that are State-specific must occur in the fiscal year prior 
to their proposed use to ensure adequate time for review and approval. 
Eligible entities may be authorized to use an approved set of State-
specific minimum deed terms on any unclosed ACEP-ALE easements through 
an amendment to the ALE-agreement.
     Three comments recommended that State entities should be 
exempt from the regulatory deed requirements specified in the ACEP 
regulation; NRCS did not adopt this recommendation. ALE is a voluntary 
funding source that is available to eligible entities where mutual 
purposes can be met through a partnership arrangement. Just as State 
entities must ensure that their program purposes will continue to be 
met through the partnership arrangement, NRCS must ensure that ACEP 
purposes will be furthered by the expenditure of ACEP funds. NRCS 
recognizes that State entities may have special statutory restrictions, 
and State entities, like other eligible entities, have flexibility to 
use their own deed terms, and with the exception of the United States 
Right of Enforcement language, can request review and approval of an 
individual template deed if they are unable to use the standard minimum 
deed terms. NRCS will work with State entities, and others, where there 
are programmatic conflicts that must be addressed in order to create an 
effective partnership arrangement.
     Five comments recommended replacing the minimum deed terms 
with an entity specific template that could be further modified on a 
per project basis. NRCS recognizes that individually-tailored 
provisions provide eligible entities with negotiation flexibility in 
their discussions with landowners. However, NRCS experience has 
revealed that individually-negotiated provisions create inconsistencies 
in how eligible entities and landowners are treated, which is 
inconsistent with how Federal funds should be administered. NRCS also 
has extensive and successful experience in administering Federal 
conservation program funds through the use of standard agreement and 
contract language and has found that the use of such standard language 
increases the transparency of the programs, ensures the equitable 
treatment of landowners and program participants, and ultimately aids 
in the enforceability of the agreement or contract to ensure the 
purposes for which the Federal funds have been invested are achieved 
and protected consistent with the statutory intent of the conservation 
program. An entity-specific template that is then further negotiated on 
an individual project basis is not considered a template but rather an 
individually negotiated deed and may affect any ranking consideration 
given for the use of an approved template. Therefore, NRCS encourages 
that the regulatory deed requirements be met through use of the minimum 
deed terms.
     One comment recommended that any easement template deed 
waiver should require approval of the other funding partners; NRCS did 
not adopt this recommendation. NRCS works with an eligible entity that 
must meet ACEP-ALE terms and conditions to receive ACEP funding, 
including having an easement deed that meets ALE program requirements. 
NRCS does not have a direct relationship with the other funding 
partners of the eligible entity and therefore it is the eligible 
entity's responsibility to ensure that its partners are notified about 
any matters that may affect the transaction and the partners' funding 
commitments.
     One comment recommended that NRCS provide more flexibility 
and clarity in determining whether an eligible entity's deed terms are 
consistent with program purposes. NRCS has outlined in the regulation 
the deed requirements that must be addressed in an eligible entity's 
deed, and has also made available minimum deed terms that have been 
determined to be consistent with program purposes and that satisfy the 
regulatory deed requirements. NRCS will work with an eligible entity to 
answer questions that arise with respect to other deed provisions that 
the eligible entity may wish to include and how such provisions could 
further or inhibit ALE purposes.
     Two comments recommended that certified entities should be 
authorized to use their own deed terms and conditions so long as those 
terms and conditions meet the statutory requirements of the program, 
and two comments recommended that NRCS should review them upon request; 
NRCS did not adopt these recommendations. NRCS regulatory requirements 
apply to all eligible entities, including certified eligible entities. 
NRCS has determined the regulatory deed requirements specified in this 
regulation are essential to meeting ALE program purposes and statutory 
requirements. While an eligible entity may avail itself of a 
streamlined administrative process if certified, such streamlined 
process must also result in meeting ALE program purposes. NRCS believes 
that an eligible entity that has sufficient familiarity with ALE 
program purposes to be certified is also knowledgeable of the deed 
provisions that NRCS considers sufficient to meet program purposes. A 
certified entity has gained this familiarity through NRCS approval of 
an eligible entity's template deed prior to certification, and the 
transparent manner in which NRCS has made available the minimum deed 
terms that are similarly determined to be sufficient to meet program 
purposes. The availability of a grant agreement for certified entities 
is to minimize NRCS involvement in the prior review of each of the 
certified entity's easement transactions. The certified entity can use 
their own deed terms provided that the deed meets the regulatory deed 
requirements.
     Three comments recommended that NRCS ensure that future 
habitat restoration is not prohibited on an ALE easement, and that good 
riparian and floodplain management necessary to achieve salmon recovery 
and shellfish protection are implemented. NRCS recognizes that 
conservation organizations have different understanding about whether 
habitat restoration activities are consisted with agricultural uses of 
land. NRCS has determined that habitat restoration is generally 
consistent with ALE program purposes. However, NRCS does not believe 
that habitat restoration is a minimum program requirement for ALE 
enrollment like it is for WRE

[[Page 71822]]

enrollment, and therefore has not included it as a regulatory deed 
requirement. A State Conservationist, in consultation with the State 
Technical Committee, may request that a provision authorizing habitat 
restoration activities be included as an additional State-specific 
minimum deed term for ALE enrollment in their State.
     Three comments recommend NRCS clarify the difference 
between minimum deed terms and regulatory deed requirements and when 
they are or are not mandatory. As discussed above, NRCS identified in 
the interim rule the regulatory deed requirements that are the topics 
that must be addressed in an ACEP-funded easement, and addressing these 
regulatory deed requirements is mandatory in order to receive ALE 
funding. Alternatively, minimum deed terms, provide specific 
phraseology that NRCS has vetted as effective enforceable language for 
meeting the regulatory deed requirements. Mechanisms for the adoption 
and incorporation of the minimum deed terms into the eligible entities 
agricultural land easement deed are described in this rulemaking and 
more specifically addressed in policy and in the terms of the ALE-
agreement.
     NRCS received one comment recommending that a specific 
minimum threshold be required for public access, particularly for those 
properties where there is not visual access from a public right-of-way. 
NRCS requires that a landowner provide the Grantee with access to 
facilitate required easement monitoring, and ensure that NRCS has 
sufficient access should NRCS ever need to exercise its right of 
enforcement. However, public access is a matter beyond the scope of 
protections needed to meet ALE purposes, and the landowner reserves the 
right to control public access consistent with the terms of an ALE 
easement deed.
     NRCS received one comment requesting clarification of the 
regulatory provision that the regulatory deed requirements may include 
``other minimum deed terms required by NRCS to insure that ACEP ALE 
purposes are met.'' This provision provides the Chief with the 
flexibility to identify resource concerns that may be necessary to meet 
program objectives. For example, where ALE funds are used specifically 
to protect grassland habitat for sage grouse, the Chief may require a 
provision that prohibits the conversion of grassland to other uses.
     NRCS received two comments recommending that the 
regulatory deed requirements be consistent with other Federal law, 
including the Endangered Species Act and fiduciary obligations to 
protect tribal treaty reserved rights. NRCS implements ALE, including 
its regulatory deed requirements, consistent with the legal framework 
associated with the implementation of a Federal program. No changes are 
required in response to these comments.
     NRCS received one recommendation to alter the language in 
the minimum deed terms to conform to the language found at Sec.  
1468.28(c) related to the protection of the interests of the United 
States. NRCS will ensure the United States Right of Enforcement 
language provided in the ALE-agreements and minimum deed terms are 
consistent with the applicable regulation and statute.
     NRCS received three recommendations related to having a 
clear template review and decision process. NRCS agrees and has 
established the following process for reviewing ALE deed templates for 
non-certified eligible entities that are outlined in the ALE-
agreements. Those methods are:
    1. Non-certified eligible entities seeking approval of an entity-
specific ALE deed template will review the regulatory deed requirements 
and the minimum deed terms. Entities should notify NRCS whether they 
will be requesting an entity-specific ALE deed template as early in the 
process as possible, preferably prior to ranking. Such entities are 
likewise encouraged to submit the proposed entity-specific ALE deed 
template as early in the process as possible, preferably in the fiscal 
year prior to submitting an application and at a minimum prior to 
entering into the ALE-agreement.
    2. The entity will draft a proposed entity-specific ALE deed 
template that addresses all of the regulatory deed requirements, 
incorporates the required United States Right of Enforcement language 
without alteration, and to the greatest extent practicable will 
incorporate the minimum deed terms as written. The entity will identify 
in their request for approval the specific terms within the proposed 
ALE deed template that meet the regulatory deed requirements by 
citation and where applicable the minimum deed terms.
    3. Eligible Entities will submit the proposed entity-specific ALE 
deed template to the State Conservationist of the State in which they 
plan to apply for ACEP-ALE funding.
    4. The State Conservationist will review the proposed entity-
specific ALE deed template for conformance with program requirements 
and submit the template for National review.
    5. The Easement Programs Division (EPD) Director will review the 
proposed entity-specific ALE deed template and then approve, reject, or 
approve with required changes.
    6. The EPD Director decision will be communicated in writing to the 
eligible entity and the State Conservationist.
    7. Eligible entities with an approved entity-specific ALE deed 
template must use the language of the template as approved, and if 
further changes are made, the deed must be re-submitted for EPD 
Director approval and will be treated as an individual deed for review.
    8. If an entity is provided ranking points for having an approved 
entity-specific ALE deed template, that template must have National-
level approval in the fiscal year prior to submitting an application 
for that parcel.
     NRCS received one recommendation to remove requirements of 
the Grantee, i.e. eligible entity, from the minimum deed terms; NRCS 
did not adopt this recommendation because it is essential to the 
program structure that the Grantee, which has affirmative duties, is 
identified as having the lead responsibility for enforcement of the 
deed terms. Therefore, in the enforcement clause, both the Grantor and 
Grantee must comply with the deed terms.
    Modification and termination provisions (11 comments): Of the 11 
comments that NRCS received related to the modification and termination 
provisions of the minimum deed terms, one comment recommended allowing 
for boundary line adjustments when the adjacent properties are also 
under conservation easement; one comment recommended allowing land to 
be substituted for repayment when an easement is extinguished or 
condemned; two comments recommended allowing for fee simple road 
takings for minor road improvements or defer to State law on the topic; 
three comments recommended not giving the United States exclusive 
power, or any authority, to reject a proposed easement administration 
action affecting the United States' interests, and four comments 
recommended changes to the valuation calculations for termination 
actions, such as incorporating language from the Internal Revenue 
Service regulations; providing the State with a specific pro rata 
share; or provide alternative deed forms in order to protect landowners 
who wish to take a charitable donation deduction.
    NRCS recognizes that several parties have an interest in the 
implementation of the easement administration provisions in the deed, 
especially as these provisions may affect the future

[[Page 71823]]

administration, use, terms, or configuration of the easement area or 
whether the easement is considered a qualified conservation 
contribution for the tax treatment of the transaction itself. In 
particular, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) permits taxpayers to deduct 
from their taxable income the value of a qualifying charitable 
contribution, including a qualified conservation contribution (also 
known as a bargain sale to a charitable organization) 26 U.S.C. 
170(a)(1). The donation of a conservation easement can properly provide 
the basis of a deduction under the IRC if the restriction is granted in 
perpetuity. The Treasury Regulations offer an exception to the 
requirement that a conservation easement impose a perpetual use 
restriction where a subsequent unexpected change in the conditions 
surrounding the property makes impossible or impractical the continued 
use of the property for conservation purposes. In these limited 
situations, the conservation purpose can nonetheless be treated as 
protected in perpetuity if the restrictions are extinguished by 
judicial proceeding and the proceeds from a subsequent sale or exchange 
of the property are used by the Donee organization in a manner 
consistent with the conservation purposes of the original contribution. 
Several of the concerns raised by the comments relate to how the 
easement administration deed terms affect the treatment of the 
transaction under the tax code. For example, modifying an easement 
boundary, accommodating a future roadway, valuation at condemnation, 
extinguishment, or termination, or the treatment of proceeds from a 
condemnation action may all have impacts on how the IRS views the 
permanence of the easement for charitable deduction purposes. 
Therefore, NRCS will consider alternate valuation options for these 
types of actions that ensures NRCS will be reimbursed for the Federal 
investment in the agricultural land easement and receive its 
proportionate share of the proceeds. As to the other recommendations on 
the easement modification and termination provision, all parties who 
have an interest identified in the easement deed, including the United 
States, have a right to oppose an easement administration action, or 
include specific provisions with in the deed that relate to their 
specific authority to modify or terminate an easement once acquired.
    Incorporation of the ALE plan (8 comments): Of the eight comments 
NRCS received related to the deed terms incorporating reference to the 
ALE plan, one comment requested NRCS explain what is meant by the 
phrase ``excluding NRCS-approved conservation practices developed under 
the ALE Plan'' in the collective impervious surface footprint 
paragraph; one comment recommended NRCS clarify the ALE plan 
requirements; two comments recommended removing the requirement that 
the Grantee has to file and revise ALE plans, including approving 
erosion and sedimentation control plans; two comments recommended 
removal of the requirement that Grantee take all reasonable steps to 
secure compliance with the ALE Plan; one comment recommended that NRCS 
de-emphasize the ALE plan and instead focus on conservation practices 
that are required by statute; and one comment recommended NRCS 
eliminate the cross-reference to the ALE plan in the various terms 
related to permitted uses. As described more fully below under the 
topic of ``Planning'', the ACEP statute requires that the terms and 
conditions of an ALE easement include an agricultural land easement 
plan. Thus, the terms of an agricultural land easement deed are not 
separate from the requirement that there must be an agricultural land 
easement plan, and to ensure that the deed terms and the agricultural 
land easement plan are consistent, the applicable minimum deed terms 
cross-reference to management decisions made by the landowner that are 
documented in the agricultural land easement plan. Additionally, 
conservation practices identified in the ALE plan are excluded from the 
calculation of the impervious surface limitation. Given that the 
agricultural land easement plan is a required element of the easement 
deed, the eligible entity and landowner have primary responsibility for 
ensuring that it is updated to reflect accurately the nature of the 
agricultural operations on the easement area.
    Permitted and other uses (2 comments): Of the two comments received 
on the ``permitted and other uses'' term in the minimum deed terms, one 
comment recommended that NRCS not make the ``permitted uses'' term 
mandatory, and the other comment recommended eliminating the minimum 
deed term that allows a Grantee to approve ``other uses.'' The minimum 
deed terms for ALE no longer include a ``permitted uses'' section. 
Instead, NRCS has identified that agricultural uses must be protected 
under the terms of the deed. Therefore, NRCS has removed the references 
to uses that are not necessary to protect agricultural uses, and an 
eligible entity has the flexibility to have more restrictive 
limitations in the deed terms. NRCS did not, however, change the term 
that allows a Grantee to approve other uses.
    Mining, minerals, oil, and gas (5 comments): Of the five comments 
NRCS received related to the minimum deed terms for mining, minerals, 
oil, and gas, one comment recommended complete prohibition of these 
activities, one comment recommended complete allowance of these 
activities, and the remaining three comments recommended options 
ranging between allowance and prohibition. These activities, including 
their impacts upon the agricultural values of enrolled easements, vary 
significantly regionally and by eligible entity. If these activities 
occur in the agricultural landscape, they must be addressed because 
they may result in a conversion to a non-agricultural use or may 
threaten the protection of grazing uses and related conservation 
values. Therefore, NRCS provides alternatives within the minimum deed 
terms, and an eligible entity can choose the option that fits best for 
its transactions. An eligible entity can include its own additional 
deed terms that are more restrictive.
    Construction and building envelope (14 comments): Of the 14 
comments related to the construction and building envelope term, one 
comment recommended that NRCS remove the requirement that the Grantee 
approve construction activities; four comments recommended that NRCS 
remove or reduce the stringency on building envelope requirements; four 
comments recommended NRCS clarify that landowners may construct and 
maintain agricultural structures outside of building envelopes with 
prior written approval from the Grantee; two comments recommended NRCS 
eliminate the requirement that utilities or agricultural structures 
outside of building envelopes follow NRCS-approved conservation 
practices consistent with the ALE plan; two comments recommended 
allowing alternative building envelope sites with a final selection in 
the future if local laws prohibit or make it economically infeasible to 
locate in the original location; and one comment recommended that the 
deed term should not allow agricultural structures outside of the 
building envelope. NRCS requires the identification of a building 
envelope because the location of potential impervious surfaces is often 
as important to the future agricultural viability of a parcel as the 
extent of the impervious surface. NRCS accommodates the desire for 
flexibility

[[Page 71824]]

in the building envelopes by allowing adjustments to the identified 
location of building envelopes with approval from the Grantee, and NRCS 
also allows agricultural structures to be built outside the building 
envelope with Grantee approval.
    Commercial activities (1 comment): NRCS received one comment 
recommending that the commercial activities minimum deed term allow for 
activities related to interpretation of the property as a historic 
resource, such as charging a fee for a battlefield tour or other 
similar event. NRCS has incorporated this recommendation into its 
minimum deed terms.
    Impervious surface limitations (12 comments): Of the 12 comments 
NRCS received related to the impervious surface limitation provision in 
the minimum deed terms, five comments recommended that entities be 
allowed to establish their own limit up to 10 percent; four comments 
recommended NRCS only waive the 2 percent limitation on impervious 
surfaces for farms of a certain size; one comment recommended waivers 
be limited to 6 percent rather than up to 10 percent; and 3 comments 
recommended to remove the availability of the waiver or scale it to 
various categories of easement acreage. NRCS has explained in prior 
rulemakings the basis for its use of a 2 percent limitation and the 
flexibility of having a waiver that allows up to 10 percent based upon 
site specific factors. This limitation provides a reasoned balance 
between ensuring the continued agricultural viability of the land 
itself with flexibility to allow for changes to the agricultural 
operation. The existing NRCS approach is within the range of comments 
received, therefore no changes were made in response to these 
recommendations. An eligible entity can always include its own 
additional deed terms that are more restrictive.
    Subdivision (17 comments): Of the 17 comments NRCS received about 
the subdivision minimum deed term, 10 comments recommended that NRCS 
eliminate the requirement that subdivided parcels not be below the 
median size of farms in the county or parish; two comments recommended 
that NRCS prohibit subdivision on protected parcels; two comments 
recommended subdivision requirements should defer to State law; two 
comments supported the adoption of ``median farm size'' as the 
threshold; and one comment recommended that subdivisions be allowed to 
facilitate the building of residences that are permitted under the 
deed. NRCS currently provides three options related to subdivision 
under the existing minimum deed terms, allowing the entity to select 
which option they prefer in the deed terms. The current options are as 
follows:

    Option 1: Outright prohibition of future subdivision.
    Option 2: Future subdivision allowed and boundaries identified 
prior to easement closing and approved by the entity and NRCS as 
part of the initial easement acquisition.
    Option 3: Future subdivision allowed, but must be reviewed and 
approved by the entity and NRCS, prior to division occurring.

    Under option 2, NRCS evaluates the proposed parcels identified for 
potential subdivision using the program eligibility criteria. Under 
option 3, since the entity is electing to have the flexibility to 
identify the subdivision of parcels after the easement has closed, NRCS 
does not use all of the program eligibility criteria to evaluate the 
individual parcels proposed for subdivision but rather has adopted the 
threshold of the median size of farms, including ranches, in the county 
or parish as an objective criterion upon which to base decisions. The 
use of median farm size is an objective indicator that the subdivided 
parcels are of a minimum size, based on county-level data that 
indicates the parcels would remain viable for agricultural use. Since 
the data is evaluated at the county level, it accounts for localized 
agricultural trends and the use of the median rather than the mean data 
provides a more generous threshold for the minimum size.
    Advisory committee (8 comments): NRCS received eight comments 
recommending that NRCS convene a national easement deed advisory 
committee to provide input on easement deed terms and conditions. NRCS 
does not believe that an advisory committee is the appropriate vehicle 
for obtaining input. NRCS published the deed terms and utilized the 
comment period associated with the interim rule as an avenue to receive 
broad and open public input on the minimum deed terms. Additionally, 
NRCS may receive input on program implementation matters, including 
minimum deed terms, through the State Technical Committee process. The 
State Technical Committees are exempt from the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act and provide the best opportunity for all stakeholders to 
have fair and equal access to provide NRCS input on program 
implementation.
    Right of enforcement (17 comments): Of the 17 comments NRCS 
received about the United States right of enforcement language in the 
minimum deed terms, two comments recommended removal of the recovery of 
administrative and legal costs from the Grantor or the Grantee 
associated with enforcement or remedial action related to enforcement; 
one comment recommended NRCS have co-responsibility to ensure 
compliance with any violation in the easement; one comment recommended 
that the provision should also include the reasonable costs incurred by 
the eligible entity holding the conservation easement; four comments 
recommended that the right of inspection be ``corrected'' to refer to a 
``right of enforcement'' and not to a ``right of inspection''; two 
comments recommend that the right of inspection should not be part of 
right of enforcement; one comment recommended that NRCS' right of 
enforcement or inspection only be exercised in cases where the annual 
monitoring report is insufficient, is not provided in a timely manner, 
or if the eligible entity fails to adequately enforce the terms of the 
easement; two comments recommended that NRCS limit the right of 
enforcement further and create defined cure mechanisms that must be 
used prior to the United States exercising its right of enforcement; 
one comment recommended that the United States should be required to 
prove its rights and claims in litigation; one comment recommended NRCS 
explain what constitutes an insufficient monitoring report; one comment 
recommended NRCS should be required to notify both the Grantor and the 
Grantee of an ongoing non-compliance in order to have the Grantee take 
corrective action; and one comment recommended NRCS eliminate the 180-
day restriction for corrective actions.
    Section 1265B(b)(4)(C)(iii) requires that any easement purchased 
with ACEP-ALE funds: ``(iii) include a right of enforcement for the 
Secretary, that may be used only if terms of the easement are not 
enforced by the holder of the easement.'' Additionally, Section 
1265B(b)(4)(E) sets forth the authorities in the event of a violation 
``If a violation occurs of a term or condition of an agreement under 
this subsection--(i) the Secretary may terminate the agreement; and 
(ii) the Secretary may require the eligible entity to refund all or 
part of any payments received by the entity under the program, with 
interest on the payments as determined appropriate by the Secretary.''
    NRCS held numerous meetings with stakeholder organizations about 
the scope and wording of the United States right of enforcement 
language, incorporating and addressing most of the stakeholder comments 
and concerns. However, several aspects of

[[Page 71825]]

the United States right of enforcement are necessary in order for NRCS 
to protect the Federal investment and exercise the right in accordance 
with statute, including the ability to inspect the easement area to 
ensure that the Grantor and Grantee are meeting their responsibilities 
under the easement deed, the requirement for the Grantee to enforce the 
terms of the easement deed as primary easement holder, and the ability 
to recover costs if NRCS must enforce the easement because the Grantee 
failed to do so. NRCS requires the identical language for the right of 
enforcement for all ALE-funded easements. NRCS believes that this right 
and the consistency of its terminology and application are necessary to 
ensure equitable treatment of landowners and eligible entities, and is 
critical to the protection of the Federal investment in these 
transactions. NRCS will publish the required right of enforcement 
language in the ALE-agreements and in the ALE policy.
    All NRCS program participants are required to meet the terms of the 
program requirements, and if they fail to do so, NRCS has the ability 
to recover costs. However, unlike the 30-day timeframe given financial 
assistance participants under other NRCS conservation programs, ALE 
participants are given 180 days to correct any deficiencies prior to 
NRCS taking further action with respect to violations. Additionally, 
recovery of costs is authorized specifically by the ALE statute and 
ensures that the eligible entity maintains its role as primary title 
holder of the easement under the terms of the ALE agreement. Given the 
statutory basis for the level of recovery and that such level is 
consistent with the administration of other NRCS conservation programs, 
NRCS has modified the minimum deed term language and the regulation to 
limit NRCS' cost recovery from a Grantee for the Grantee's failure to 
enforce the easement to the amount of financial assistance provided to 
the eligible entity by NRCS. Further, NRCS reserves the right to pursue 
other equitable or legal remedies should the conduct of the eligible 
entity be considered scheme, device, fraud, misrepresentation, waste, 
or abuse.
    Access (3 comments): Of the three comments NRCS received about the 
access provision in the minimum deed terms, one comment recommended 
NRCS modify access requirements under ALE to provide reasonable 
flexibility, particularly in cases where ALE parcels are surrounded by 
Federal land; one comment encouraged NRCS to adopt greater flexibility 
for ALE access requirements; and one comment supported the ACEP manual 
interpretation of ``reasonable'' access. NRCS is clear in the 
regulation and policy that it is the landowner's and eligible entity's 
responsibility to provide sufficient access to the easement area. 
However, NRCS has provided flexibility under ACEP-ALE for alternative 
access when the landowner currently has physical access from a public 
roadway across lands owned in fee by the United States to the Parcel 
and current legal access is authorized by any of the following:
    1. Use of roads owned and maintained by the United States and 
managed by Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
or United States Forest Service (USFS), this may include numbered 
system roads;
    2. Use of rights of way established under the Federal Land 
Management Policy Act of 1976;
    3. Use of reciprocal rights of way between the landowner and a 
Federal agency;
    4. Long-term access permits issued by a Federal agency, 30 years or 
greater in length that may be renewed upon agreement of the landowner 
and the Federal agency; and
    5. A letter from an authorized representative of a Federal agency 
establishing the landowner's permission to cross the Federal land for 
casual use.

Since NRCS first adopted this policy, NRCS has been able to complete 
high-priority transactions where a checkboard pattern of Federal and 
private land ownership exists.
    Acquisition purpose restrictions (8 comments): The eight comments 
that NRCS received about the minimum deed terms that impose additional 
restrictions based upon the purpose for which an easement is being 
acquired are as follows:
     One comment recommended that NRCS require additional deed 
restriction language for grassland of special environmental 
significance (GSS). Currently NRCS requires protection for grassland 
resources to be addressed in the easement deed but allows the eligible 
entity to provide greater protection.
     One comment recommended that NRCS retain the GSS deed 
restriction language in the final rule; NRCS has maintained the GSS 
deed restriction language in this final rule.
     Three comments recommended that NRCS change the term 
related to management activities during nesting season to include 
additional language to allow haying during nesting season if it 
provides critical habitat outside the breeding season; NRCS did not 
adopt this recommendation because of the critical need to protect at-
risk species during the nesting season.
     One comment recommended that NRCS clarify that bird 
nesting restrictions are required for grassland enrollments only, and 
are not required for traditional ALE projects; the bird nesting season 
restrictions are required for all ALE enrollments that have grassland 
uses but only for at-risk species. Determinations of nesting seasons 
for at-risk bird species will be made in writing to the landowners 
prior to closing, or set forth within the ALE plan developed with the 
landowners. Please see preamble discussion below under ``Definitions'' 
section about comments related to NRCS adding a definition of at-risk 
species to this regulation.
     One comment recommended that new roads on grassland 
enrollments should be allowed with the prior approval of the eligible 
entity and subject to the 2 percent impervious surface limit; NRCS did 
not adopt this recommendation because allowing new roads on grassland 
enrollments would create fragmentation of habitat.
     One comment expressed support for the language in the 
minimum deed term language.
    Miscellaneous minimum deed term comments (10 comments): Of the 10 
comments NRCS received on miscellaneous topics, the comments made the 
following recommendations or observations:
     One comment recommended revising the fencing language for 
grassland enrollments; NRCS has adopted this recommendation and updated 
the minimum deed terms.
     One comment recommended NRCS remove the deed language that 
specifies the terms that are controlling between NRCS terms and the 
eligible entity's; The language referenced in the comment applies to 
provisions that NRCS included in the minimum deed terms when such terms 
would be appended to an eligible entity's deed as a separate 
attachment. NRCS included this language to ensure that in the event of 
a conflict between the minimum deed terms language in the Federal 
attachment and the eligible entity's deed, the Federal minimum deed 
term language would control. However, there are several deed terms 
where an eligible entity may have more stringent requirements, and the 
statement identifies that where the terms in the main body of the 
eligible entity's deed are more stringent than the attached Federal 
minimum deed terms, the deed

[[Page 71826]]

terms in the main body of the eligible entity's deed will control.
     One comment recommended revising the environmental 
warranty to reference the Phase I audit report, identifying that a 
landowner should not warrant that they are in compliance with 
environmental laws when that is contradicted by the Phase I report 
accepted by and approved by NRCS. NRCS is not adopting the language 
recommended by the comment because a landowner must be able to warrant 
that they are in compliance with environmental laws. However, NRCS is 
reviewing the concern with the deed language raised by this comment 
about awareness of known prior environmental law violations that have 
since been remediated, and may adjust the deed language accordingly.
     One comment recommended NRCS list the activities that are 
and are not consistent with the agricultural uses of the land; NRCS did 
not adopt this recommendation because it is impractical to list all 
such potential activities. Activities that are consistent with the 
agricultural use of the land are highly site- and region-specific. An 
eligible entity can include its own additional deed terms that are more 
specific.
     One comment recommended NRCS remove the reference to the 
Chief in the oversight and approval requirements. NRCS did not adopt 
this recommendation because the purpose of identifying the Chief is to 
ensure that NRCS has maximum flexibility with respect to delegating 
such responsibilities in the future.

ALE Entity Certification

    Comment: NRCS received 59 comments related to entity certification, 
of which 10 comments related to the criteria and process for 
certification; 8 comments related to corrections to the regulatory 
references; 15 comments related to the deed requirements that apply to 
certified entities including the recommendation that certified entities 
only be subject to statutory deed requirements; 18 comments related to 
NRCS quality assurance reviews including the potential for NRCS to 
revoke funding for a breach of the grant agreement; 5 comments related 
to a dedicated fund pool; and 2 comments related to the administrative 
flexibility process identified in the regulation.
    NRCS Response: The majority of the concern expressed by the 
comments related to the deed requirements and whether a certified 
entity will be required to repay ALE funding if the entity's deed terms 
are subsequently determined to be insufficient to meet program 
purposes. More particularly, several comments recommended that 
certified entities only be subject to statutory deed requirements, and 
not the regulatory deed requirements that were outlined in the interim 
rule. This topic was discussed in part above under the topic of ALE 
deed requirements, including the NRCS determination that a certified 
entity, through their familiarity with ALE program requirements, will 
already have extensive understanding of the deed terms that NRCS 
considers sufficient to meet program requirements and address the 
regulatory deed requirements.
    The ACEP statute specifies the statutory deed requirements that any 
eligible entity, including a certified entity, must meet. Based upon 
statutory deed requirements and the statutory purposes of ALE to 
protect the agricultural use and future viability, and related 
conservation values, of the easement area by limiting non-agricultural 
uses or to protect grazing uses and related conservation values, NRCS 
identified as regulatory deed requirements the provisions it believed 
were necessary to meet those statutory requirements and purposes. In 
the ACEP interim rule, the regulatory deed requirements that meet 
specific statutory requirements include the right of enforcement (16 
U.S.C. 3865B(b)(4)(C)(iii)), ALE plan (16 U.S.C. 3865B(b)(4)(C)(iv)), 
impervious surface limitations (16 U.S.C. 3865B(b)(4)(C)(v)), and an 
amendment clause requiring post-recordation changes to be consistent 
with deed and ALE purposes (16 U.S.C. 3865D(c)). To ensure the deed 
terms are consistent with ALE statutory requirements that they meet 
program purposes (16 U.S.C. 3865(b)(4)(C)(i)) and permit effective 
enforcement (16 U.S.C. 3865B(b)(4)(C)(ii)), the regulatory deed 
requirements also include: (1) An indemnification clause concerning 
landowner actions; (2) a prohibition of commercial and industrial 
activities except those activities that are consistent with the 
agricultural use of the land; (3) a limitation of subdivisions except 
where State or local regulations explicitly require subdivision to 
construct residences for employees working on the property or where 
otherwise authorized by NRCS; (4) specific protections related to the 
purposes for which the agricultural land easement is being purchased; 
and (5) other minimum deed terms specified by NRCS to ensure that ACEP-
ALE purposes are met.
    NRCS has determined that there is no basis for exempting certified 
entities from its regulatory determination of the deed requirements 
that are essential for meeting ALE program purposes and statutory 
requirements, and therefore all eligible entities will remain subject 
to the regulatory deed requirements in the regulation. Certified 
entities have flexibility to use their own policies and procedures and, 
with the exception of specific language of the United States Right of 
Enforcement, are not required to use the minimum deed terms.
    Of the comments related to regulatory corrections, NRCS has made 
the corrections to the typographical errors that the comments 
identified were in the interim rule.
    The five comments related to the dedicated pool requirement 
requested clarification and increased flexibility in a certified 
entity's ability to meet the requirement. NRCS requires by policy that 
a dedicated fund be capitalized with a minimum of $50,000, and such 
requirement only applies with respect to certified nongovernmental 
entities. NRCS has amended the definition of ``dedicated fund'' to 
clarify that the requirement only applies to certified eligible 
entities that are nongovernmental organizations. Eligible entities are 
able to form or participate in a risk pool with sufficient resources to 
satisfy the dedicated fund requirements for certified nongovernmental 
organizations, provided it is explicit about what activities are 
encompassed. For example, most risk pools cover enforcement and 
associated litigation, but not monitoring, so monitoring would need to 
be specifically identified.
    The remaining two comments related to the request that certified 
entities be able to set their own thresholds for impervious surface 
area, that they not be required to obtain a waiver on a parcel-by-
parcel basis, and that certification of eligible entities provide 
flexibility to allow contracting of monitoring to conservation 
districts. NRCS requires a parcel-by-parcel determination because 
impervious surface limitations are fact-specific, and NRCS believes 
that certification should not equate to reduced protection of the 
parcels being protected with ALE funding. NRCS wishes to clarify that 
there is no limitation on whether monitoring can be done by 
conservation districts.

ALE Entity Eligibility

    Comment: NRCS received 19 comments related to the topic of ALE 
entity eligibility, of which seven comments related to eligibility 
criteria; five comments related to contribution agreements; one comment 
related to policy development; two comments related to forms; and four 
comments related to donations.

[[Page 71827]]

    NRCS Response: Of the seven comments related to eligibility 
criteria, five comments recommended that NRCS replace the requirement 
that all of the entity's matching funds be available at the time of 
application with the requirement that the entity instead provide proof 
of application to other funding programs along with evidence of funding 
availability through that program. NRCS did not adopt this 
recommendation. NRCS requires more definitive evidence, such as a grant 
award, that the eligible entity has the necessary resources to complete 
the transaction for which it is seeking Federal involvement. 
Furthermore, NRCS allows the entity to self-certify that they have 
sufficient funds available at the time of application, but the 
submission of additional verifying documentation may be required by the 
State Conservationist either at the time of application or as part of a 
quality assurance review. One of the comments recommended that NRCS 
allow grant contracts or other bona fide promises to provide cash match 
from partner sources to qualify as sufficient evidence of the 
availability of matching funds at the time of application, and NRCS has 
and continues to accept this type of documentation as evidence of match 
so no change is needed to address this recommendation. One of the 
comments recommended that NRCS require eligible entities to use a 
resource management plan to be considered eligible for ALE funding. 
NRCS did not adopt this recommendation as NRCS believes that such an 
approach may be too restrictive and instead has adopted a more 
voluntary progressive planning approach as discussed more fully under 
the ``Planning'' topic heading below.
    Of the five comments about contribution agreements, one comment 
recommended NRCS hold title to the grassland easements instead of the 
eligible entity, which NRCS cannot do under the program statute; one 
comment recommended that NRCS only be able to charge costs of 
enforcement against the landowner or eligible entity if NRCS is the 
prevailing party, which NRCS believes is counter to the purposes for 
which it obtains the right of enforcement; two comments recommended 
that all references to the term ``cooperative agreement'' in the 
eligible entity certification section at Sec.  1468.27 of the ACEP rule 
be changed to reference the term ``grant agreement'', which NRCS has 
addressed by amending the definitions in Sec.  1468.3 by removing the 
definition for ``cooperative agreement'' and introducing a new term, 
``ALE-agreement'', which includes references to the use of either a 
``cooperative agreement'' that is the type of ALE-agreement used with 
non-certified eligible entities or ``grant agreement'' that is the type 
of ALE-agreements used with certified entities. NRCS use of either a 
cooperative agreement or a grant agreement used in ACEP implementation 
is governed by the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act. NRCS 
believes this more global term and definition, ALE-agreement, more 
effectively addresses the concern raised by the comments; one comment 
recommended that the terms of ALE-agreements be negotiable, which NRCS 
currently allows non-certified eligible entities to make a request for 
limited changes to the terms of the template ALE-agreement if there are 
specific circumstances that prohibit the entity from executing the 
agreement as written, such as a statutory prohibition. Beyond these 
limited circumstances, NRCS does not allow the terms of the ALE-
agreements to be individually negotiated as the ALE-agreement is the 
program level agreement between NRCS and the eligible entity. Executing 
a standard program enrollment agreement is a standard practice across 
all NRCS cost-share programs and ensures that all eligible entities are 
subject to the same terms and conditions to be a recipient of Federal 
cost-share assistance. Furthermore, template ALE-agreements are 
reviewed and approved pursuant to the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
Agreement Act of 1977 and the uniform regulation for grants and 
agreements at 2 CFR parts 25, 170, 200 and 400, such that the published 
templates have been determined to meet the applicable policy and 
regulations governing agreements generally as well as ACEP 
specifically. As a result, changes to the template ALE-agreements 
require the agreement to be re-reviewed at the National-level for 
compliance with applicable authorities; therefore, NRCS also identifies 
that such agreements may not obtain the same priority. However, the 
terms of the ALE-agreement with certified entities, which uses a 
template grant agreement for certified entities, unlike the ALE-
agreements with non-certified entities that use a template cooperative 
agreement format, are not negotiable, as the terms of the grant 
agreement are inherently more flexible and the entity's agreement to 
use the template grant agreement as published is a condition of 
certification.
    The comment about policy development recommended that eligible 
entities be involved in the creation of certification processes and 
procedures. NRCS used the opportunity of the interim rule's public 
comment period to obtain input from the public, including eligible 
entities, about the certification process. Additionally, NRCS may 
receive input on program implementation matters, including the 
certification processes and procedures, through the State Technical 
Committee process. The State Technical Committees are exempt from the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and provide the best opportunity for all 
stakeholders to have fair and equal access to provide NRCS input on 
program implementation.
    Two comments recommended that NRCS combine forms 41 and 41A into 
the SF-424 forms. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation because the 
SF-424 forms are Standard Forms used government-wide, and thus not 
subject to change for a particular agency program.
    Four comments recommended NRCS provide greater clarity about the 
restriction related to donations of easement value, including donations 
to stewardship funds. NRCS established its policy about the limits to 
which a landowner contributes to an eligible entity's endowment fund to 
ensure that the eligible entity meets its responsibilities under the 
ACEP statute requiring contribution of its own cash resources towards 
an easement transaction. Several eligible entities have been 
investigated by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) over the years 
and were found to be fraudulently representing their contribution of 
cash resources, hiding landowner donations in other entity accounts and 
then representing these funds as independent entity cash resources. 
More troubling, many of these same entities required the landowner to 
make such donations in order for the eligible entity to fund their 
transaction.
    Two of the comments expressed concern about IRS requirements to 
ensure that landowners could continue to claim charitable deductions, 
and NRCS will consider alternative deed language addressing valuation 
of proceeds in the event of an approved condemnation or other 
termination actions proposed by eligible entities in an effort to 
reduce potential conflicts between IRS and NRCS requirements as was 
discussed above in the topic about ALE deed requirements.

Application Process and Requirements

    Comment: NRCS received 10 comments about the ALE application 
process and requirements. Of these 10 comments, 4 comments recommended 
changes to the impervious surface

[[Page 71828]]

limitations. The remaining 6 comments provided recommendations to 
improve the application process, including recommending that the NRCS 
application deadline should occur shortly after the first week of June 
to accommodate the State's application period, delegating to the NRCS 
State Conservationist the authority for approving parcel substitution, 
and creating a time period during which eligible entities have the 
opportunity to review and negotiate the terms and conditions of the 
ALE-agreement.
    NRCS Response: NRCS has not adopted the recommended changes to the 
impervious surface limitation given that the requirement to include a 
limit on impervious surfaces is statutory and the extensive review and 
adjustments NRCS has made through the years of its farmland easement 
administration about the essential need to limit impervious surfaces to 
protect the viability of agricultural lands, and the flexibility for 
waving this limitation be based upon case-specific needs and 
conditions. NRCS did not adopt the recommendation about the June 
deadline for project proposals since NRCS accepts applications on a 
continuous basis and such date is three quarters of the way into the 
Federal fiscal year, though NRCS believes the no-year funding will help 
smooth out the respective funding cycles. NRCS currently has delegated 
to the State Conservationist the authority to make substitution 
decisions, and only references the Chief in the regulation due to the 
nature of agency delegation authority. The conditions under which a 
non-certified eligible entity can request limited changes to the terms 
of the ALE-agreement are described above and NRCS recommends that any 
such requests be made prior to or at the time of application for 
funding for that Federal fiscal year.

Cost-Share Assistance and Match Requirements

    Comment: NRCS received 64 comments related to the match 
requirements for ACEP funding. Of these 64 comments, 27 comments 
related to the criteria and match for ALE projects of special 
significance; 11 comments related to the respective match requirements 
for standard ALE projects; 11 comments related to the availability of 
the cash match for ALE eligible entities; 6 comments related to ALE 
restrictions on landowner contributions; 4 comments related to other 
assistance that NRCS can provide to the ALE transactions; and 5 
comments related to the Wetland Reserve Enhancement Project (WREP) 
match requirements.
    NRCS Response: Of the 27 comments about ALE projects of special 
significance criteria, 6 comments expressed supported the criteria and 
availability of a waiver, and the remaining 21 comments made suggested 
recommendations to add or replace the criteria identified in the 
interim rule. Section 1265B(b)(2) requires that the Federal share of 
the cost of the purchase of an agricultural land easement must not 
exceed 50 percent of the fair market value of the agricultural land 
easement. The eligible entity must provide a share that is at least 
equivalent to that provided by NRCS but may include a charitable 
donation by the landowner provided the eligible entity contributes its 
own cash resources in an amount that is at least 50 percent of the NRCS 
contribution. However, for ``projects of special significance'', NRCS 
may waive any portion of the eligible entity cash contribution 
requirement, subject to an increase in the private landowner donation 
that is equal to the amount of the waiver, if the donation is 
voluntary, and the property is in active agricultural production.
    NRCS identified in the interim rule the criteria by which a project 
may be determined to be one of special significance, including but not 
limited to, if:
     The project is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places;
     the location is within a micropolitan statistical area and 
50 percent of the adjacent land is agricultural land;
     the location is within a metropolitan statistical area;
     the project will increase participation in agriculture by 
underserved communities, veterans, or beginning or disabled farmers and 
ranchers;
     the farm or ranch is used as an education or demonstration 
farm focused on agricultural production and natural resource 
conservation.
    Among the recommended changes to the criteria, several comments 
recommended changes that were not based upon the attributes of the 
parcel itself, but aspect of the eligible entity's program, such as the 
incorporation of an Option for Purchase at Agriculture Value (OPAV). 
NRCS did not adopt the criteria that were not based upon the 
conservation benefits of enrolling a particular parcel. However, among 
the recommended criteria, NRCS will adopt the following:
     Several parcels within a special project area being 
offered for enrollment in that fiscal year that are being protected 
pursuant to a comprehensive plan approved by the State Conservationist, 
with input from the State Technical Committee, for the permanent 
protection of a large block of farm or ranch land.
     A parcel that is part of a comprehensive plan to 
facilitate transfers to new and beginning farmers approved by the State 
Conservationist, with input from the State Technical Committee, for the 
permanent protection of a block of farm or ranch land that, if 
implemented, will facilitate the transfer of farmland to a next 
generation farmer.
     A parcel that is the subject of a conservation buyer 
transaction where a member of underserved community, veteran, beginning 
farmer or rancher, or a disabled farmer or rancher has a valid purchase 
and sale agreement to acquire the property subject to an agricultural 
land easement. Or
     A parcel that has an existing NRCS Resource Management 
System (RMS) level plan with NRCS conservation practices applied or 
under contract to be applied in accordance with NRCS standards and 
specifications, and the landowner has agreed that the ALE plan will be 
developed at the RMS level in accordance with the purposes for which 
the ALE easement is being acquired.
    Five of the 11 comments about the match requirements for standard 
projects requested clarification, especially as the match requirements 
related to the enrollment of forest land. The remaining six of the 
comments either expressed support for the cash requirement, requested 
reduction in the cash requirement, or complete removal of the cash 
requirement of the eligible entity. In the interim rule, NRCS 
identified that NRCS may approve a waiver of the two-third limitation 
for forest land eligibility for sugar bushes. If so, then the acreage 
associated with the sugar bush are to be included in the eligible land 
for which cost-share is provided. Forest land beyond the two-thirds, if 
not waived for sugar bush, is not eligible for ALE cost-share 
assistance. NRCS cannot adopt the recommendation that NRCS provide a 
``no cash match'' option, with easements using only NRCS funding and 
the donation of value by the landowner. Not only does this option not 
meet statutory requirements, but it undermines the nature of the 
transaction where all parties have financially invested in its success 
from the outset. The circumstances under which the entity cash 
contribution can be lowered are described above in the section on ALE 
`projects of special significance'.

[[Page 71829]]

    Of the 11 comments about the requirement that the eligible entity 
document that they have their match available at the time they apply 
for ALE funding, two comments supported the requirement; five comments 
recommended that standard of evidence for cash match availability 
should be one of high probability as can be evidenced by a successful 
history in being awarded matching funds in the past; two comments 
recommended that NRCS substitute this requirement with a requirement 
that eligible entities be allowed to adequately demonstrate their 
ability to obtain the requisite funds; and two comments recommending 
allowing eligible entities to submit a plan for obtaining matching 
funds when they do not have cash match available on hand. NRCS has 
always required an eligible entity to certify the availability of match 
at the time of application as it is a matter of eligibility in 
determining whether the entity is in fact eligible for the program. 
Prior to tying up Federal funds for the eligible entity's transaction, 
an entity must establish that it is eligible and that it is able to 
perform under the terms of the ALE-agreement. The easement transaction 
is the eligible entity's transaction, for which they are acquiring 
title and for which they wish to obtain cost-share assistance from the 
Federal government for the entity's purchase of an agricultural land 
easement. Therefore, the NRCS funds are to match an eligible entity's 
funds that have been set aside for the eligible entity's transaction, 
not an eligible entity's funds to match NRCS funds that have been set 
aside for the transaction. NRCS recognizes that an eligible entity may 
not have its match in its own account, and therefore already provides 
flexibility for the match to be established through self-certification 
and, as needed, supplemental documentations such as an award letter or 
other documentation that the funds have been set aside for the 
transaction. NRCS believes it has balanced maximum flexibility for the 
eligible entities with responsible administration of Federal funds and 
thus no additional flexibility is warranted.
    Of the four comments about the restrictions that NRCS has 
identified in the interim rule related to landowner contributions, two 
comments recommended eliminating the restriction on landowner 
contributions to eligible entities and two other comments recommended 
that NRCS eliminate the reference to landowner contributions to a 
stewardship endowment. As explained above, NRCS adopted these 
restrictions to meet the statutory requirement that an eligible entity 
contribute its own cash resources to a transaction. During the OIG 
investigations referenced above, landowners had been misled, 
threatened, and otherwise coerced into making contributions to other 
accounts of an eligible entity to hide the eligible entity's inability 
to contribute its own cash resources. NRCS recognizes that this 
behavior is limited, but believes strongly that providing reasonable 
parameters on what NRCS will accept as evidence of a voluntary 
landowner contribution removes the potential for these types of 
inappropriate behaviors. NRCS did not make any changes to the 
regulation in response to this comment, but is reviewing the policy 
levels established for this limitation.
    Of the four comments about the availability of other NRCS 
assistance, two comments recommended that NRCS reimburse land trusts 
for transaction costs once the easement has been recorded; one comment 
recommended NRCS provide 10 percent of the administrative costs to 
eligible entities to reduce financial burden; and one comment 
recommending that NRCS make funding available to cover the conservation 
organizations' dedicated fund in NRCS funded transactions. NRCS did not 
adopt any of these recommendations as they are not supported by the 
statute. Under ALE, NRCS only has authority to provide cost-share 
assistance for the cost of an easement, and appropriate technical 
assistance, and no other activities are authorized to be funded. All 
other financial responsibilities belong to the purchaser of the 
easement that is the eligible entity.
    Of the five comments about the WREP match requirements, three 
comments recommended NRCS use the 5 percent minimum requirements 
instead of the new 25 percent requirement, and two comments recommended 
that the WREP match requirements be available through the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). NRCS did not adopt either 
recommendation. WREP is a component of ACEP-WRE through which NRCS 
enters into agreements with eligible partners to target and leverage 
resources to carry out high-priority wetland protection, restoration, 
and enhancement activities and improve wetland and associated habitats 
on eligible lands. In FY 2015, NRCS published a request for WREP 
proposals and awarded approximately $30 million in financial assistance 
(FA) funds to competitive projects. NRCS believes the 25 percent match 
requirement encourages meaningful partnership effort and represents a 
match requirement well-established in similar watershed and 
conservation efforts. The non-Federal match also expands the number of 
wetland acres that can be protected and restored, resulting in an even 
more cost-effective use of Federal financial resources. NRCS provides 
flexibility concerning the component of the project upon which a 
partner's contribution will be based. Given the match requirements that 
must be met in WREP, NRCS prefers not to complicate WREP implementation 
efforts with RCPP implementation efforts and allow each partnership 
effort to remain distinct.

Definitions

    Comment: NRCS received 63 comments about the Definitions section, 
Sec.  1468.3, of the interim rule. The comments made recommendations 
about the following definitions:

 Access (4 comments)
 Active agricultural production (4 comments)
 Agricultural commodity (1 comment)
 Agricultural Land Easement (3 comments)
 Agricultural Land Easement Plan (5 comments)
 Agricultural uses (3 comments)
 At-risk species (5 comments)
 Beginning farmer or rancher (1 comment)
 Dedicated funds (2 comments)
 Easement administration definitions (4 comments)
 Eligible entity (1 comment)
 Fair market value (3 comments)
 Farm viability (2 comments)
 Grassland Management Plan (4 comments)
 Grassland of special environmental significance (11 comments)
 Historical and archaeological resources (1 comment)
 Succession plan (7 comments)
 Request for terms to be defined (2 comments)

    To ease readability, NRCS describes the comments received for each 
of the definitions in its response to such recommendations below.
    NRCS Response: Of the four comments about the definition of access, 
one comment requested that the definition add a phrase to clarify that 
access is over at least one adjacent or contiguous parcel; one comment 
requested that the definition match the definition that appears in the 
ACEP manual; one comment recommended NRCS rely on established real 
estate laws and customs of the region in which the ALE easement is 
acquired; and one comment requested clarification of how access appears 
in the easement deed.

[[Page 71830]]

NRCS cross-checked the definition and the referenced citation in the 
ACEP manual and no change to the regulatory definition is needed. The 
referenced manual provision simply provides guidance to NRCS personnel 
about how to determine whether sufficient access to the easement area 
exists, and does not affect the definition of access itself. NRCS needs 
only one route identified, but that route must be able to facilitate 
access to the entire easement area, otherwise multiple routes may be 
needed to ensure there is sufficient access to the entire easement 
area. NRCS has identified that access must be described in the deed 
document.
    Of the four comments received about the definition of active 
agricultural production, two comments supported the definition and two 
comments recommended that the word ``timber'' be included in the 
definition. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation as the definition 
already references land on which ``forest-related products'' are 
produced, and NRCS believes this sufficiently encompasses land in 
timber production.
    The one comment received about the definition of agricultural 
commodity recommended that the definition include all agricultural 
commodities or eliminate the definition completely. NRCS did not adopt 
this recommendation. Section 1201 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
amended, defines the term for all Title XII programs, which includes 
ACEP.
    The three comments related to the definition of Agricultural Land 
Easement recommended that NRCS specifically include States with 
easements subject to duration restrictions. NRCS did not adopt this 
recommendation as duration restrictions are already addressed in the 
program requirements criteria. In particular, Sec.  1468.20(a)(4) 
specifies that the ``duration of each agricultural land easement or 
other interest in land will be in perpetuity or the maximum duration 
permitted by State law.''
    Of the five comments related to Agricultural Land Easement plan, 
two comments recommended that the definition should be defined as a 
plan that meets Resource Management System standards; one comment 
expressed support for the definition; one comment recommended that the 
definition only require conservation practices in component plans for 
highly erodible soils and grasslands; and one comment recommended that 
less discretion be given to ALE applicants. NRCS did not adopt these 
recommendations as the current definition provides the basic framework 
as based upon statutory requirements.
    Of the three comments related to the definition of agricultural 
uses, one comment supported the definition; one comment requested that 
the agricultural use must be made by a ``qualified farmer''; and one 
comment recommended that NRCS provide a single definition with its own 
terminology specific to the purposes of the program. As described in 
the interim rule, the ACEP definition of ``agricultural uses'' employs 
a more universal term of ``farm or ranch land protection program'' than 
was used previously under FRPP to ensure that programs that have the 
principal purpose of protecting grasslands or grazing uses are 
included. Given that NRCS provides assistance to State and local 
agricultural land easement program efforts, NRCS will continue to refer 
to the State definition of agricultural use found in either its farm 
and ranch land protection program or tax assessment authority, but 
reserves the right to impose deed restrictions to comply with Federal 
law or to protect soil or related natural resources. NRCS believes that 
making determinations of who would be considered as a ``qualified 
farmer'' leads to inappropriate subjective determinations and would 
interfere with the ability to implement the program in a fair and 
equitable manner.
    Of the five comments about the definition of at-risk species, one 
comment recommended that NRCS add the definition and four comments 
recommended that such a definition be consistent with other NRCS 
conservation programs. NRCS has adopted these recommendations as the 
term ``at-risk species'' is used in other definitions, and is an 
important concept in ACEP implementation and prioritization of efforts. 
Therefore, NRCS has added the following definition to the final rule:

    At-risk species means any plant or animal species listed as 
threatened or endangered; proposed or candidate for listing under 
the Endangered Species Act; a species listed as threatened or 
endangered under State law or Tribal law; State or Tribal land 
species of conservation concern; or other plant or animal species or 
community, as determined by the State Conservationist, with advice 
from the State Technical Committee or Tribal Conservation Advisory 
Council, that has undergone, or is likely to undergo, population 
decline and may become imperiled without direct intervention.

    The one comment about the definition of beginning farmer or rancher 
recommended amending that NRCS establish a minimum of at least three 
years' experience providing ``substantial day-to-day labor and 
management of the farm.'' NRCS did not adopt this recommendation 
because the definition is established by statute, and NRCS uses the 
same definition for all its conservation programs.
    Of the two comments about the definition of dedicated funds, one 
comment recommended adopting the Land Trust Alliance's definition for 
dedicated funds, and one comment recommended removing the restriction 
that the account cannot be used for other purposes. NRCS believes that 
the Land Trust Alliance's discussions about dedicated funds is similar 
to the NRCS definition, but believes that the NRCS definition more 
adequately addresses the needs for ALE program implementation. NRCS did 
not adopt the second recommendation because, as the definition implies, 
the fund must be dedicated for the eligible entity's stewardship 
responsibilities.
    Of the four comments about the definitions for the various types of 
easement administration actions--easement exchange, easement 
modification, easement subordination, and easement termination--one 
comment recommended minor changes to the easement modification 
definition; two comments requested clarification to each of the 
definitions; and one comment requested clarification to the definition 
of ``compelling public need.'' NRCS developed the definitions to 
provide a clear distinction between each type of easement 
administration action so, for example, an easement modification is 
readily distinguished from an easement exchange. NRCS based these 
definitions on its experience with processing easement administration 
action requests under the predecessor authorities, and familiarity with 
other Federal agency requirements under similar authorities. NRCS finds 
that these definitions provide clarity to landowners, provide for the 
long-term protection of critical resources, and ensure the integrity of 
the Federal investment in easements.
    The comment about the definition of eligible entity recommended 
that NRCS reflect the statutory definition verbatim. NRCS did not adopt 
this recommendation because NRCS believes that the regulatory 
definition fully encompasses the statutory definition and does so in 
simpler language and thus improves the accessibility of the program. 
Additionally, the definition includes criteria related to an eligible 
entity that are either identified explicitly in the statute or are 
needed as a matter of consistent and effective program administration.

[[Page 71831]]

    The one comment about the definition of fair market value 
recommended that NRCS give equal valuation to easements subject to 
State mandated duration restrictions as perpetual easements. NRCS did 
not adopt this recommendation because the shorter duration easements do 
not have the same impact on land value as permanent easements and 
landowners who provide a permanent easement should receive the 
commensurate greater compensation.
    Of the two comments about the definition of farm viability, one 
comment requested clarification of how the mechanisms to preserve farm 
viability will function, and one comment recommended replacing the 
language for the term ``future viability'' with ``availability for 
continued agricultural use; continued capacity for productive 
agriculture by independent farmers and ranchers; accessibility to 
beginning farmers and ranchers; and continued affordability for 
purchase by working farmers and ranchers for generations to come.'' 
NRCS has added the term ``Future Viability'' to the definition section 
and it has been defined as ``the legal, physical, and financial 
conditions under which the land itself will remain capable and 
available for continued sustained productive agricultural or grassland 
uses while protecting related conservation values.''
    Of the four comments about the definition of grassland management 
plan, one comment expressed support for the definition and three 
comments recommended adding haying as a management tool. The grassland 
management plan relates to the enrollment of land for which grazing is 
the predominant use, but is also required for grassland located in an 
area that has been historically dominated by grassland, forbs, or 
shrubs and could provide habitat for animal or plant populations of 
significant ecological value. The focus on grazing as a component of 
the grassland management plan is a holdover from the Grassland Reserve 
Program, and NRCS has modified the definition to include a reference to 
haying as landowners may also conduct haying on grasslands protected 
under ALE.
    Of the 11 comments about the definition of grassland of special 
environmental significance, three comments expressed support for the 
definition especially with the added definition of ``at-risk species''; 
three comments focused on ``highly sensitive natural resources'' 
recommending that the State Conservationist consult with the State 
Technical Committee on the appropriateness of a particular parcel's 
enrollment and allowance of habitat for native pollinators as a highly 
sensitive natural resource; three comments recommended including 
language that they must be identified in State, regional, or national 
conservation plans or initiatives; and three comments about including 
grasslands located around wetlands or in regions with high wetland 
densities.
    NRCS recognizes the benefit of these recommendations and has 
adopted many of them in the definition. In particular, NRCS has 
provided guidance to its State offices to obtain State Technical 
Committee input about highly sensitive natural resources within the 
State, including the ability of States to consider whether such lands 
are identified in special initiatives or plans.
    The one comment about the definition of historical and 
archaeological resources recommended that battlefield properties should 
be identified as a separate subcategory. NRCS did not adopt this 
recommendation as the existing subcategories sufficiently encompass 
historic battlegrounds.
    Of the seven comments about the definition of succession plan, 
three comments recommended replacing the term ``historically 
underserved landowner'' with ``beginning, limited resource, or socially 
disadvantaged farmer or rancher'' and four comments recommended 
including an Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value (OPAV) as a type 
of qualifying succession plan. NRCS did not adopt the first 
recommendation because the meaning of the term ``historically 
underserved landowner'' includes reference to the three categories of 
farmers or ranchers to whom NRCS provides special priority in the 
administration of its conservation programs. NRCS did include an OPAV 
as a type of qualifying succession plan because OPAV is a deed term 
negotiated by the Grantor and Grantee in the course of the 
implementation of the Grantee's program.
    There were two comments that recommended that NRCS define 
additional terms, one comment recommending that ``Future Viability of 
Agricultural Land'' be defined, and one comment recommending that 
``Amendment for the minimum deed terms'' be defined. NRCS has added a 
definition of Future Viability, as described above. NRCS has also 
provided further clarification on the purpose and use of the minimum 
deed terms, and has determined that an additional definition is not 
necessary to provide further clarification.

Easement Closing and Payment Procedures

    Comment: NRCS received one comment recommending that NRCS shorten 
the time needed to close an easement transaction.
    NRCS Response: Through policy, NRCS has changed its easement 
business process to require as much due diligence as possible to be 
completed prior to entering into an agreement. This practice will 
significantly reduce the time it takes to close on an easement as it 
will reduce the number of agreements entered into on parcels with 
outstanding issues such as unacceptable title encumbrances, hazardous 
substance contamination issues, boundary disputes or insufficient 
access, and other issues that tend to result in delays in closing if 
not discovered until after an agreement has been entered into. 
Additionally, in FY 2015, NRCS piloted an Easement Support Services 
(ESS) team to assist States with improving the quality and efficiency 
of easement acquisition activities. Under ESS, teams managed by the 
National Office assume various tasks related to easement acquisition, 
including closing, for a group of States, thus providing a more 
centralized, consistent process. ESS is expected to expand nationwide 
by FY 2018, and NRCS believes that this focused, specialized team 
combined with other efforts to strengthen communication between the 
States and the National Office, will help resolve issues earlier in the 
process, clarify policy, provide training, and serve as a platform to 
provide a more consistent process by which easements will be acquired. 
NRCS believes that this process will reduce the time needed to close an 
easement consistent with program requirements.

Easement Monitoring, Management, and Enforcement

    Comment: NRCS received 34 comments related to the topic of easement 
monitoring, management, and enforcement, of which five comments related 
to the authority under WRE to delegate such authorities; four comments 
related to easement management; 11 comments related to easement 
monitoring; nine comments related to easement violations; and five 
related to the right of enforcement.
    NRCS Response: Of the five comments about delegation, two comments 
supported the delegation language; two comments recommend NRCS allow 
State and Federal agencies that have fee title ownership of an easement 
parcel to receive delegation of authority; and one comment

[[Page 71832]]

recommended that NRCS policy limiting such delegations only apply to 
future formal delegations. NRCS adopted the policy about not delegating 
easement responsibilities to fee title landowners due to issues that 
have arisen where the fee title landowner's program policies and 
authorities are inconsistent with ACEP. NRCS has been reviewing its 
prior delegations to ensure that appropriate stewardship of NRCS-funded 
easements is being conducted by the partners who have received the 
delegation of authority in the past, and is working with these partners 
to ensure the appropriate follow-up where problems have been 
identified.
    Of the four comments related to easement management, one comment 
recommended NRCS increase opportunities and incentives to utilize 
haying and grazing as a wetlands management tool, which NRCS does 
through the compatible use authorization process to improve quality of 
management on WRE easements; one comment recommended eliminating 
``lesser of 2% or $20,000'' restriction on landowner contributions to 
endowments, which NRCS explained above that a limitation on endowment 
contributions is important to ensure the voluntary nature of landowner 
donations to ALE easement acquisitions and adherence to the statutory 
requirements but the level of the limitation may be adjusted upon 
review and approval by NRCS prior to closing. One comment recommended 
that NRCS require ALE eligible entities to incorporate necessary deed 
restrictions related to grasslands of special environmental 
significance, which NRCS already does, and one comment recommended 
existing easements should not be retroactively subject to and required 
to comply with new stewardship and management requirements of ACEP, the 
passage of the new ACEP does not affect the terms of any existing 
recorded easements or the terms of agreements entered into prior to 
February 7, 2014. However, the statute identifies that lands enrolled 
in the predecessor programs are considered enrolled in ACEP, therefore 
the new authorities related to easement administration actions and 
delegations are applicable to all FRPP, GRP, WRP, and ACEP easements.
    Of the 11 comments about easement monitoring, one comment requested 
that NRCS clarify that NRCS may only monitor an ALE easement after 
formally exercising the right of enforcement. This is inaccurate 
because NRCS monitors easements, including review of eligible entities' 
monitoring reports, to ascertain whether there is cause for NRCS to 
exercise its right of enforcement. Three comments recommended NRCS 
prohibit NRCS staff from monitoring an ALE easement when visiting a 
property for other reasons. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation 
because it is irresponsible for the Agency to ignore possible 
violations it becomes aware of in the performance of its duties. Two 
comments recommended that NRCS clarify when certified entities will 
lose certification or an ALE-agreement due to failure to monitor or 
enforce its easements, which NRCS has done in its ACEP policy manual at 
440 CPM 528.75. One comment recommended increasing monitoring and 
enforcement to ensure easement compliance, which NRCS will consider 
when it updates its monitoring policy for all easements. For current 
entity-held easements, NRCS policy requires NRCS to conduct onsite 
monitoring 1 in 5 years and review of the entity's monitoring documents 
the remaining 4 in 5 years. However, NRCS recognizes that the Grantee 
has primary responsibility to conduct monitoring and enforcement. Two 
comments recommended NRCS work with eligible entities to add, if 
necessary, additional questions to the eligible entities existing 
monitoring forms, such as any ``required questions'', which NRCS will 
do. The NRCS monitoring form is available to the public on the NRCS Web 
site and it contains the required monitoring questions that NRCS must 
answer to complete its annual report on easement condition. One comment 
recommended NRCS provide review and comment about an eligible entity's 
monitoring activities, which NRCS will do upon request by the eligible 
entity. One comment recommended NRCS clarify the required conditions 
regarding dedicated funds. NRCS clarifies these conditions at 440 CPM 
528.72, including specifying the dedicated fund will be considered 
committed to these purposes if it is held in a separate account and may 
not be used for other purposes, the dedicated fund is considered 
sufficient if it has at least $50,000 for legal defense and $3,000 per 
easement for management and monitoring, and clarification that a 
sufficiently capitalized risk pool will satisfy the requirement of a 
dedicated fund.
    Of the nine comments about easement violations, one comment 
recommended NRCS notify the eligible entity's other funding partners 
when there is a violation, which NRCS did not adopt as it is the 
eligible entity's responsibility to notify the partners from which the 
entity received funding; three comments recommended that damage or 
destruction caused by natural events should not be considered an 
easement violation, which is already the case; one comment recommended 
clarifying violations of the ALE plan, which as NRCS has explained is 
the responsibility of the eligible entity with the exception of 
violations of the conservation plan component of the agricultural land 
easement plan for which verification of compliance is the 
responsibility of NRCS in accordance with the conservation compliance 
provisions at 7 CFR part 12. One comment recommended always requiring 
notice to landowners about violations, which by policy, NRCS notifies 
the landowner for WRE easements and notifies the Grantee for ALE 
easements if NRCS discovers the violation prior to the Grantee despite 
the Grantee having primary enforcement responsibility, though there 
may, however, be emergency circumstances where written notice prior to 
addressing a violation is not practicable; two comments recommended 
that a violation notice does not negate or circumvent the role of 
funding partners to assist in determinations of violations, 
entitlements to recovery of fees and expenses, determination of 
easement termination valuations, and proportional dispensation of 
termination proceeds, which NRCS agrees it does not; and two comments 
that NRCS should only be entitled to recover costs if the eligible 
entity was negligent in its enforcement role, which would be the most 
likely circumstance if the eligible entity failed to enforce its 
easement.
    Of the five comments related to the right of enforcement, two 
comments recommended that NRCS notify land trusts if they are 
inadequately reporting and also create an opportunity to resolve any 
issues before NRCS asserts its enforcement rights, which NRCS will do 
in situations where all parties are acting in good faith; one comment 
recommend NRCS amend the right of enforcement language to include a 
provision by which the entity could repay the value of the easement to 
avoid enforcement action, which NRCS finds fundamentally in opposition 
to the statutory purposes of the program; and one comment recommended 
that the ACEP manual should not focus on NRCS' stewardship, monitoring, 
and enforcement responsibilities because entities have primary 
responsibility in these areas, which NRCS recognizes in policy. But 
this does not alleviate NRCS' responsibility to ensure that the 
statutory program purposes are met and

[[Page 71833]]

the substantial Federal investment is being protected.

Easement Valuation and Consideration

    Comment: NRCS received 40 comments on the topic of easement 
valuation and consideration, of which three comments were about the 
valuation methods in general, five comments related Geographic Area 
Rate Caps (GARCs) and Area-Wide Market Analyses (AWMAs); three comments 
related to alternative valuation methodologies; three comments related 
to the appraisal effective date; seven comments related to appraisal 
reviews; eight comments related to appraisal specifications; and 11 
comments related to projects of special significance.
    NRCS Response: The comments related to the valuation methods 
expressed support for the methods identified. One of the commenters 
requested NRCS specify that following the Uniform Standards for 
Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) Standard 6, the Mass Appraisal 
Standard, is only appropriate in certain circumstances. However, NRCS 
does not reference Standard 6, and for the last two years NRCS 
referenced USPAP Standards 4 and 5--the consulting standards. Since 
these standards were omitted in the latest version of the USPAP, NRCS 
handles the AWMAs with reference to Standards 1 and 2, as these place 
the appraiser in a better situation with respect to the valuation 
opinion. The remaining four comments related to the GARCs and AWMAs 
expressed support for the regulatory language.
    Of the three comments related to the availability of alternative 
valuation methodologies for ALE, one comment expressed support; one 
comment sought assurance that industry-approved appraisal standards 
will be sufficient; and one comment recommended that NRCS use the Farm 
Credit Association's ``benchmark valuation'' model. NRCS will review 
any standards submitted by eligible entity and compare to the appraisal 
standards under USPAP or the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal 
Land Acquisition (UASFLA) to determine if the alternative methodology 
sufficiently determines the fair market value of the easement. NRCS 
reviewed the benchmark valuation model but has determined that this 
methodology alone is not sufficient because it only derives market 
value of the fee estate, and does not derive easement value as required 
by statute.
    The three comments about the adjustments to the ALE appraisal 
effective date supported the change that NRCS made to policy allowing 
approved appraisals to have an effective date that is either within one 
year of the closing date, or within six months on either side of the 
signing of the ALE-agreement.
    Of the seven comments about the appraisal review process, one 
comment expressed support for the process; one comment recommended NRCS 
review the current appraisal contracts and instructions to review 
appraisers; one comment recommended NRCS work with eligible entities to 
review the current contract for review appraisers; one comment 
requested NRCS clarify the definition of technical appraisal review; 
one comment recommended NRCS require communication between the 
appraiser and the review appraiser during the development of the 
preliminary scope of work; one comment recommended that review 
appraisers meet an ASFMRA Real Property Review Appraiser program, ASA 
Appraisal Review and Management, or NAIFA Independent Fee Appraiser 
Agricultural (IFAA) designation to be qualified to competently perform 
as a review appraiser; and one comment recommended that NRCS strengthen 
the review appraisal function.
    NRCS continuously reviews the appraisal instructions with its 
contracted technical review appraisers. It is difficult to make reviews 
consistent since they are professional opinions and not simply a 
checklist. However, NRCS will note that it may identify problems with 
an appraisal that do not affect validity of the determination of value. 
NRCS has not adopted the recommendation that would allow eligible 
entities to review the current contract NRCS has with review appraisers 
because the review appraisers are to provide an independent review of 
the appraisal submitted by the eligible entity. A technical appraisal 
review is a review completed by a State certified general appraiser. 
NRCS cannot require communication between the review appraiser and 
appraiser during the development of the preliminary scope of work of 
the appraisal because of the timing issues since the eligible entity 
often does not know that NRCS funding will be sought or obtained at the 
time the appraisal is being conducted. However, the NRCS appraisal 
specification and scope of work and appraisal technical review 
specification and scope of work are both publically available on the 
NRCS Web site and can be accessed by the eligible entities or the 
appraisers at any time. Additionally, the appraiser always has access 
to the NRCS National Appraiser should questions arise during the 
development of the original appraisal. With respect to the comment 
recommending various designations, NRCS requires review appraisers to 
meet strict qualifications, though the referenced designations are not 
required. NRCS continually reviews its procedures to ensure the quality 
of the appraisal and appraisal review functions meet program 
requirements.
    Of the eight comments about NRCS appraisal specifications, one 
comment requested NRCS clarify the appraisal scope of work to bar 
appraisers who have had disciplinary actions that did not result in 
suspension but did result in a license restriction, which NRCS will 
adopt as an appropriate additional consideration. One comment requested 
NRCS specify that USPAP and UASFLA be identified as appraisal 
thresholds, which NRCS already does in both the regulation and policy 
manual. One comment recommended that a survey should not be required as 
part of the appraisal report if a current recorded deed meets closure 
requirements under State law, which is the current standard NRCS 
applies, if a survey is available then it should be included, but 
otherwise the existing recorded legal description is sufficient if it 
meets the State law and describes the area to be encumbered by the 
easement. One comment recommended using an UASFLA appraisal instead of 
USPAP when discounted cash flow valuation method is used, which NRCS 
did not adopt as UASFLA actually discourages the use of the cash flow 
valuation method. One comment recommended NRCS allow landowners to 
obtain the appraisal and another comment recommended that NRCS allow 
the landowner to be listed as a client on an appraisal, neither of 
which NRCS adopted because conflict of interest concerns prohibit such 
steps, as do prior OIG audit management actions. NRCS policy, however, 
does allow landowners to be identified as a user and to pay for the 
appraisal, but does not allow the landowner to select the appraiser or 
direct the appraiser as the client. One comment opined that UASFLA is 
the most accurate and proven method for developing an opinion of ``fair 
market value'' for fractional and partial interests, such as those 
involved in the ALE program, which is why NRCS considers it as an 
acceptable methodology to use. One comment requested NRCS clarify that 
a farm with excess forestland can be protected under one easement as 
long as the additional forestland is not included in the appraisal, 
which NRCS considers as much a program issue as an appraisal issue, and 
simply requires that the

[[Page 71834]]

appraisal upon which NRCS bases its cost-share assistance must be of 
the area being enrolled in ALE only.
    Of the 11 comments about projects of special significance, three of 
the comments recommended establishing a time limit for NRCS 
consideration of requests of an eligible entity's cash contribution, 
which NRCS will not adopt as an unnecessary prioritization of a program 
implementation action; additionally the eligible entity has the 
flexibility to request a project of special significance determination 
before or after the ALE-agreement is entered into. The remaining 
comments requested clarification or recommended replacing the national 
criteria with considerations such as whether the parcel is: Owned by a 
new or beginning farmer; part of a comprehensive plan to protect a 
block of farms or ranchland adjacent to Federal or State lands 
dedicated to conservation or military use; an education or 
demonstration farm; or would include an Option to Purchase at 
Agricultural Value (OPAV) in the deed, or the project would have 
significantly lower probability of happening without a reduction in the 
required eligible entity cost-share.
    Section 1265B(b)(2) requires that the Federal share of the cost of 
the purchase of an agricultural land easement must not exceed 50 
percent of the fair market value of the agricultural land easement. The 
eligible entity must provide a share that is at least equivalent to 
that provided by NRCS, but may include a charitable donation by the 
landowner provided the eligible entity contributes its own cash 
resources in an amount that is at least 50 percent of the NRCS 
contribution. However, for projects of special significance, NRCS may 
waive any portion of the eligible entity cash contribution requirement, 
subject to an increase in the private landowner donation that is equal 
to the amount of the waiver, if the donation is voluntary, and the 
property is in active agricultural production.
    While at first it appears that identifying parcels owned by a new 
or beginning farmer as a project of special significance would 
prioritize such enrollment, the actual impact of such identification 
would result in the eligible entity providing less financial 
compensation to a landowner who, given the newness of the operation, 
would best benefit from the capital investment of the eligible entity. 
Therefore, NRCS has incorporated criteria specifically to encourage 
enrollment of parcels owned by historically underserved landowners as 
projects of special significance where such criteria do not have such 
unintended consequences. NRCS does consider ``buy-sell-protect'' or 
``conservation buyer'' parcels that are subject to a valid purchase and 
sale agreement to transfer land to historically underserved buyer at 
the closing of the ALE as a project of special significance. NRCS has 
added such criteria, as discussed above, to the regulation. NRCS also 
believes that a parcel could qualify as a project of special 
significance if it is one of several parcels within a special project 
area being offered for enrollment in that fiscal year that are being 
protected pursuant to a comprehensive plan approved by the State 
Conservationist, with input from the State Technical Committee, for the 
permanent protection of a large block of farm or ranch land. However, 
agricultural zoning or being identified for protection by an 
established farmland protection program is not sufficient to meet this 
standard. NRCS already provides priority for enrollment of parcels near 
military installations or other conservation lands, and while these 
efforts are standard among farmland protection efforts, the proximity 
of a parcel to such lands in conjunction with other factors may qualify 
a parcel as a project of special significance. As discussed above, 
OPAVs are an administrative tool used by eligible entities and do not 
represent any special resource condition of the parcel itself, and 
therefore NRCS will not identify parcels that will have OPAV provisions 
as a project of special significance.

Land and Landowner Eligibility

    Comment: NRCS received 122 comments related to the topic of land 
and landowner eligibility. Of the 122 comments, in descending order of 
number of comments: 32 Comments related to lands in entity ownership; 
17 comments related to ALE forest land eligibility; 15 miscellaneous 
comments; 11 comments related to ACEP landowner requirements; nine 
comments related to ALE eligibility criteria; seven related to ALE 
infrastructure; six comments related to grasslands eligibility; six 
comments related to prime farmland eligibility; five related to mineral 
rights; four comments related to the ALE written pending offer; four 
related to WRE enrollment of Conservation Reserve Program acres; three 
comments related to access; two comments related to ALE State or local 
policy eligibility; and one comment related to historical and 
archaeological significance.
    NRCS Response: Lands in entity ownership: Of the 32 comments about 
the eligibility of lands owned by an eligible entity, one comment 
recommended that such land be ineligible and the remaining comments 
recommended either temporary or permanent eligibility of such lands. 
NRCS did not adopt these recommendations due to the statutory framework 
of the program. More particularly, the statutory framework for eligible 
land and eligible landowners prevents NRCS from providing ALE funds for 
the reservation of an easement in land currently owned by an eligible 
entity. As to eligible land, the definition of an agricultural land 
easement is: ``an easement [or other interest] in eligible land that--
(A) is conveyed for the purposes of protecting natural resources and 
the agricultural nature of the land; and (B) permits the landowner the 
right to continue agricultural production and related uses subject to 
an agricultural land easement plan, as approved by the Secretary.
    The statutory definition of ``eligible land'' is private or tribal 
agricultural land that is ``subject to a pending offer for purchase of 
an agricultural land easement from an eligible entity.'' Section 
1265A(3)(A)(i) (Emphasis supplied).
    As to limitations imposed by the definition of eligible landowners, 
to qualify as an eligible landowner an eligible entity would need to 
comply with adjusted gross income limitations (AGI) and conservation 
compliance requirements. Currently under ACEP-ALE, eligible entities 
are not evaluated for AGI or conservation compliance as the benefits of 
the program and therefore the landowner eligibility requirements are 
attributed to the landowner. However, if an eligible entity were to 
apply for ACEP-ALE as a landowner then they would be subject to AGI and 
conservation compliance checks. While AGI is unlikely to limit eligible 
entities, the conservation compliance check would present a new and 
significant hurdle for an eligible entity. Furthermore, because only 
private and tribal land is eligible an eligible entity that is a State 
or local government cannot be an eligible landowner.
    Further, under Section 1265B(b)(1) of the ACEP statute, cost-share 
assistance is only authorized to be provided for ``purchasing 
agricultural land easements.'' In a situation where the eligible entity 
already owns the land, an agricultural land easement is not being 
purchased but reserved and the residual fee title is being sold to a 
private landowner. NRCS has developed policy to address temporary buy-
sell-protect situations. By including within the definition of a 
landowner those buying

[[Page 71835]]

eligible land under a purchase agreement, NRCS has enabled eligible 
entities to engage in buy-sell-protect or conservation buyer 
transactions through ALE. Typically, eligible entities will act as a 
conservation buyer when the land is of high conservation value and is 
subject to an imminent threat that is incompatible with the 
preservation of the land's conservation values and, as a result, time 
is of the essence. In such a scenario, eligible entities may acquire 
eligible land, enter into a valid purchase agreement with an eligible 
landowner, apply for ALE cost-share assistance before the landowner 
acquires fee title and then acquire an ALE using the Federal cost-share 
assistance only after the eligible landowner acquires a fee title. 
Combining conservation buyer strategies and ALE allows eligible 
entities to act quickly to protect land, ensures the lands are held in 
ownership by an eligible landowner in order to meet ALE program 
requirements, and preserves the conservation values in perpetuity with 
assistance from NRCS.
    Forest land eligibility: Of the 17 comments received about forest 
land eligibility, 11 comments supported the waiver of the forest land 
limitation for sugar bush acreage but requested further clarification; 
four comments requested that non-industrial forest land would either be 
exempt from the forest land restrictions or qualify for a waiver; and 
the remaining two comments simply expressed support for the continued 
restriction on the enrollment of forest land in ALE. In the interim 
rule, NRCS explained that NRCS would continue the former FRPP 
determination that forest land was only eligible if it did not exceed 
two-thirds of the easement area, and that NRCS would reduce its cost-
share in proportion to the extent that an easement protects forest land 
that exceeds two-thirds of the easement area. However, NRCS also 
identified that it may waive the two-thirds forest land limitation for 
sugar bush acreage that contributes significantly to the economic 
viability of the parcel being offered for enrollment, since landowners 
manage their sugar bush as an integral part of their overall 
agricultural operations. Thus, if the waiver is granted, then NRCS 
would provide cost-share assistance for the enrollment of the land 
subject to the waiver. NRCS did not adopt the recommendations 
concerning non-industrial private forest land since the ALE currently 
limits the eligibility of forest land to ``non-industrial private 
forest land that contributes to the economic viability of an offered 
parcel or serves as a buffer to protect such land from development.'' 
NRCS believes that the two-thirds restriction on the enrollment of non-
industrial forest land meets this criteria, and the waiver for sugar 
bush provides sufficient flexibility to this restriction.
    Miscellaneous: Of the 15 miscellaneous comments, one comment 
requested NRCS clarify which types of unrecorded interests might impact 
a property's chances of receiving funding. There are numerous types of 
unrecorded interests that can affect the quality of title that a 
landowner is able to provide, including, but not limited to, those that 
could interfere with the future agricultural use of the land, such as 
oil extraction leases with no limitation, adverse possession claims, 
unresolved boundary disputes, utility or infrastructure options, 
`floating' leases or rights-of-way with third parties, or other 
unrecorded agreements for non-compatible uses that cannot be cancelled, 
revoked, or otherwise subordinated prior to closing. The due diligence 
and title evaluation documents NRCS uses when conducting its own due 
diligence activities are available to the public on the NRCS Web site 
and provide a good reference for eligible entities to identify the 
types of issues NRCS evaluates in the course of determining eligibility 
and quality of title.
    Six of the 15 comments recommended that Confined Animal Feeding 
Operations (CAFOs) should be ineligible for ACEP-ALE funding by adding 
CAFOs at Sec.  1468.20e ``ineligible land criteria'' as these lands 
impair groundwater, surface water, and air quality. For any proposed 
easement containing a CAFO, the confined area is a heavy use area that 
must be evaluated by NRCS to determine if the on-site or off-site 
conditions render the site ineligible and make a determination whether 
the land meets the required land eligibility criteria. This is 
necessarily a case specific determination and therefore broad 
categorization of land eligibility simply based on type of operation 
would not be appropriate.
    With respect to WRE land eligibility, one comment requested 
clarification about the WRE water depth factor for determining 
eligibility of potholes and closed basins. As an eligibility 
determination, the ``6.5 foot or less'' criterion refers to the depth 
of flooding at the time of application and is not based upon any 
hydrologic features that could be planned to be constructed for the 
project. One comment requested NRCS give flexibility at the NRCS State 
level when consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
to determine how to maximize wildlife benefits and wetland values and 
functions, which NRCS already does. One comment recommended prohibiting 
commercial game farms and shooting preserves on NRCS easements, which 
NRCS will not do as some related activities may be consistent with the 
long term wetland purposes of the easement, as determined by NRCS 
through the compatible use authorization process.
    Two of the 15 comments requested that NRCS emphasize that land 
enrolled in WRE would not be eligible for wetland mitigation credit. 
WRE easements and contracts provide NRCS the authority to restore, 
protect, and enhance enrolled wetlands and associated habitats in a 
manner that will maximize wildlife habitat and other wetland functions 
and values. The assumption is that WRE lands will receive the 
conservation attention from NRCS necessary to achieve this full degree 
of protection, restoration, and enhancement. Therefore, NRCS does not 
allow another entity to expend mitigation funds on any of the land 
treatment conservation actions that would be appropriate and 
practicable to fund under WRE. This policy extends to any compensatory 
action taken by a third party to mitigate adverse ecological impacts, 
including but not limited to, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(i.e. Clean Water Act), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
    However, there may be limited opportunities when enhancement 
activities under a mitigation project would go beyond those 
conservation actions normally carried out under a WRE. NRCS notifies 
landowners who wish to enter into mitigation arrangements that if they 
enter into an agreement with a third party that such agreements are 
subordinate to the WRE and that if the agreement requires the exercise 
of rights held by the United States, such actions are subject to the 
compatible use authorization process.
    Furthermore, NRCS recognizes that environmental benefits will be 
achieved by implementing conservation practices, components, measures, 
and activities funded through WRE, and that environmental credits may 
be gained as a result of implementing activities compatible with the 
purposes of a WRE easement or contract. NRCS asserts no direct or 
indirect interest in credits generated by activities not funded through 
WRE. Landowners should be aware that any applicable credits may be 
subject to additional requirements

[[Page 71836]]

and may not be possible on certain WRE lands.
    The remaining three comments expressed support for the exemption of 
wetland land capability classes from the county cropland limitation. 
NRCS would like to clarify that the subclass w exemption also applies 
to easements enrolled through the predecessor program, the Wetlands 
Reserve Program.
    ACEP Landowner requirements: Of the 11 comments about ACEP 
landowner requirements, four comments supported the reduction of the 
ownership requirement from seven years to 24 months; three comments 
recommended eliminating the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) requirements, 
which NRCS cannot do as AGI is required by statute; three comments 
recommended that landowners who participate through the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program should not obtain a waiver of AGI, 
which NRCS did not adopt as such flexibility is provided by statute; 
and one comment recommended that the Farm Bill be amended to allow 
governmental entities that are landowners to participate and enroll 
projects in WRE, which is outside of NRCS authority.
    ALE Eligibility criteria in General: Of the nine comments about ALE 
eligibility criteria, one comment recommended delineating the four 
criteria for land eligibility, which NRCS has done by slightly 
modifying Sec.  1468.20(d); one comment expressed support for the 
inclusion of expiring CRP acres as eligible land; two comments 
requested clarification about what on-site and off-site conditions may 
render a site ineligible, which NRCS has not done as while an 
infrastructure project with documented approval or existing 
environmental contamination can be readily evaluated it is difficult to 
draw a line that covers all cases (whether an off- or on-site condition 
impairs the conservation value of a property will depend on the 
specific condition and the specific conservation values that NRCS and 
the eligible entity are seeking to protect on the parcel and NRCS has 
delegated this evaluation to the State Conservationist and provided 
guidance in policy); two comments recommended emphasizing ``protecting 
and enhancing related conservation values of the land'', which NRCS 
adopted in substance by making the necessary changes to the definition 
of ``pending offer'' and how that term is used at Sec.  1468.20(a) by 
using the purpose terminology from the statute that includes these 
concepts; two comments recommended that program requirements should 
include protection and restoration of Tribal treaty-reserved resources, 
which may occur through limiting non-agricultural uses of the land but 
is not a specific program requirement established in the statute; and 
one comment requested the regulation be revised with respect to 
incidental lands to clarify that it can be enrolled with any eligible 
land, which is not needed as the clear language of Sec.  1468.20(d)(2) 
states that if land offered for enrollment is determined eligible, then 
``NRCS may also enroll land that is incidental to the eligible land.''
    Access: Of the three comments about access as an eligibility 
criterion, one comment recommended that NRCS lessen the requirements 
for establishing sufficient access under ALE and two comments 
recommended that NRCS apply ALE access requirements to WRE easements. 
NRCS did not adopt either of these recommendations. NRCS has reviewed 
what is required for access under the respective components of the 
program, and has provided greater flexibility to ALE participants since 
NRCS must only ensure its ability to access the parcel to exercise its 
right of enforcement in the event the Grantee does not fully protect 
the interests provided to the Grantee under the easement. However, 
under the WRE component of the program, NRCS must acquire access 
sufficient to restore, protect, and enhance the wetland functions and 
values of the easement as the easement holder and thus what is 
sufficient access for purposes of providing cost-share assistance to a 
third-party easement holder under ALE is not sufficient for the 
purposes of NRCS administering a Federally-held easement under WRE.
    Specific ALE eligibility criteria: Four comments made 
recommendations about the requirement for a written pending offer; six 
comments made recommendations about grassland of special environmental 
significance; six comments made recommendations to eliminate the prime 
farmland requirement; two made recommendations about State or local 
policies consistent with ALE purposes; and one comment made 
recommendations about historical and archaeological resources.
    NRCS cannot adopt the recommendations to eliminate the written 
pending offer requirements as it is a statutory requirement. However, a 
purchase agreement is not required. NRCS has made available, upon 
request, an example model pending offer that can be adopted by eligible 
entities.
    Of the ALE grasslands eligibility recommendations, three comments 
recommend adopting flexibility to include grasslands of special 
environmental significance with noxious or invasive species where the 
grasslands are supported by State, regional, or national plans, and 
three comments recommended that NRCS clarify that land eligible for 
grazing uses and other conservation values do not need to contain 
historical or archaeological resources to be eligible. To be eligible 
as grasslands of special environmental significance, NRCS requires that 
the grassland have little to no noxious or invasive species. If a 
grassland is supported by State, regional or National plans, but 
contains noxious or invasive species that occupy more than a minor 
extent of the grassland or are not under effective control, those lands 
may be eligible as a general ALE grassland enrollment, but would not be 
eligible as a grassland of special environmental significance. NRCS has 
clarified that land eligible for grazing uses and related conservation 
values does not also need to contain historical or archaeological 
resources by listing more discretely the eligibility criteria as 
outlined in Sec.  1468.20(d).
    NRCS will not eliminate the 50 percent prime or unique farmland 
requirement as this requirement can be waived, is only one of four land 
eligibility options, and the agency already has significant flexibility 
to ensure that the most important lands, whether identified nationally 
or locally, are eligible for enrollment.
    NRCS will not adopt the recommendation that agricultural historic 
resources receive a priority review during land eligibility 
determinations, since State screening criteria or ranking factors can 
accommodate this concern for priority if identified at the State level.
    Of the two comments about ALE State or local policy consistent with 
the purposes of the ACEP-ALE, one comment requested NRCS clarify the 
process whereby an eligible entity may meet this requirement, and one 
comment recommended NRCS eliminate the deed requirement that the 
agricultural land easement must address the purposes for which the land 
was acquired if the land is being acquired because it ``furthers a 
State or local policy.'' NRCS does not define what constitutes a State 
or local farmland protection policy that is consistent with ALE as such 
a definition may inadvertently limit the potential for effective 
farmland protection efforts. However, if an easement transaction 
depends upon the eligibility of the land being based on the protection 
of land furthering a State or local policy, the eligible entity must 
submit to NRCS the documentation necessary for NRCS to

[[Page 71837]]

review and determine whether the State or local policy is tied in an 
effective way to the protection of the agricultural uses of the land by 
limiting conversion to non-agricultural uses or to the protection of 
grazing uses and related conservation values. Land must be able to meet 
land eligibility criteria at the time of NRCS' selection for funding, 
and thus the State or local policy must exist at the time of 
application and documentation of how the parcel will further such State 
or local policy submitted as part of the application package for such 
parcel.
    While it is unlikely that a parcel will be enrolled as eligible 
solely because it furthers a State or local policy consistent with ALE, 
if its enrollment is based upon such criteria then NRCS must ensure 
that such criteria will be furthered by the purchase of an agricultural 
land easement. For parcels determined eligible based this eligibility 
type, the agricultural land easement deed must address the ACEP-ALE 
purposes that are being supported by a specific State or local policy.
    Specific ALE Ineligibility Criteria: NRCS received five comments 
related to how mineral rights are addressed under ALE, and seven 
comments related to how NRCS addresses infrastructure projects. Both of 
these activities can affect whether NRCS will determine that a parcel 
is eligible to receive ALE funding based upon the significant, 
uncontrollable risk that such activities present to the conversion of 
agricultural lands to a non-agricultural use or to the protection of 
grazing uses and related conservation values. NRCS does not, however, 
determine that land is ineligible simply because the gas, oil, earth, 
or mineral rights have been leased or are owned by someone other than 
the landowner. NRCS recognizes that the risks presented by exploration 
and development activities differ by region, and that, in some cases, 
appropriate limitations can reduce the risks associated with these 
activities. Therefore, NRCS evaluates the purposes and methods of the 
infrastructure development due to the statutory mandate to limit 
conversion to non-agricultural uses or to protect grazing uses and 
related conservation values, but may allow the development of mineral 
rights and energy infrastructure when surface disturbances can be 
minimized and localized within specific thresholds. NRCS provides a 
range of options in the minimum deed terms that provides sufficient 
flexibility related to mineral exploration and development. An eligible 
entity can always include its own additional deed terms that are more 
restrictive.
    With respect to infrastructure projects, if there is an existing or 
known infrastructure project that introduces disturbances or risks that 
could undermine the purposes of the easement and there are documented 
routes approved by a government authority, the land may be determined 
ineligible or may require reconfiguration in order to become eligible 
because NRCS will not knowingly interfere with the proposed 
infrastructure project objectives of another agency. However, if an 
infrastructure project is not definitive as to its location and scope, 
then NRCS will not determine a parcel ineligible simply because an 
infrastructure project is under consideration in an area.
    WRE Enrollment of CRP Acres: NRCS received four comments supporting 
the enrollment of CRP acres, including the process outlined in Sec.  
1468.30(g)(2) to allow WRE enrollment of land established to trees 
under CRP. NRCS considers all CRP sites that meet the basic eligibility 
criteria as eligible, subject to the stipulations for lands established 
to trees under CRP as outlined in Sec.  1468.30(g)(2), and then uses 
the State ranking processes to determine whether an existing CRP parcel 
is a good candidate for the ACEP-WRE, especially sites that will 
benefit migratory bird or at-risk species habitat objectives.

National and State Allocations

    Comment: NRCS received 20 comments on the topic of national and 
State allocations. Of these 20 comments, 5 comments related to funding 
levels requesting an increase to ACEP funding levels, encouragement of 
continued apportionment of adequate technical assistance for wetland 
restoration, and encouragement for NRCS to continue to find ways to 
leverage funding through partnership opportunities. The remaining 15 
comments made recommendations about the allocation of funds between the 
two components of the program, with 11 comments recommending that NRCS 
maintain the historic proportion of funding between the programs 
subject to producer demand, 2 comments recommending a minimum of 40 
percent share to ALE, and 2 comments recommending that grassland of 
special environmental significance (GSS) receive its own allocation 
under ALE.
    NRCS Response: The ACEP allocation between the program components 
is based upon demand. NRCS recognizes that there is strong demand for 
both components of ACEP, including demand for enrollment of grassland 
of special environmental significance, and that this demand may 
fluctuate year to year. NRCS, therefore, works diligently to provide an 
appropriate allocation of acres and funds across States between the 
ACEP program components to respond to demand. Over the course of the 
2008 Farm Bill, the predecessor easement programs received an average 
of $780 million annually. The historic proportion of funding was 
approximately 73 percent WRP funds and 27 percent GRP and FRPP funds. 
The current average funding available under ACEP will be approximately 
$368 million annually, about 47 percent of the amount available under 
the repealed programs. As a result, NRCS is able to fund only 
approximately 30 percent of the total ACEP applications received each 
year. In both FY 2014 and FY 2015, the demand under ACEP has been 
approximately 65 to 70 percent demand for WRE and 30 to 35 percent 
demand for ALE, this breakdown in demand is in both number of 
applications being submitted for funding and dollars requested. In FY 
2014 and FY 2015, an average of 130,000 acres of have been enrolled in 
ACEP each year. This includes 80,000 acres annually of farm and ranch 
lands protected through new ACEP-ALE enrollments, and 50,000 acres 
annually of wetlands restored and protected through new ACEP-WRE 
enrollments, a split of 61 percent ACEP-ALE acres and 39 percent ACEP-
WRE acres. The associated funding split has averaged approximately 39 
percent ACEP-ALE and 61 percent ACEP-WRE. While the reduced funding 
under ACEP resulted in reduced enrollments across the entire program 
compared to prior years, the reduction in ACEP-WRE enrollments have 
been disproportionately larger than ACEP-ALE. ACEP-ALE has been 
allocated sufficient funds to enroll 60 percent of the historic average 
acres under FRPP/GRP, from 132,000 acres annually under FRPP/GRP to 
80,000 acres under ACEP-ALE; while ACEP-WRE was allocated sufficient 
funds to enroll 28 percent of the historic average acres under WRP, 
from 177,000 acres per year under WRP to 50,000 acres per year under 
ACEP-WRE. Similarly, in both FY 2014 and FY 2015, ACEP-ALE received a 
larger relative proportion of funds than historically received under 
the predecessor programs. NRCS will continue to work to balance demand, 
resource needs, and maximizing the benefits of Federal funds invested.

National Priorities and Initiatives

    Comment: NRCS received nine comments related to the topic of 
national priorities and initiatives. These comments included 
recommendations

[[Page 71838]]

for ALE to target GSS priority areas for waterfowl and migratory bird 
populations--such as the Prairie Pothole Region--for inclusion as 
National GSS priority areas, include OPAVs in the list of optional 
criteria for determining projects of special significance, emphasize 
projects that involve beginning farmers or ranchers as a project of 
special significance, and for WRE, to emphasize a watershed approach 
for WRE project selection, and determine WRE priority areas at the 
State level.
    NRCS Response: Identifying and targeting enrollment to the most 
imperiled grassland, such as the Prairie Pothole and Great Plains 
Regions, is a procedural issue. Additionally, at Sec.  1468.22(c)(4), 
the States may adopt as priority ranking criteria ``(4) Geographic 
regions where the enrollment of particular lands may help achieve 
national, State, and regional conservation goals and objectives, or 
enhance existing government or private conservation projects.'' 
Therefore, no changes are needed to the regulation to address the 
comment's concern. NRCS has addressed recommendations about OPAVs 
earlier in this preamble related to identifying criteria for projects 
of special significance in general, and again emphasizes that factors 
related to projects of special significance are not based upon 
administrative matters within the control of the eligible entity but 
the attributes of the parcel itself. NRCS also addressed above the 
additional criteria NRCS has adopted for projects of special 
significance to encourage the involvement of beginning farmers or 
ranchers where such criteria do not have inadvertent impacts upon them. 
Most of the criteria for projects of special significance, including 
those for GSS, are focused upon environmental factors and priority 
resource concerns that can be addressed by encouraging enrollment. 
However, with this new criterion, NRCS is utilizing its authority under 
16 U.S.C. 3844 to encourage enrollment of parcels that will assist 
historically underserved landowners who own and protect valuable 
agricultural lands that otherwise might not be enrolled due to 
unintended barriers to their participation under eligible entity 
programs. Under WRE, States determine WRE priority areas, including 
whether to emphasize a particular watershed within the State and then 
rank parcels within that watershed.

Participation in Other USDA Programs

    Comment: NRCS received four comments recommending that landowners 
who have an ALE easement encumbering their lands should receive 
priority for financial assistance through other NRCS conservation 
programs to implement practices identified in the ALE plan.
    NRCS Response: The ACEP statute only authorizes financial 
assistance under ALE for the purchase of a conservation easement, and 
financial assistance for other purposes, such as closing costs or 
easement plan implementation, are not authorized. NRCS has received 
comments over the years that landowners who have demonstrated their 
land stewardship through encumbering the land with a conservation 
easement should receive priority for financial assistance funding under 
NRCS conservation program. Given the statutory requirement for lands 
encumbered by an ALE easement to be subject to an agricultural land 
easement plan, this recommendation has been made again by conservation 
organizations. NRCS is reviewing its financial assistance programs and 
will provide guidance, where appropriate, to its State offices about 
the practices identified in ALE plans and how such practices may 
address other program's priority resource concerns.

Planning

    Comment: NRCS received 136 comments related to planning, 50 of 
which related to ALE plan criteria. Of these ALE planning criteria 
comments, 12 comments expressed support for the current rule language 
or planning process; four comments encouraged flexibility for 
addressing short-term management needs or current planning efforts; 10 
comments requested clarification of particular requirements; eight 
comments recommended that NRCS only require those plans mandated by 
statute; eight comments recommended that NRCS require RMS level of 
planning; and six comments recommended NRCS decouple ALE Plans from the 
minimum easement deed terms. NRCS also received two comments 
recommending that NRCS eliminate the requirement for an ALE plan.
    Additional comments related to planning included 6 comments related 
to regulatory references; 29 comments related to the development of the 
ALE plan; 13 comments related to the voluntary nature of ALE plans; 33 
comments related to the monitoring and enforcement of ALE plans; three 
comments related to the stringency of plans; one comment related to 
plans required by other programs; and one comment related to WRE 
wetland restoration plan of operations (WRPO).
    NRCS Response: The ACEP Interim Rule identified the minimum 
requirements for an agricultural land easement plan and described the 
relationship between the agricultural land easement plan and the 
individual component plans that are required for certain land-use 
types. In particular, 7 CFR 1468.26 required that all ALE plans must, 
at a minimum:
    (1) Describe the activities that promote the long-term viability of 
the land to meet the purposes for which the easement was acquired;
    (2) Identify required and recommended conservation practices that 
address the purposes and resource concerns for which the parcel was 
selected;
    (3) Identify additional or specific criteria associated with 
permissible and prohibited activities consistent with the terms of the 
deed; and
    (4) If the agricultural land easement contains certain land use 
types, a component plan must be incorporated by reference into the 
agricultural land easement plan for grasslands, forest lands required 
by Sec.  1468.20(d)(3) to have a forest management plan, and highly 
erodible land.
    In the interim rule's preamble, NRCS encouraged the development of 
a robust and comprehensive agricultural land easement plan, such as a 
plan at the NRCS Resource Management System (RMS) planning level, and 
identified that such a plan could include both required and recommended 
practices. NRCS recommended that NRCS' planning procedures, 
conservation practices, and standards and specifications be used to 
develop the agricultural land easement plans.
    An ALE plan identifies conservation practices or management 
standards necessary to meet statutory requirements and recommends 
conservation practices based on landowner goals and the purposes of the 
individual easement. Eligible entities may, at their option, address 
additional resource concerns in the ALE plan. NRCS will continue to 
conduct outreach about the relationship between deed terms and the 
plan, to clarify that the ALE plan is a living document that can be 
adjusted as landowner operations or objectives change and is intended 
to provide flexibility for management of the land within the purposes 
of the easement over the term of the easement. Additionally, NRCS has 
made available example plans as exhibits to the ACEP manual available 
on the NRCS Web site to help alleviate concern about the ``unknown.''
    The comments related to the development of the ALE plan focused

[[Page 71839]]

upon the costs for plan development, when the plan must be developed, 
who reviews and approves the plans, who enforces the plans, and whether 
a plan can be terminated if the landowner decides not to proceed with 
selling the easement. An eligible entity is responsible for ensuring 
that an ALE plan is developed prior to easement closing. NRCS or an 
NRCS-certified technical service provider (TSP) at NRCS cost may assist 
with the development of the plan if requested by the eligible entity. 
To ensure that there is sufficient technical assistance available, NRCS 
provides the eligible entity the opportunity to request NRCS assistance 
for plan development at the time that the parties enter into the ALE-
agreement. NRCS requires that the eligible entity, the landowner, and 
NRCS must sign the plan prior to closing the easement. It is the 
responsibility of the eligible entity to enforce the plan. NRCS has 
responsibility to enforce a conservation plan on highly erodible land 
pursuant to 7 CFR part 12. NRCS affirms that the commenter is correct 
that a landowner is not required to implement an ALE plan unless the 
easement transaction closes.

Ranking

    Comment: NRCS received 135 comments on the topic of ACEP ranking. 
The breakdown of comments was as follows:

 General ranking recommendations (22 comments)
 Specific ALE National criteria (76 comments)
 Recommended new National criteria (13 comments)
 ALE State criteria (12 comments)
 Recommended new ALE State criteria (10 comments)
 WRE Ranking criteria (6 comments)

    General Ranking Recommendations: The breakdown of the 22 general 
ranking recommendations, and the NRCS response to these comments, are 
as follows:
    [cir] Seven comments recommended that the national criteria should 
comprise no more than half of the total score. NRCS believes that the 
existing weighting provides ample opportunity for resource priorities 
within States to be addressed. In particular, State Conservationist 
have discretion to have State factors provide up to 50 percent of the 
weighting, and can also weight the national criteria in a manner that 
corresponds with the resource concerns in the State.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS provide a clear and 
consistent national framework for project selection, but also maintain 
the role of the State Technical Committee. NRCS agrees and believes the 
current balance between National and State criteria furthers this goal.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS revise the ACEP manual to 
allow representatives of eligible entities that are seeking ALE funding 
to serve as State Technical Committee members and participate in State 
ranking criteria and weighting discussions, as long as they do not vote 
on recommendations. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation as an 
ethical matter. Even without voting on the recommendations, the 
influence upon the State ranking criteria and weighting factors could 
affect the selection of particular parcels the eligible entity is 
seeking funding for and represent an inherent conflict of interest.
    [cir] Three comments recommended that general ALE and grassland of 
special environmental significance should be ranked separately. NRCS 
would like to clarify that while these projects are ranked using the 
same form, the specific ranking questions applicable to the different 
types of enrollments have offsetting scores such that the applications 
are competitive within and between enrollment types. Furthermore, the 
State Conservationist has the ability to request separate allocations 
of ALE funds split into general ALE and GSS and thus not have the 
applications compete against each other for access to the same funds.
    [cir] One comment recommended consistent ranking scoring. NRCS 
agrees that consistent ranking scoring provides greater transparency 
and is one of the changes NRCS made from FRPP implementation to how it 
is implementing ALE. NRCS will also explore the implementation of using 
a consistent total ranking score across WRE as well.
    [cir] One comment expressed support for the use of thresholds in 
setting priority ranking and one comment expressed support for the ALE 
eligibility requirements that help ensure enrollment of priority acres 
that meet objectives of the program.
    [cir] One comment advised that project ranking should not be 
penalized for delays generated by NRCS and that some accommodation 
should be made if the delay is not the fault of the eligible entity. 
NRCS must maintain objectivity in the application of the criteria and 
whether to assess penalties for delays is at the State 
Conservationist's discretion who is most familiar with the situation.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS prioritize easements with 
high conservation values that include strong conservation plans. NRCS 
believes the current ranking criteria addresses this comment.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS release a scoring tool to 
eligible entities to use to evaluate projects prior to submittal. NRCS 
State offices make available the ranking criteria at least 30 days 
prior to the application deadline.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS revise the ranking criteria 
to ensure the application process does not negatively affect smaller 
acreage producers. There are many factors that NRCS balances in the 
development and implementation of its ranking factors and weightings. 
The State Conservationists have the flexibility to address the impact 
to smaller acreage producers through the weighting of the different 
ranking criteria.
    [cir] One comment recommended that if ``other criteria'' are to be 
determined, that such criteria should be subject to public comment. 
Ranking criteria are a topic of discussion at State Technical Committee 
meetings, and these meetings are publicized by NRCS at the State level 
and open to the public. Additionally, NRCS at the State level posts the 
criteria it will use for ranking at least 30 days prior to the end of 
an application period.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS segment the core of the 
parcel from incidental land in the ranking form. NRCS did not adopt 
this recommendation because NRCS is cost-sharing on the entirety of the 
parcel and therefore the entirety of the parcel must be evaluated in 
the ranking.
    [cir] One comment recommended that NRCS provide a Web site that 
outlines State and local program priorities and priority geographies 
for applicant to evaluate eligibility under those categories. Each NRCS 
State office has its own Web page and NRCS will provide this greater 
detail on these NRCS State Web pages.
    Specific ALE National Criteria: (76): Section 1468.22(b) of the 
interim rule identified the following as national ranking criteria:
    [cir] Criterion One--Percent of prime, unique, and other important 
farmland in the parcel to be protected: Five comments made 
recommendations about Criterion One. Four of the comments recommended 
adding grassland of special environmental significance and one comment 
recommended adding ``or ranchland'' to the ranking criterion. NRCS will 
address this comment by replacing the word farmland with soils, which 
is inclusive of these other uses.

[[Page 71840]]

    [cir] Criterion Two--Percent of cropland, rangeland, grassland, 
historic grassland, pastureland, or non-industrial private forest land 
in the parcel to be protected: NRCS did not receive any comments about 
Criterion Two.
    [cir] Criterion Three--Ratio of the total acres of land in the 
parcel to be protected to average farm size in the county according to 
the most recent USDA Census of Agriculture: Eighteen comments made 
recommendations about Criterion Three. Ten of these comments 
recommended eliminating the factor; one comment recommended amending 
the factor to encourage the priority of small farms; three comments 
recommended that when analyzing the comparison of farm size to average 
farm size in the county that farmland and rangeland are distinguished 
so that properties in the county with similar land uses are compared to 
each other; one comment recommended NRCS use a more frequently updated 
metric, such as Important Farmland data in States where it is 
available, instead of the Census of Agriculture reports; two comments 
recommended NRCS exclude impervious surface areas from the calculation 
of total project acres; and one comment recommended using the term 
``mean'' instead of ``average.'' NRCS believes that the State criteria 
can address the recommendations made by the comments, depending upon 
the availability of information within the State. For example, States 
can adopt criteria that place less weight on land that has significant 
acreage in impervious surfaces. NRCS uses the nationally-available data 
for the National criteria to provide consistent, objective ranking 
criteria that is equally available across the country. However, States 
can include in the State ranking criteria more localized or more 
frequently updated data sources. NRCS did not adopt the recommendation 
about replacing terms as the term ``average'' in this case is 
synonymous with ``mean.''
    [cir] Criterion Four--Decrease in the percentage of acreage of farm 
and ranch land in the county in which the parcel is located between the 
last two USDA Censuses of Agriculture. NRCS received 15 comments about 
Criterion Four. Twelve of the comments recommended eliminating this 
criterion; two comments recommended allowing consideration for regional 
goals and objectives; and one comment requested that NRCS clarify how 
``development pressure'' to a non-agricultural use will be determined. 
NRCS will keep this National criterion as prioritizing land that is 
most at risk of conversion is at the heart of the program and this 
factor is fundamental to how that risk of conversion can be objectively 
and consistently evaluated.
    [cir] Criterion Five--Percent population growth in the county as 
documented by the United States Census. NRCS received one comment about 
Criterion Five recommending NRCS eliminate the criterion. NRCS did not 
adopt this recommendation as population growth is another objective 
indicator of development pressure that increases the risk of conversion 
of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses or threatens grazing 
uses and related conservation values.
    [cir] Criterion Six--Population density (population per square 
mile) as documented by the most recent United States Census. NRCS 
received two comments on Criterion Six, one recommending NRCS eliminate 
the criterion and one comment requesting calcification on how the 
criterion will be applied. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation 
because this criterion similarly reflects whether a parcel is subject 
to a high risk of conversion. NRCS applies this criterion by providing 
higher priority to parcels in areas that have population that is denser 
than the average density for the State.
    [cir] Criterion Seven--Existence of a farm or ranch succession plan 
or similar plan established to address farm viability for future 
generations. NRCS received 24 comments about Criterion Seven. One 
comment supported the use of the criterion, eight comments recommended 
that NRCS allow an Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value (OPAV) to 
score points as a ``succession plan'', four comments recommended 
allowing scoring for an affirmative requirement to maintain land in 
productive agriculture, two comments recommended moving this criterion 
from the national criteria to the State criteria, seven comments 
recommended eliminating the criterion, and two comments recommended 
replacing the succession plan ranking criterion with one that provides 
priority for land that is being sold to a new farmer or other priority 
historically underserved landowner. This criterion existed under FRPP 
as part of the State ranking criteria, but was elevated to a national 
ranking criterion due to the change in the statutory purposes of ALE to 
include future viability. An OPAV or other affirmative requirement to 
maintain land in productive agriculture can be considered a form of 
succession planning. As is already allowed under the ACEP interim rule, 
the State Conservationist can include in the State ranking criteria the 
multifunctional benefits of an ALE, including deed provisions that 
provide for the future sale of a parcel to a historically underserved 
landowner. The final easement deed must include provisions that address 
the items for which the parcel receives ranking points, such as the 
presence of a succession plan or multifunctional easement benefits.
    [cir] Criterion Eight--Proximity of the parcel to other protected 
land, such as military installations; land owned in fee title by the 
United States or an Indian Tribe, State or local government, or by a 
nongovernmental organization whose purpose is to protect agricultural 
use and related conservation values; or land that is already subject to 
an easement or deed restriction that limits the conversion of the land 
to non-agricultural use. NRCS did not receive any comments about 
Criterion Eight, but is expanding the last sentence to include the 
phrase `or protects the grazing uses and related conservation values' 
to address the statutory purposes of ALE.
    [cir] Criterion Nine--Proximity of the parcel to other agricultural 
operations and agricultural infrastructure. NRCS did not receive any 
comments about Criterion Nine.
    [cir] Criterion Ten--Maximizing the protection of contiguous acres 
devoted to agricultural use. NRCS received nine comments about 
Criterion Ten. Five of these comments recommended that NRCS modify the 
criterion to give priority to ``blocks'' of farmland that are in 
proximity to each other; three comments recommended to eliminate the 
criterion; and one comment recommended NRCS modify the criterion for 
small States. NRCS adopted the recommendation to modify the criterion 
to reflect priority for farmland or ranchland that are contiguous or in 
proximity to each other.
    [cir] Criterion Eleven--Whether the land is currently enrolled in 
CRP in a contract that is set to expire within one year and is 
grassland that would benefit from protection under a long-term 
easement. NRCS received two comments about criterion eleven. One of the 
comments expressed support for the criterion and the other comment 
recommended that NRCS retain the flexibility at the State level to 
determine relative priority assigned to expiring CRP acres versus other 
grasslands. NRCS did not adopt the recommendation as it has determined 
to exercise the discretion provided by statute to prioritize CRP acres.
    [cir] Criterion Twelve--Other additional criteria as determined by 
NRCS. NRCS did not receive any comments related to criterion twelve. 
Due to the addition of

[[Page 71841]]

a new National criterion, described below, this criterion will be the 
thirteenth criterion to appear in the regulation under National 
criteria.
    [cir] Criterion Thirteen --In response to comments received 
regarding the need for national criteria that reflect that ALE purposes 
include the protection of grazing uses and related conservation values 
from conversion to non-grassland uses, NRCS is adding a new National 
criteria. In particular, NRCS has added to the regulation the following 
criterion in order to assist in balancing the respective purposes of 
the program. The new criterion reads as follows: Decrease in the 
percentage of acreage of permanent grassland, pasture and rangeland, 
other than cropland and woodland pasture in the county in which the 
parcel is located between the last two USDA Censuses of Agriculture.
    Recommended New National Criteria: NRCS received 13 comments 
recommending new national criteria, including:
     One comment recommending adding a national ranking 
criterion to score parcels that include a ``buy-protect-sell'' 
approach. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation because this type of 
transaction can present statutory authority issues, and while 
flexibility exists for certain types of these transactions, NRCS does 
not believe it is appropriate to prioritize such approaches.
     Five comments recommended adding a national ranking 
criteria for grassland easements where enrollment of land will 
contribute to achieving the goals and objectives of national, regional 
and State fish and wildlife conservation plans and initiatives. NRCS 
affirms that the existing State Criterion Four, as provided in the 
current ACEP interim regulation Sec.  1468.22(c)(4), is intended to 
allow State Conservationists to account for the priorities identified 
in these types of plans in their State ranking criteria.
     One comment recommended adding a national ranking criteria 
for lands in areas of high conversion pressure from grasslands to 
cropland. NRCS believes that this criterion is appropriate given the 
grassland conservation purposes of ALE, and as described above, has 
added it to the National criteria.
     One comment recommended adding a national ranking criteria 
to give special consideration to applications that serve micropolitan 
and metropolitan statistical areas that have high risk of farm 
conversion. NRCS believes that the national factor related to 
population growth factors addresses the priority that would be provided 
by a micropolitan ranking factor.
     One comment recommended that ``effective agricultural 
zoning'' should be considered within the national ranking criteria for 
eligible ALE parcels. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation because 
such determination would be too subjective.
     One comment recommended adding State ranking criteria to 
the list of national ranking questions to address areas of national 
importance. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation.
     Two comments recommended consolidating national ranking 
criteria three though six because the commenter believed that such 
factors weigh against enrollment of remote, intact parcels of 
significant ecological value. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation 
because the statutory criteria for the program is to maximize the 
benefit of the Federal investment with an emphasis on protecting 
agricultural uses and related conservation values and maximizing the 
protection of areas devoted to agricultural use. In NRCS' experience in 
administering conservation easement programs NRCS has determined that 
if two parcels of similar agricultural and related conservation values 
are offered for the program, but one is subject to threat of 
development or conversion, the benefit of the Federal investment is 
maximized by prioritizing the protection of the agricultural uses on 
the parcel subject to the most immediate threat of conversion to non-
agricultural or non-grassland uses. Ranking criteria three through six 
are intended to evaluate this risk and provide an objective, 
transparent, and nationally-available data sources upon which to base 
this evaluation.
     One comment recommended adding a national ranking 
criterion to consider the number of development rights to be 
extinguished. NRCS did not adopt this recommendation because this 
information is not consistently available nationwide or at the time of 
ranking. If an individual State has a consistently available data 
source or mechanism by which to evaluate at the time of ranking the 
risk of development or conversion, the State Conservationist has the 
discretion to include such a consideration in the State ranking 
criteria as provided in Sec.  1468.22(c)(7).
    ALE State Criteria (12): NRCS received twelve comments making 
recommendations about the seven State criteria. Section 1468.22(c) of 
the interim rule identified the following as State ranking criteria:
     State Criterion One--The location of a parcel in an area 
zoned for agricultural use. NRCS did not receive any comments about 
State Criterion One.
     State Criterion Two--The eligible entity's performance in 
managing and enforcing easements. One comment recommended that 
performance be measured by the efficiency by which easement 
transactions are completed or percentage of parcels that have been 
monitored and the percentage of monitoring results that have been 
reported. The eligible entity's performance in managing and enforcing 
easements is outlined in the ALE-agreement with NRCS, which includes 
the requirement that the eligible entity must provide a complete 
monitoring report based on an at-least-annual monitoring of the 
easement.
     State Criterion Three--Multifunctional benefits of farm 
and ranch land protection including social, economic, historical and 
archaeological, environmental benefits, species protection, or climate 
change resiliency. NRCS received five comments about State Criterion 
Three, including one comment that supported the inclusion of ``climate 
change resiliency''; one comment recommended NRCS consider social 
values when prioritizing projects; and three comments recommended that 
NRCS encourage State Conservationists to prioritize easements that 
establish and maintain perennial cover and other practices to sequester 
carbon, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and improve soil health. On May 
12, 2016, USDA Secretary Vilsack released a roadmap for the USDA 
Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry, the 
Department's framework for helping farmers, ranchers, and forestland 
owners respond to climate change. The effort relies on voluntary, 
incentive-based conservation, forestry, and energy programs to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and expand 
renewable energy production in the agricultural and forestry sectors. 
In response to the commenters and to support USDA's climate initiative, 
NRCS has revised State Criterion Three to identify more clearly that 
State ranking criteria may prioritize projects that enhance carbon 
sequestration potential and further climate resiliency efforts. NRCS 
determined that at the State level, NRCS can better tailor the ranking 
factor to prioritize the actual types of projects within a State or 
region that can best deliver climate resiliency/carbon sequestration 
benefits to the types of operations within their State and give them 
proportionately greater weight as determined appropriate. NRCS believes 
that State Criterion Three, with this adjustment, includes the 
flexibility for

[[Page 71842]]

the State Conservationist to address the commenters' recommended 
factors and meet statutory objectives for protecting other conservation 
values.
     State Criterion Four-Geographic regions where the 
enrollment of particular lands may help achieve national, State, and 
regional conservation goals and objectives, or enhance existing 
government or private conservation projects. NRCS received one comment 
about State Criterion Four that recommended NRCS allow consideration 
for National, State, and regional agricultural goals and objectives. 
NRCS agrees and added the words ``agricultural or'' to State Criterion 
Four.
     State Criterion Five--Diversity of natural resources to be 
protected. NRCS received five comments about State Criterion Five. Four 
of the comments recommended NRCS modify the criteria to emphasize 
natural resources protection and ``improvement'' and the remaining 
comment recommended NRCS support the flexibility provided at the State 
level to fund projects based on resource needs. NRCS agrees with the 
comments and added the words ``or improved'' to State Criterion Five. 
NRCS cautions that while points could be added for projects where there 
will be an improvement to resource conditions as a result of enrolling 
the land in ALE, protection efforts alone should also score in 
priority.
     State Criterion Six--Score in the land evaluation and site 
assessment system or equivalent measure for grassland enrollments. This 
score serves as a measure of agricultural viability (access to markets 
and infrastructure). NRCS did not receive any comments about State 
Criterion Six.
     State Criterion Seven--Other criteria determined by NRCS 
that will allow for the selection of parcels that will achieve ACEP-ALE 
purposes. NRCS did not receive any comments about State Criterion 
Seven.
    Recommended new ALE State Criteria: NRCS received 10 comments that 
recommended new ALE State criteria, including one comment that 
recommended NRCS provide more information on the development of State 
ranking criteria, ALE plan components and stewardship; five comments 
recommended adding pollinator habitat conservation, two comments 
recommended NRCS address the likelihood that the easement will lead 
directly to a farming or ranching opportunity for a beginning farmer or 
rancher; one comment recommended NRCS give State Conservationists the 
flexibility to meet local unique resource needs, and one comment 
recommended including a requirement for National office approval before 
a State overrides ranking criteria. Pollinator habitat conservation, 
access to land by new and beginning farmers, and local unique resource 
needs are the type of criteria that a State has the flexibility to 
adopt under the category of natural resources benefits social and 
economic benefits, and regional conservation goals. The recommendation 
about social benefits fits better with State Criterion Three. State 
Conservationists do have the flexibility to provide greater detail and 
weighting to the factors in a manner that addresses local unique 
resource needs. However, in response to the comment recommending 
National office review prior to a State overriding ranking criteria, 
NRCS would like to clarify that a State cannot override or eliminate 
criteria as the criteria are required by regulation.
     WRE Ranking criteria: NRCS received six comments about WRE 
ranking criteria. Three of the comments expressed support for the 
provision that authorizes the leveraging of Federal funding, of which 
two comments recommended a slight re-write the section about leveraging 
at Sec.  1468.32(a)(3); one comment recommended allowing State 
Conservationists to prioritize partnerships that target multiple 
benefits; one comment recommended NRCS should only fund permanent 
easements; and one comment recommended opposing efforts to shorten 
easement duration. NRCS adopted the recommendation about adding 
language to Sec.  1468.32(a)(3) to include contribution of funds from a 
person or ``other entity.'' State Conservationists currently have the 
necessary flexibility to prioritize partnerships that prioritize 
projects with multiple benefits. NRCS offers enrollment for permanent 
easements, 30-year easements, easements for the maximum duration under 
State law, and 30-year contracts. NRCS prioritizes longer-term 
easements over shorter-term easements in the ranking criteria.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)

    Comment: NRCS received eight comments on the topic of RCPP. Five of 
the comments addressed waivers of non-statutory provisions, including 
three comments that expressed support of the waiver; one comment 
recommended a waiver for forestry; and one comment recommended waiver 
for adjusted gross income limitation. Three of the RCPP comments 
recommended NRCS allow acquisition and implementation costs to be 
recognized as in-kind RCPP match.
    NRCS Response: NRCS addresses waiver recommendations on a project-
specific basis. NRCS will recognize entity acquisition and 
implementation costs as contributions of resources required under RCPP.

Restoration

    Comment: NRCS received seven comments on the topic of restoration 
under the WRE component of ACEP. Two comments expressed support for the 
priority for migratory bird habitat restoration; three comments 
recommended modifying wetland restoration to include flexibility for 
other than pre-disturbance hydrology and vegetation; one comment 
recommended that NRCS address delays in easement restoration 
completion; and one comment encouraged agreements with partners to 
accelerate restoration.
    NRCS Response: Wetland restoration is a primary purpose of ACEP-
WRE. NRCS based the ACEP-WRE definition upon the definition from the 
predecessor Wetlands Reserve Program in place since 1995, and there is 
only difference between the former Wetlands Reserve Program definition 
and the ACEP-WRE definition. In particular, NRCS introduced slight 
flexibility in the ACEP-WRE definition by allowing 30 percent of the 
easement area to be in a different hydrologic regime or vegetative 
community while the former Wetlands Reserve Program definition only 
allowed 30 percent of the wetland restoration area to be in a different 
hydrologic regime or vegetative community.
    In many parts of the country, especially the southeast and the 
Midwest, the original vegetative wetland community was bottomland 
hardwood forest or forested wetland. However, emergent marsh habitat is 
very popular amongst landowners and various waterfowl organizations 
given the utilization of such habitat by migratory birds.
    NRCS has interpreted the restoration requirements broadly and NRCS 
believes that the restoration objectives of ACEP-WRE are best met with 
adhering to the existing parameters. Achieving full restoration of the 
wetland functions and values on each acre enrolled in WRE to maximize 
the environmental benefits for Federal funds expended continues to be a 
high priority activity for NRCS.

State Technical Committees

    Comment: NRCS received 17 comments on the topic of State Technical 
Committees. Three comments

[[Page 71843]]

recommended NRCS allow more opportunity for State Technical Committee 
input on grasslands of special environmental significance, six comments 
recommended that NRCS require State Technical Committee input on the 
identification of lands of statewide importance and related technical 
matters; two comments expressed support for an expanded role for State 
Technical Committees; five comments recommended NRCS allow State 
Technical Committee members that represent eligible entities be able to 
participate in the discussion of State criteria and weighting, so long 
as they do not vote on recommendations; and one comment recommended 
NRCS encourage State Technical Committee input on all ALE matters.
    NRCS Response: NRCS appreciates the significant contribution of 
expertise that State Technical Committees contribute to the technical 
excellence of the implementation of NRCS programs. State 
Conservationists hold regular State Technical Committee meetings to 
ensure that broad input is obtained for all aspects of ACEP 
implementation, including input for the ALE component of the program. 
NRCS, while obtaining this input, must ensure that the ethical 
integrity of its program implementation efforts is maintained, and thus 
as mentioned above NRCS will continue to place parameters upon who is 
able to participate in discussions about ranking criteria.

Subordination, Modification, Exchange, and Termination

    Comment: NRCS received 33 comments on the topic of subordination, 
modification, exchange, and termination, collectively known as easement 
administration actions. The breakdown of these comments was as follows:

 General (5 comments):
 Compelling public interest/not practical alternative standards 
(2 comments)
 10 percent of easement area affected (3 comments)
 8-Digit watershed (1 comment)
 Partner issues (7 comments)
 Easement modification (3 comments)
 Easement termination (3 comments)
 Application of Treasury regulations (9 comments)
    NRCS Response: The easement administration authority provides NRCS 
with greater flexibility to address the long-term management of its 
easement portfolio than existed under the predecessor program 
authorities. Unlike prior circumstances where congressional action was 
needed to address conflicts between equally important public values, 
NRCS can now ensure that its easements will continue to meet program 
purposes in coordination with other compelling public needs in 
proximity to NRCS easement interests. In particular, NRCS may 
subordinate, modify, exchange, or terminate its interests in an 
easement if NRCS determines that the easement administration action: Is 
in the Federal government's interest; addresses a public compelling 
need or furthers the practical administration of the easement; has no 
practicable alternative that would avoid the easement area; results in 
equivalent or greater economic value and conservation function and 
value at no cost to the Government; affects no more than 10 percent of 
the existing easement area unless special circumstances apply; and is 
agreed to by the landowner, and if applicable, the eligible entity.
    Of the five general comments, three comments supported the 
provisions; one comment recommended that the easement administration 
action terms be incorporated directly into the conservation easement 
deed; and one comment recommended prohibiting any easement 
administration actions for natural gas and oil exploration and 
extraction. NRCS identifies in the WRE warranty easement deed the 
statutory reference to the easement administration action authorities, 
and the ALE regulatory deed requirements identify that NRCS approval is 
required for any easement administration actions that may arise on ALE 
easements. NRCS evaluates all easement administration action requests 
on a case-by-case basis and determines whether the required criteria 
have been met.
    Of the two comments related to compelling public need, one comment 
recommended that NRCS eliminate the criteria and the other comment 
recommended that NRCS clarify that a compelling public need is not 
limited to Federal agency priorities. NRCS will not eliminate the 
criterion as it is required by statute and provides a high bar for the 
requirements that must be met before NRCS will alter the physical 
boundaries or the terms of an existing ACEP easement on which a 
significant investment of Federal funds has been made to secure the 
long-term protection of agricultural and wetland resources for future 
generations. A compelling public need is not limited to Federal 
priorities, and may be based upon circumstances that are being 
addressed by State or local governmental entities.
    Of the three comments related to the criterion of limiting the 
impact of the easement administration action to 10 percent of easement 
area, two comments recommended eliminating the limitation and one 
comment recommended adopting a limit of 5 percent of the easement area. 
NRCS did not adopt either recommendation as 10 percent provides 
sufficient flexibility, with most easement administration actions 
affecting much less of the easement area.
    The comment received about the limitation that replacement acreage 
in an easement exchange be within the same 8-digit watershed as the 
original easement recommended that NRCS allow a waiver for replacement 
land to go beyond the 8-digit watershed. NRCS did not adopt the 
recommendation because the nature of the easement values are best 
served by ensuring that replacement lands are within the same watershed 
and the criteria serves as an objective and transparent requirement 
that can be equitably applied.
    Of the seven comments about partner issues associated with easement 
administration actions, one comment recommended that NRCS be required 
to include the eligible entity in its discussions with the Department 
of Justice related to condemnation actions; two comments recommended 
adding language to recognize the role of other funding partners in the 
approval of changes to easement terms; one comment recommended NRCS 
consult with the Land Trust Alliance, two comments recommended that in 
the case of ALE easements, NRCS should notify the eligible entity 
immediately upon receiving notice of any ``infrastructure project 
request'', and one comment recommended that for condemnation or 
termination, the eligible entity should reimburse NRCS proportionally 
to NRCS' initial investment in the easement, provided that the 
condemnation of the property provides adequate compensation to the 
eligible entity. The Department of Justice represents the United States 
and NRCS is a client agency, and it is not appropriate to adopt a 
requirement to include third parties in its discussions with its own 
legal representatives. NRCS does not believe it is appropriate for it 
to include language in the regulation regarding the relationship 
between the eligible entity and a third-party funding partner of the 
eligible entity. It is the responsibility of the eligible entity to 
ensure that it is meeting the requirements of all of its funding 
partners. NRCS welcomes input from any partner organization. NRCS will 
notify an eligible entity if it receives an easement administration 
action or infrastructure project proposal that may affect an ALE 
easement. NRCS identifies in the minimum deed terms of

[[Page 71844]]

the respective shares that NRCS and an eligible entity may receive if a 
parcel is condemned.
    Three comments about easement modification recommended that 
modification actions should be subject to a less stringent standard of 
review than termination actions, and that these two types of actions 
should not be addressed in the same provision. NRCS agrees termination 
actions are more significant than modification actions; however, NRCS 
did not adopt this recommendation as the statute specified the primary 
criteria by which all of the easement administration actions should be 
evaluated, and there are separate definitions and further limitations 
on easement termination actions than exist for easement modification 
actions even though they stem from the same section of the ACEP interim 
regulation.
    The three comments specific to easement termination actions 
included one recommendation that NRCS ensure that easement 
extinguishment is not incentivized when property value increases; one 
recommendation that the notice to Congress for termination actions 
should be replaced with written notice to the State Conservationist by 
the entity; and a third recommendation that recovery of costs should be 
limited to the NRCS proportionate value. NRCS policies promote the full 
and long-term protection of the resources and Federal investments made 
through its conservation easement programs and does not promote or 
incentivize the termination of easements. Besides meeting the criteria 
regarding the nature of the easement administration action, NRCS 
specifies that NRCS applies requirements of avoidance and minimization 
prior to considerations of mitigation. NRCS, by statute, must notify 
Congress and therefore did not adopt the recommendation about replacing 
such requirement. There are other costs associated with an easement 
administration action and thus it would not protect the Federal 
investment to limit recovery to the proportionate NRCS investment in 
the easement.
    The issues raised by the nine comments on the topic of the 
applicability of the IRS regulations were discussed above under the 
topic of ALE deed terms. In particular, easement administration actions 
may impact the availability of a tax deduction for charitable donations 
of easement value, and therefore NRCS advises that eligible entities 
and landowners consult with their tax advisor about all aspects of a 
conservation easement transaction. As mentioned earlier, NRCS will 
consider requests from eligible entities about how to address in the 
easement deed valuation concerns associated with easement 
administration actions.

Wetland Reserve Enhancement Partnerships (WREP)

    Comment: NRCS received seven comments about the topic of WREP, 
including two comments that support the continued implementation of 
WREP; three comments recommended that NRCS limit partners' required 
contribution under WREP to only a portion of the restoration costs and 
not include a percentage of the easement cost; and two comments that 
recommended NRCS offer new WREP opportunities over the life of the 2014 
Agricultural Act and to continue supporting existing WREP projects.
    NRCS Response: NRCS published solicitations for new WREP proposals 
at the State level beginning in FY 2015 and anticipates soliciting 
proposals for each remaining fiscal year under the 2014 Agricultural 
Act. The specific match requirements are published with each specific 
proposal solicitation, but in general partners submitting a WREP 
proposal for financial assistance funds must provide a combination of 
in-kind and cash contributions of at least 25 percent of the 
restoration or management costs. Partners submitting a WREP proposal 
for technical assistance funds must provide a combination of in-kind 
and cash contributions of at least 50 percent of the total costs.

WRE Reservation of Grazing Rights

    Comment: NRCS received two comments on the topic of the WRE 
reservation of grazing rights enrollment opportunity. One comment 
advised that haying should not be included in the reserved grazing 
rights, and the other comment recommended that the reserved grazing 
rights option provide only minimal restrictions under the easement.
    NRCS Response: NRCS affirms that haying is not part of the reserved 
grazing rights. Any haying activity that a landowner may wish to 
conduct on the easement area must first be approved by NRCS under the 
compatible use authorization process. NRCS did not adopt the 
recommendation for a minimally restrictive easement option for the 
grazing rights enrollment option because WRE is a wetland restoration 
program and reservation of grazing rights is only appropriate where 
grazing is part of restoration, management, and maintenance of the 
wetland functions and values. Further, NRCS offers easement 
compensation commensurate with rights to be obtained.

WRE--miscellaneous

    Comment: NRCS received seven comments that expressed general 
support for various provisions of the WRE component of ACEP, including 
support for the exemption from the county cropland limitation for 
subclass w soils in the land capability classes IV-VIII, and support 
for the lower WRE ownership requirement and waiver criteria.
    NRCS Response: NRCS will continue to implement ACEP in accordance 
with the requirements established by the 2014 Act.

Regulatory Certifications

Executive Order 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 
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, reducing costs, harmonizing 
rules, and promoting flexibility. Upon implementation of this rule the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service intends to conduct a 
retrospective review of this rule with the purpose of improving program 
performance, and better understanding the longevity of conservation 
implementation.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this final 
rule a significant regulatory action. The administrative record is 
available for public inspection at the Department of Agriculture, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Room 5831 South Building, Washington, DC. In accordance with Executive 
Order 12866, NRCS conducted an economic analysis of the potential 
impacts associated with this program. A summary of the economic 
analysis can be found at the end of this preamble, and a copy of the 
analysis is available upon request from Kim Berns, Director, Easement 
Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890; 
or at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/acep/ under ACEP Rules and 
Notices with Supporting Documents.

[[Page 71845]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) generally 
requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. NRCS did not prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule because NRCS is not 
required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other provision of law, to publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of 
this rule. Even so, NRCS has determined that this action, while mostly 
affecting small entities, will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of these small entities. NRCS made this 
determination based on the fact that this regulation only impacts those 
who choose to participate in the program. Small entity applicants will 
not be affected to a greater extent than large entity applicants.

Congressional Review Act

    Section 1246(c) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Act), as 
amended by Section 2608 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, requires that 
the Secretary of Agriculture use the authority in section 808(2) of 
title 5, United States Code, which allows an agency to forego the usual 
60-day Congressional Review delay of the effective date of a major 
regulation if the agency finds that there is a good cause to do so. 
NRCS hereby determines that it has good cause to do so in order to meet 
the congressional intent to have the conservation programs, authorized 
or amended under Title XII of the 1985 Act, in effect as soon as 
possible. NRCS also determined it has good cause to forgo delaying the 
effective date given the critical need to let agricultural producers 
know what programmatic changes are being made so that they can make 
financial plans accordingly. For these reasons, this rule is effective 
upon [the latter of October 1, 2016, or publication in the Federal 
Register].

Environmental Analysis

    A programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared that 
resulted in a Finding of No Significance (FONSI) for the ACEP interim 
final rule. No comments were received on that analysis. Minor 
modifications to the previous EA were made to support this rulemaking 
but the analysis remains the same. As a result, the EA again resulted 
in a FONSI and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not 
required to be prepared (40 CFR part 1508.13). The EA and FONSI are 
available for review and comment for 30 days from the date of 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. NRCS will 
consider this input and determine whether there is any new information 
provided that is relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 
proposed action or its impacts that warrant supplementing or revising 
the current available draft of the ACEP EA and FONSI.
    A copy of the EA and FONSI may be obtained from the following Web 
site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ea. A hard copy may also be requested in 
one of the following ways: (1) Email: [email protected] with 
``Request for EA'' in the subject line; or (2) written request: 
National Environmental Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, Ecological Sciences Division, Post Office Box 2890, 
Washington, DC 20013-2890. Comments should be specific and indicate 
they are being provided on the EA and FONSI. Public comment on the 
environmental analysis only may be submitted by any of the following 
means: (1) Email comments to [email protected], (2) go to 
http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting 
comments for Docket No. NRCS-2014-0011, or (3) mail written comments 
to: National Environmental Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, Ecological Sciences Division, Room 6159-S, P.O. Box 2890, 
Washington, DC 20013-2890.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    USDA has determined through a Civil Rights Impact Analysis that 
this final rule discloses no disproportionately adverse impacts for 
minorities, women, or persons with disabilities. The data presented in 
the Civil Rights Impact Analysis indicate producers who are members of 
the protected groups have participated in NRCS conservation programs at 
parity with other producers. Extrapolating from historical 
participation data, it is reasonable to conclude that ACEP will be 
administered in a non-discriminatory manner as the predecessor programs 
have been. Outreach and communication strategies are in place to ensure 
all producers will be provided the same information to allow them to 
make informed compliance decisions regarding the use of their lands 
that will affect their participation in U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) programs. NRCS conservation programs apply to all persons 
equally regardless of their race, color, national origin, gender, sex, 
or disability status. Therefore, this final rule portends no adverse 
civil rights implications for women, minorities, and persons with 
disabilities. Copies of the Civil Rights Impact Analysis are available, 
and may be obtained from Kim Berns, Director, Easement Programs 
Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890, 
or electronically at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ACEP.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Act) as 
amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) requires that 
the implementation of this provision be carried out without regard to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, chapter 35 of Title 44, U.S.C. Therefore, 
NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or estimated paperwork burden 
associated with this interim rule.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act

    NRCS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require government 
agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting 
information or transacting business electronically to the maximum 
extent possible.

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994

    Pursuant to section 304 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 
1994, (Pub. L. 103-354), USDA classified this rule as non-major. 
Therefore, a risk analysis was not conducted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-4, USDA assessed the effects of this final rule on 
State, local, and Tribal governments, and the public. This rule does 
not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, 
or Tribal governments or anyone in the private sector; therefore, a 
statement under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
is not required.

Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. NRCS has determined 
that this final rule conforms with the Federalism principles set forth 
in the Executive Order; would not impose any

[[Page 71846]]

compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities on the various levels of government. Therefore, NRCS 
concludes that this final rule does not have Federalism implications.

Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Order 13175 required Federal 
agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-
government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including 
regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other 
policy statements or actions that have been substantial direct effects 
on (1) one or more Indian Tribes, (2) the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or (3) the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 
NRCS has assessed the impact of this interim rule on Indian Tribes and 
determined that this rule does not, to NRCS' knowledge, have Tribal 
implication that requires Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The 
Agency has developed an outreach/collaboration plan that it is 
implementing as it administers the Farm Bill. If a Tribe requests 
consultation, NRCS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to 
ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, 
and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by 
Congress. Among other activities, in April 2015, USDA held a series of 
tribally-focused webinars on this rule, and in December 2016, USDA held 
an informational discussion of the rule at the Intertribal Agriculture 
Council Annual Membership Meeting. On February 23, 2016, at the request 
of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Swinomish Tribe), USDA 
consulted with the Swinomish Tribe on ACEP as well as other programs 
operated by USDA.

Regulatory Impact Analysis--Executive Summary

    Title II of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) amended 
Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 to establish the 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) in a new Subtitle H. 
Title II of the 2014 Act repeals the previously authorized programs, 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program 
(FRPP), and Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), but maintains the purposes 
of these programs in ACEP. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, NRCS has conducted a Regulatory Impact 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIA) of ACEP 
using historical data and information, including information from WRP, 
FRPP, and GRP. This RIA describes both the potential impact of the ACEP 
regulation on benefits and costs and the regulatory flexibility in the 
rule implementation. Implementation of this regulation is required to 
complete the Congressional Action.
    In considering alternatives for implementing ACEP, the agency 
followed the legislative intent to establish an open participatory 
process, optimize environmental/conservation benefits, and address 
natural resource concerns. Because ACEP is a voluntary program, the 
program will not impose any obligation or burden upon agricultural 
landowners who choose not to participate.
    The 2014 Act requires establishment of ACEP to retain the 
provisions in the current easement programs by establishing two types 
of easements: Wetland reserve easements (WRE) that protect and restore 
wetlands as previously available under WRP, and agricultural land 
easements (ALE) that limit non-agricultural uses on productive farm or 
grassland as previously available under FRPP and the easement component 
of GRP. The WRE component provides technical and financial assistance 
to landowners to restore and protect wetlands and associated habitats 
through conservation easements. ACEP-WRE addresses wetlands, wildlife 
habitat, soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on private 
lands. The ALE component protects the natural resources and 
agricultural value of agricultural cropland, pasture and other working 
land, promotes agricultural viability for future generations, preserves 
open space, provides scenic amenities, and protects grazing uses and 
related conservation values by restoring and conserving eligible land 
and limiting non-agricultural uses.
    The 2014 Act also identified ACEP as a covered program for 
implementation of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), 
authorized by Subtitle I of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 3871 et seq.) RCPP is funded, in part, by a 
reservation of 7 percent of funds that have been allocated to implement 
covered programs, including 7 percent of funds allocated for ACEP 
implementation.

Impacts of ACEP

    Most of the ACEP rule's impacts consist of transfer payments from 
the Federal Government to farmers, landowners, and producers. Although 
these transfers create incentives that very likely cause changes in the 
way society uses its resources, we lack data with which to quantify the 
resulting social costs or benefits. Under the 2014 Act, ALE and WRE 
enrollments are limited by funding. As set forth in the 2014 Act, total 
proposed ACEP funding and associated transfer payments by fiscal year 
is presented in Table ES-1.

  Table ES-1--Proposed Conservation Transfer Payments Facilitated by ACEP Funding, Including the Potential RCPP
                                            Allocation, FY 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Real-dollar \1\
                                        Nominal-dollar     authorization     Real-dollar \1\    Real-dollar \1\
                 FY                       Farm-Bill           2.1% GDP        authorization      authorization
                                        authorization    deflator (million   discounted at 3%   discounted at 7%
                                         (million $)             $)            (million $)        (million $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2014.............................             $400.0             $400.0             $400.0             $400.0
FY 2015.............................              425.0              416.3              404.1              389.0
FY 2016.............................              450.0              431.7              406.9              377.0
FY 2017.............................              500.0              469.8              429.9              383.5
FY 2018.............................              250.0              230.1              204.4              175.5
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \2\.......................            2,025.0            1,947.8            1,845.4            1,725.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2013 dollars.
\2\ Net present value of discounted funding levels.


[[Page 71847]]

Conservation Impacts of the Program

    Land enrolled in ACEP-WRE easements will produce onsite and offsite 
environmental impacts. Those include: Restoration and protection of 
high value wetlands; control of sheet and rill erosion as lands are 
restored from cropland to wetlands and associated habitats; 
restoration, enhancement, and protection of habitat for fish and 
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and migratory 
birds; improving water quality by filtering sediments and chemicals; 
reducing flooding and flood-related 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. Many of those conservation impacts are difficult 
to quantify at a national scale, but have been described by studies at 
an individual project, watershed, or flyway scale.
    For land enrolled in ACEP-ALE, the suite of conservation effects on 
protected grasslands are different than those on protected farmland. 
ACEP-ALE easements on grasslands limit agricultural activities to 
predominately grazing and haying, 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 non-
grassland 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 non-use benefits (wildlife habitat 
and existence values). Grassland protection conservation effects 
include the direct, indirect, and non-use benefits, but also include 
on-farm production gains and carbon sequestration.

Expected Costs of the Program

    The main program costs are the purchase of easements and associated 
restoration expenses under the ACEP-WRE component. Agricultural 
production ceases on lands enrolled in ACEP-WRE. At the same time, 
disaster payments, crop loss payments, and other commodity payments are 
eliminated.
    Through ACEP-ALE, landowners voluntarily restrict the land to 
agricultural uses by the sale of conservation easements to eligible 
entities. Local cooperating entities are key drivers in farmland \1\ 
conservation because they benefit from the indirect services (offsite 
and non-use benefits) provided by agricultural land, and in the case of 
ACEP-ALE and its predecessors, also share in the costs of purchasing 
conservation easements. The local nature of the supply of and demand 
for conservation easements, and the site-specific nature of the 
potential benefits complicate the description of conservation effects 
conducted in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Farmland refers to agricultural land used in crop production 
and livestock production, i.e., cropland and pasture. For the 
purposes of this document, farmland does not include grasslands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public and private costs of ACEP-ALE are: (1) The actual cost 
of purchasing the easement; (2) a reduced tax base that includes the 
opportunity cost of lower local economic activity, which for this 
analysis we assume is offset by a reduction in needed public 
infrastructure and associated taxes to support that infrastructure; and 
(3) the forgone economic activity fostered by new development. These 
costs are not social costs and we do not estimate them in this 
analysis.

Allocation Process and Comparison to Legacy Programs

    NRCS allocates ACEP funding based upon State-generated assessments 
of priority natural resource needs and associated work necessary to 
address identified resource concerns. These State-developed 
assessments, following national guidance to assure accuracy and 
consistency, are submitted to agency leadership for review. At the 
national level, NRCS analyzes in a systematic manner these State-
reported resource needs and requests along with factors including NRCS 
landscape initiatives or other nationally established conservation 
priorities; regional factors such as development pressure, migratory 
bird flyways, multi-state watersheds with water quality resource 
concerns; existing State capacity, workload, and performance; and other 
factors. This approach provides flexibility to address nationally and 
locally important natural resource concerns. Once funds are allocated 
to the States, individual project selection occurs at the State level 
based on the prioritization of the eligible applications using the NRCS 
ranking criteria.
    Over the course of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(the 2008 Farm Bill), the three easement programs (WRP, GRP, and FRPP) 
received an average of $691 million annually, which was comprised of 
$513 million in WRP, $138 million in FRPP, and $39 million in GRP. All 
three easement programs were combined under ACEP and the purposes of 
FRPP and GRP were combined under the ACEP-ALE component. The average 
annual funding available under the new ACEP program will be 
approximately $368 million annually, about 53 percent of the amount 
previously available under the repealed programs.

Conclusions

    Executive Summary Table ES-2 provides an overview of the potential 
benefits from both sub-program areas of ACEP. For the private 
landowner, the end products of the ACEP-WRE include assurances of the 
restoration of the property and associated recreational use, the 
potential to engage in compatible uses on the property, and the 
elimination of negative impacts to agricultural operations on the 
property. Outcomes from the private landowner view of the ACEP-ALE 
include the long-term protection of the agricultural nature of the land 
and potential increases in productivity (from implementing the ALE 
plan) and sustainability of the local agricultural market (from local 
production). In addition, the private landowner, along with the general 
public, will reap the benefits of recreational waterfowl harvest, 
upland species harvest, and agritourism. Also in many cases easements 
that protect farmsteads under ACEP-ALE will provide the general public 
with an opportunity to engage with and obtain food products from a 
local farm producer.
    Both ACEP-WRE and ACEP-ALE may provide benefits that are achieved 
for society as a whole, within the limitations of a voluntary program. 
These include: Improved water quality and water quantity; carbon 
sequestration; restoration of habitat for endangered or threatened 
wildlife species; flood prevention and protection; and improvements to 
scenic quality and rural characteristics. We note that agricultural 
lands and wetlands sequester carbon at higher rates than lands 
converted to development.
    Participation in ACEP is voluntary and landowners participate in 
the program for many reasons, such as estate planning, income 
diversity,

[[Page 71848]]

expanded recreational opportunity, improving agricultural efficiency, 
and their personal natural resource ethic. Landowners may also 
participate in part to meet requirements they face in managing their 
operations. For example, a landowner may decide to enroll acres in ACEP 
in order to protect highly productive grasslands from conversion to 
crop production and thus limit soil and chemical runoff into a nearby 
stream. Such actions may help demonstrate compliance with other State 
or Federal requirements, such as State plans to meet Federal TMDL 
requirements. ACEP may help landowners meet any compliance 
responsibilities that they may have under the Endangered Species Act. 
Also, ACEP-WRE implementation provides new habitat through the 
restoration of degraded wetlands that benefit wildlife. Even in the 
absence of a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) critical 
habitat listing, as is generally the case, land enrolled in ACEP could 
benefit at-risk species.
    NRCS has a long-term responsibility to ensure ACEP program 
objectives are achieved and statutory requirements are met on these 
lands. Monitoring policy for these lands is in place to guide NRCS in 
meeting these responsibilities and to maintain working relationships 
with landowners. In addition, the Statement of Federal Financial 
Accounting Standards 29 (SFFAS 29) considers easements held by the 
United States as Stewardship Lands that must be accounted for as part 
of the agency's annual financial accountability reporting. The SFFAS 29 
requires that the ``Condition'' of all Stewardship Lands be reported 
regularly. Therefore, NRCS incorporates this additional financial 
accounting responsibility to report on the condition of Stewardship 
Lands into its monitoring requirements by assessing compliance with the 
terms of the easement and whether the easement is meeting program 
objectives. NRCS added functionality to its easement database to aid 
its State Offices in tracking monitoring events and observations.
    NRCS requires an annual monitoring review of all ACEP easements to 
ensure compliance with easement terms and that program purposes are 
being met. For ACEP-ALE easements, NRCS requires the eligible entity to 
submit annual monitoring reports to NRCS for all ALE easements it 
holds, while NRCS conducts the annual monitoring of all ACEP-WRE 
easements. For ACEP-WRE, the monitoring conducted by NRCS provides a 
qualitative assessment of the outcomes of the restoration and 
management practices implemented on the easements. Additionally, data 
and information obtained through the Conservation Effects Assessment 
Project (CEAP) will continue to be used to provide qualitative 
assessments of the various benefits provided by NRCS easements and the 
outcomes being achieved in the study areas. Over the next two years as 
funding allows, NRCS will encourage its State offices to develop and 
utilize rapid wetland assessment tools or other methodologies that will 
provide greater ecological information about the condition of its 
wetland easements over time.
    Data, however, currently do not exist that would allow for parsing, 
or attributing, different potential benefits to the suite of 
motivations that might result in a producer participating in this 
program. What can be said, is that the ACEP easement payment 
compensates the landowner for the rights they are encumbering as a 
result of participating in ACEP. In addition, those transfer payments 
from the Federal Government to farmers, landowners, and producers may 
also create incentives that cause changes in the way society uses its 
resources. As mentioned, we lack data with which to estimate and 
attribute the overall social costs or benefits. The agency will 
continue to utilize tools such as producer surveys, case studies, and 
conservation innovation grants to gain knowledge of producer 
motivations for programs participation.
    NRCS is committed to the continual improvement of its collection 
and analysis of administrative and programmatic data (such as the 
impact and natural resource outcome of program funding) to ensure that 
program benefits are being achieved through adoption and implementation 
of targeted resource-based policies and procedures. Given the agency's 
lack of outcome-based program data, NRCS will implement other measures 
to quantify the incremental benefits obtained from this program.
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[[Page 71849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18OC16.000


[[Page 71850]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18OC16.001

BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1468

    Agricultural operations, Conservation practices, Conservation 
payments, Conservation easements, Farmland protection, Grasslands, 
Natural resources, Soil conservation, Wetlands, and Wildlife.

    Accordingly, the interim rule revising 7 CFR part 1468, which was 
published at 80 FR 11032 on February 27, 2015, is adopted as a final 
rule with the following changes:

PART 1468--AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 1468 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3865-3865d.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  1468.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.1  Applicability.

    (a) The regulations in this part set forth requirements, policies, 
and procedures for implementation of the Agricultural Conservation 
Easement Program (ACEP) administered by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS). ACEP purposes include:
    (1) Combining the purposes and coordinate the functions of the 
wetlands reserve program established under section 1237, the grassland 
reserve program established under section 1238N, and the farmland 
protection program established under section 1238I, as such sections 
were in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the 
Agricultural Act of 2014;
    (2) Restoring, protecting, and enhancing wetlands on eligible land;
    (3) Protecting the agricultural use and future viability, and 
related conservation values, of eligible land by limiting non-
agricultural uses of that land; and
    (4) Protecting grazing uses and related conservation values by 
restoring and conserving eligible land.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1468.3 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``agreement'' and ``agricultural land 
easement plan'';
0
b. Adding definitions for ``ALE agreements'' and ``at-risk species'';
0
c. Removing the definition of ``cooperative agreement'';
0
d. Revising the definitions of ``dedicated fund'', ``easement 
payment'', ``easement restoration agreement'', ``eligible activity'', 
and ``eligible entity'';
0
e. Adding definitions for ``future viability'' and ``grassland''; and
0
f. Revising the definitions of ``grassland of special environmental 
significance'', ``grasslands management plan'', ``nongovernmental 
organization'', ``other productive soils'', ``participant'', and 
``pending offer''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1468.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Agreement means the document that specifies the obligations and 
rights of NRCS and any person, legal entity, or eligible entity who is 
participating in the program or any document that authorizes the 
transfer of assistance between NRCS and a third party for provision of 
authorized goods and services associated with program implementation. 
Agreements may include but are not limited to an agreement to purchase, 
an ALE-agreement, a wetland reserve easement restoration agreement, a 
cooperative agreement, a partnership agreement, or an interagency 
agreement.
* * * * *
    Agricultural land easement plan means the document developed by 
NRCS or provided by the eligible entity and approved by NRCS, in 
consultation with the eligible entity and landowner,

[[Page 71851]]

that describes the activities that promote the long-term viability of 
the land to meet the purposes for which the easement was acquired. The 
agricultural land easement plan includes a description of the farm or 
ranch management system, conservation practices that address applicable 
resource concerns for which the easement was enrolled, and any required 
component plans such as a grasslands management plan, forest management 
plan, or conservation plan as defined in this part. Where appropriate, 
the agricultural land easement plan will include conversion of highly 
erodible cropland to less intensive uses.
    ALE-agreement means the financial assistance document that 
specifies the obligations and rights of NRCS and eligible entities 
participating in the program under subpart B, including a cooperative 
agreement or grant agreement.
    At-risk species means any plant or animal species listed as 
threatened or endangered; proposed or candidate for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act; a species listed as threatened or endangered 
under State law or Tribal law; State or Tribal land species of 
conservation concern; or other plant or animal species or community, as 
determined by the State Conservationist, with advice from the State 
Technical Committee or Tribal Conservation Advisory Council, that has 
undergone, or is likely to undergo, population decline and may become 
imperiled without direct intervention.
* * * * *
    Dedicated fund means an account held by a certified nongovernmental 
organization that is sufficiently capitalized for the purpose of 
covering expenses associated with the management, monitoring, and 
enforcement of agricultural land easements and where such account 
cannot be used for other purposes.
* * * * *
    Easement payment means the consideration paid to a participant or 
their assignee for an easement conveyed to the United States under the 
ACEP-WRE, or the consideration paid to an Indian Tribe or Tribal 
members for entering into 30-year contracts under ACEP-WRE.
    Easement restoration agreement means the agreement or contract NRCS 
enters into with the landowner or a third party to implement the WRPO 
on a wetland reserve easement or 30-year contract.
* * * * *
    Eligible activity means an action other than a conservation 
practice that is included in the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations 
(WRPO), as applicable, and that has the effect of alleviating problems 
or improving the condition of the resources, including ensuring proper 
management or maintenance of the wetland functions and values restored, 
protected, or enhanced through a ACEP-WRE easement or 30-year contract.
    Eligible entity means an Indian Tribe, State government, local 
government, or a nongovernmental organization that has a farmland or 
grassland protection program that purchases agricultural land easements 
for the purposes of protecting:
    (1) The agricultural use and future viability, and related 
conservation values, of eligible land by limiting non-agricultural uses 
of that land; or
    (2) Grazing uses and related conservation values by restoring and 
conserving eligible land.
* * * * *
    Future viability means the legal, physical, and financial 
conditions under which the land itself will remain capable and 
available for continued sustained productive agricultural or grassland 
uses while protecting related conservation values.
    Grassland means land on which the vegetation is dominated by 
grasses, grass-like plants, shrubs, or forbs, including shrubland, land 
that contains forbs, pastureland, and rangeland, and improved 
pastureland and rangeland.
    Grassland of special environmental significance means grasslands 
that contain little or no noxious or invasive species, as designated or 
defined by State or Federal law; are subject to the threat of 
conversion to non-grassland uses or fragmentation; and the land is:
    (1)(i) Rangeland, pastureland, shrubland, or wet meadows on which 
the vegetation is dominated by native grasses, grass-like plants, 
shrubs, or forbs, or
    (ii) Improved, naturalized pastureland, rangeland, and wet meadows; 
and
    (2)(i) Provides, or could provide, habitat for threatened or 
endangered species or at-risk species,
    (ii) Protects sensitive or declining native prairie or grassland 
types or grasslands buffering wetlands, or
    (iii) Provides protection of highly sensitive natural resources as 
identified by NRCS, in consultation with the State Technical Committee.
    Grasslands management plan means the site-specific plan developed 
or approved by NRCS that describes the management system and practices 
to conserve, protect, and enhance the viability of the grassland. The 
grasslands management plan will include a description of the grassland 
management system consistent with NRCS practices contained in the Field 
Office Technical Guide, including the prescribed grazing standard for 
easements that will be managed using grazing; the management of the 
grassland for grassland-dependent birds, animals, or other resource 
concerns for which the easement was enrolled; the permissible and 
prohibited activities, including the use of haying as a management 
tool; and any associated restoration plan or conservation plan. The 
grasslands management plan is a component of either an agricultural 
land easement plan or wetland reserve plan of operations.
* * * * *
    Nongovernmental organization means any organization that for 
purposes of qualifying as an eligible entity under subpart B:
    (1) Is organized for, and at all times since the formation of the 
organization, has been operated principally for one or more of the 
conservation purposes specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
    (2) Is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of that Code 
that is exempt from taxation under 501(a) of that Code; and
    (3) Is described in--
    (i) Section 509(a)(1) and (2) of that Code, or
    (ii) Section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is controlled by an 
organization described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code.
* * * * *
    Other productive soils means farm and ranch land soils, in addition 
to prime farmland soils, that include unique farmland or farm and ranch 
land of statewide and local importance.
* * * * *
    Participant means a person, legal entity, Indian Tribe, native 
corporation, or eligible entity who has been accepted into the program 
and who is receiving payment or who is responsible for implementing the 
terms and conditions of an agreement to purchase or agreement to enter 
a 30-year contract, or the ALE-agreement for agricultural land 
easements.
    Pending offer means a written bid, contract, or option extended to 
a landowner by an eligible entity to acquire an agricultural 
conservation easement before the legal title to these

[[Page 71852]]

rights has been conveyed for the purposes of protecting:
    (1) The agricultural use and future viability, and related 
conservation values, of eligible land by limiting non-agricultural uses 
of that land; or
    (2) Grazing uses and related conservation values by restoring and 
conserving eligible land.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1468.4 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.4  Appeals.

* * * * *
    (c) Easement administration determinations under ACEP after 
easement closing. NRCS determinations that are made pursuant to its 
rights in an ACEP-funded easement after closing may be appealed to the 
State Conservationist as specified in the notice provided to the 
landowner when NRCS exercises its rights under the easement. Such 
determinations are not subject to appeal under 7 CFR part 11 or part 
614.

0
5. Amend Sec.  1468.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.5  Scheme or device.

    (a) In addition to other penalties, sanctions, or remedies that may 
apply, if it is determined by NRCS that anyone has employed a scheme or 
device to defeat the purposes of this part, any part of any program 
payment otherwise due or paid during the applicable period may be 
withheld or be required to be refunded with interest, thereon, as 
determined appropriate by NRCS.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  1468.6 by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(6), (d), 
(f), (g), and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.6  Subordination, exchange, modification, and termination.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If there is no practicable alternative that exists other than 
impact to the conservation value of the easement area, such adverse 
impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and any 
remaining adverse impacts mitigated by enrollment of other lands that 
provide equal or greater conservation functions and values, as 
determined by NRCS, at no cost to the government;
* * * * *
    (6) The subordination, exchange, modification, or termination 
action will result in comparable conservation functions and value and 
equivalent or greater economic value to the United States as determined 
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) A determination of equal or greater economic value to the 
United States under paragraph (b) of this section will be made in 
accordance with an approved easement valuation methodology for ALE 
easements under subpart B or for WRE easements under subpart C. In 
addition to the value of the easement itself, NRCS may consider other 
financial investments it has made in the acquisition, restoration, and 
management of the original easement to ensure that the easement 
administration action results in equal or greater economic value to the 
United States.
* * * * *
    (f) When reviewing a proposed action under this section, the 
preferred alternative is to avoid the easement area. If the easement 
area cannot be avoided entirely, then the preferred alternative must 
minimize impacts to the original easement area and its conservation 
functions and values.
    (g) Easement modifications, including subordinations, are preferred 
to easement exchanges that may involve lands that are not physically 
adjacent to the original easement area. Easement exchanges are limited 
to circumstances where there are no available lands adjacent to the 
original easement area that will result in equal or greater 
conservation and economic values to the United States.
* * * * *
    (i) Where NRCS determines that recordation of a new deed is 
necessary to effect an easement administration action under this 
section, NRCS may use the most recent version of the ACEP deed document 
or deed terms approved by NRCS.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  1468.10 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.10  Environmental markets.

* * * * *
    (c) ACEP funds may not be used to enter agreements to implement 
conservation practices that the landowner is required to establish as a 
result of a court order or to satisfy any mitigation requirement for 
which the ACEP landowner is otherwise responsible.

Subpart B to Part 1468 [Amended]

0
8. Amend subpart B to part 1468 by revising all references to 
``Cooperative Agreement'', ``cooperative agreement'', or ``Cooperative 
agreement'' to read ``ALE-agreement'' wherever they occur.

0
9. Amend Sec.  1468.20 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), 
(d)(1)(ii), and (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.20  Program requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Under ACEP-ALE, NRCS will facilitate and provide cost-share 
assistance for the purchase by eligible entities of agricultural land 
easements or other interests in eligible private or Tribal land that is 
subject to a written pending offer from an eligible entity.
    (2) To participate in ACEP-ALE, eligible entities as identified in 
(b) below must submit applications to NRCS State offices to partner 
with NRCS to acquire conservation easements on eligible land. Eligible 
entities with applications selected for funding must enter into an ALE-
agreement with NRCS and use the NRCS required minimum deed terms 
specified therein, the effect of which is to protect natural resources 
and the agricultural nature of the land and permit the landowner the 
right to continue agricultural production and related uses subject to 
an agricultural land easement plan as approved by NRCS, the landowner, 
and the Grantee.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii)(A) Contains at least 50 percent prime or unique farmland, or 
designated farm and ranch land of State or local importance unless 
otherwise determined by NRCS,
    (B) Contains historical or archaeological resources,
    (C) The enrollment of which would protect grazing uses and related 
conservation values by restoring and conserving land, or
    (D) Furthers a State or local policy consistent with the purposes 
of the ACEP-ALE.
* * * * *
    (3) Eligible land, including eligible incidental land, may not 
include forest land of greater than two-thirds of the easement area 
unless waived by NRCS with respect to lands identified by NRCS as sugar 
bush that contributes to the economic viability of the parcel. Land 
with contiguous forest that exceeds the greater of 40 acres or 20 
percent of the easement area will have a forest management plan before 
the easement is purchased and compensation paid to the landowner.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  1468.21 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.21  Application procedures.

* * * * *

[[Page 71853]]

    (c) NRCS will determine the entity, land, and landowner eligibility 
for the fiscal year of enrollment based on the application materials 
provided by the eligible entity, onsite assessments, and the criteria 
set forth in Sec.  1468.20.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  1468.22 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (8), (10), (12), 
and (13) and (c)(3) through (5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.22  Establishing priorities, ranking considerations and 
project selection.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Percent of prime, unique, and other important soils in the 
parcel to be protected;
* * * * *
    (8) Proximity of the parcel to other protected land, such as 
military installations; land owned in fee title by the United States or 
an Indian Tribe, State or local government, or by a nongovernmental 
organization whose purpose is to protect agricultural use and related 
conservation values; or land that is already subject to an easement or 
deed restriction that limits the conversion of the land to non-
agricultural use or protects grazing uses and related conservation 
values;
* * * * *
    (10) Maximizing the protection of contiguous or proximal acres 
devoted to agricultural use;
* * * * *
    (12) Decrease in the percentage of acreage of permanent grassland, 
pasture, and rangeland, other than cropland and woodland pasture, in 
the county in which the parcel is located between the last two USDA 
Censuses of Agriculture; and
    (13) Other additional criteria as determined by NRCS.
    (c) * * *
    (3) Multifunctional conservation values of farm and ranch land 
protection including:
    (i) Social, economic, historical, and archaeological benefits;
    (ii) Enhancing carbon sequestration;
    (iii) Improving climate change resiliency;
    (iv) At-risk species protection; or
    (v) Other related conservation benefits;
    (4) Geographic regions where the enrollment of particular lands may 
help achieve national, State, and regional agricultural or conservation 
goals and objectives, or enhance existing government or private 
conservation projects;
    (5) Diversity of natural resources to be protected or improved;
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  1468.23 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1468.23  ALE-agreements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The interests in land to be acquired, including the United 
States' right of enforcement, the deed requirements specified in this 
part, as well as the other terms and conditions of the easement deed;
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  1468.24 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(G) and adding 
paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(H) through (K) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.24  Compensation and funding for agricultural land 
easements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (G) One of several parcels within a special project area being 
offered for enrollment in that fiscal year that are being protected 
pursuant to a comprehensive plan approved by the State Conservationist, 
with input from the State Technical Committee, for the permanent 
protection of a large block of farm or ranch land;
    (H) Part of a comprehensive plan to facilitate transfers to new and 
beginning farmers approved by the State Conservationist, with input 
from the State Technical Committee, for the permanent protection of a 
block of farm or ranch land that, if implemented, will facilitate the 
transfer of farmland to a next generation farmer;
    (I) Subject of a conservation buyer transaction where a member of 
an underserved community, veteran, beginning farmer or rancher, or a 
disabled farmer or rancher has a valid purchase and sale agreement to 
acquire the property subject to an agricultural land easement;
    (J) Parcel has an existing NRCS Resource Management System (RMS) 
level plan with NRCS conservation practices applied or under contract 
to be applied in accordance with NRCS standards and specifications, and 
the landowner has agreed that the ALE plan will be developed at the RMS 
level in accordance with the purposes for which the ALE easement is 
being acquired; or
    (K) Meets the definition of grassland of special environmental 
significance.
* * * * *

0
14. Revise Sec.  1468.25 to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.25  Agricultural land easement deeds.

    (a) Under ACEP-ALE, a landowner grants an easement to an eligible 
entity with which NRCS has entered into an ALE-agreement. The easement 
deed will require that the easement area be maintained in accordance 
with ACEP-ALE goals and objectives for the term of the easement.
    (b) Written pending offers by an eligible entity must be for 
acquiring an easement in perpetuity, except where State law prohibits a 
permanent easement. In such cases where State law limits the term of a 
conservation easement, the easement term will be for the maximum 
duration allowed under State law.
    (c) The eligible entity may use its own terms and conditions in the 
agricultural land easement deed, but the agricultural land easement 
deed must address the deed requirements as specified by this part and 
by NRCS in the ALE-agreement.
    (d) All deeds, as further specified in the ALE-agreement, must 
address the following regulatory deed requirements:
    (1) Include a right of enforcement clause for NRCS. NRCS will 
specify the terms for the right of enforcement clause, including that 
such interest in the agricultural land easement remains in effect for 
the duration of the easement and any changes that affect NRCS' interest 
in the agricultural land easement must be reviewed and approved by NRCS 
under Sec.  1468.6 of this part.
    (2) Ensure compliance with an agricultural land easement plan that 
is provided by the eligible entity in consultation with the landowner, 
approved by NRCS, and implemented according to NRCS requirements. NRCS 
may provide technical assistance for the development or implementation 
of the agricultural land easement plan. If the parcel contains highly 
erodible land, the conservation plan component of the agricultural land 
easement plan will be developed and managed in accordance with the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended, and its associated regulations. The 
access must be sufficient to provide the United States ingress and 
egress to the easement area to ensure compliance pursuant to its right 
of enforcement.
    (3) Specify that impervious surfaces will not exceed 2 percent of 
the ACEP-ALE easement area, excluding NRCS-approved conservation 
practices unless NRCS grants a waiver as follows:
    (i) The eligible entity may request a waiver of the 2 percent 
impervious surface limitation at the time that a parcel is approved for 
funding,
    (ii) NRCS may waive the 2 percent impervious surface limitation on 
an individual easement basis, provided that no more than 10 percent of 
the

[[Page 71854]]

easement area is covered by impervious surfaces,
    (iii) Before waiving the 2 percent limitation, NRCS will consider, 
at a minimum, population density; the ratio of open, prime, and other 
important farmland versus impervious surfaces on the easement area; the 
impact to water quality concerns in the area; the type of agricultural 
operation; parcel size; and the purposes for which the easement was 
acquired,
    (iv) Eligible entities may submit an impervious surface limitation 
waiver process to NRCS for review and consideration. The eligible 
entities must apply any approved impervious surface limitation waiver 
processes on an individual easement basis, and
    (v) NRCS will not approve blanket waivers or entity blanket waiver 
processes of the impervious surface limitation. All ACEP-ALE easements 
must include language limiting the amount of impervious surfaces within 
the easement area.
    (4) Include an indemnification clause requiring the landowner to 
indemnify and hold harmless the United States from any liability 
arising from or related to the property enrolled in ACEP-ALE.
    (5) Include an amendment clause requiring that any changes to the 
easement deed after its recordation must be consistent with the 
purposes of the agricultural land easement and this part. Any 
substantive amendment, including any subordination of the terms of the 
easement or modifications, exchanges, or terminations of the easement 
area, must be approved by NRCS prior to recordation or else the action 
is null and void.
    (6) Prohibit commercial and industrial activities except those 
activities that NRCS has determined are consistent with the 
agricultural use of the land.
    (7) Limit the subdivision of the property subject to the 
agricultural land easement, except where State or local regulations 
explicitly require subdivision to construct residences for employees 
working on the property or where otherwise authorized by NRCS.
    (8) Include specific protections related to the purposes for which 
the agricultural land easement is being purchased, including provisions 
to protect historical or archaeological resources or grasslands of 
special environmental significance.
    (9) Other minimum deed terms specified by NRCS to ensure that ACEP-
ALE purposes are met.
    (e) NRCS reserves the right to require additional specific language 
or require removal of language in the agricultural land easement deed 
to ensure the enforceability of the easement deed, protect the 
interests of the United States, or to otherwise ensure ALE purposes 
will be met.
    (f) For eligible entities that have not been certified, the deed 
document must be reviewed and approved by NRCS in advance of use as 
provided herein:
    (1) NRCS will make available for an eligible entity's use a 
standard set of minimum deed terms that could be wholly incorporated 
along with the eligible entity's own deed terms into the agricultural 
land easement deed, or as an addendum that is attached and incorporated 
by reference into the deed. The standard minimum deed terms addendum 
will specify that if such terms conflict with other terms of the deed, 
the NRCS terms prevail.
    (2) If an eligible entity agrees to use the standard set of minimum 
deed terms as published by NRCS, NRCS and the eligible entity will 
identify in the ALE-agreement the use of the standard minimum deed 
terms as a requirement and the National Office review of individual 
deeds may not be required. NRCS may place priority on applications 
where an eligible entity agrees to use the standard set of minimum deed 
terms as published.
    (3) The eligible entity must submit all individual agricultural 
land easement deeds to NRCS at least 90 days before the planned 
easement purchase date and be approved by NRCS in advance of use.
    (4) Eligible entities with multiple eligible parcels in an ALE-
agreement may submit an agricultural land easement deed template for 
review and approval. The deed templates must be reviewed and approved 
by NRCS in advance of use.
    (5) NRCS may conduct an additional review of the agricultural land 
easement deeds for individual parcels prior to the execution of the 
easement deed by the landowner and the eligible entity to ensure that 
they contain the same language as approved by the National Office and 
that the appropriate site-specific information has been included.
    (g) The eligible entity will acquire, hold, manage, monitor, and 
enforce the easement. The eligible entity may have the option to enter 
into an agreement with governmental or private organizations that have 
no property rights or interests in the easement area to carry out 
easement monitoring, management and enforcement responsibilities.
    (h) All agricultural land easement deeds acquired with ACEP-ALE 
funds must be recorded. The eligible entity will provide proof of 
recordation to NRCS within the timeframe specified in the ALE-
agreement.

0
15. Amend Sec.  1468.27 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(3) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.27  Eligible entity certification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) An explanation of how the entity meets the requirements 
identified in Sec.  1468.20(b) of this section;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The terms of the ALE-agreement will include the regulatory deed 
requirements specified in Sec.  1468.25 of this part that must be 
addressed in the deed to ensure that ACEP-ALE purposes will be met by 
the certified entity without requiring NRCS to pre-approve each 
easement transaction prior to closing.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  1468.28 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1468.28  Violations and remedies.

* * * * *
    (f) If NRCS exercises its rights identified under an agricultural 
land easement NRCS will provide written notice to the eligible entity 
at the eligible entity's last-known address. The notice will set forth 
the nature of the non-compliance by the eligible entity and provide a 
180-day period to cure. If the eligible entity fails to cure within the 
180-day period, NRCS will take the action specified under the notice. 
NRCS reserves the right to decline to provide a period to cure if NRCS 
determines that imminent harm may result to the conservation values or 
other interest in land that it seeks to protect.

Subpart C--Wetland Reserve Easements

0
17. Amend Sec.  1468.32 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1468.32  Establishing priorities, ranking consideration and 
project selection.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Whether the landowner or another person or entity is offering 
to contribute financially to the cost of the easement or other interest 
in the land to leverage Federal funds;
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  1468.33 by revising paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1468.33  Enrollment process.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) The terms of the easement identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of 
this section includes the landowner's agreement to the implementation 
of a

[[Page 71855]]

WRPO identified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section. In particular, 
the easement deed identifies that NRCS has the right to enter the 
easement area to undertake on its own or through an agreement with the 
landowner or other third party, any activities to restore, protect, 
enhance, manage, maintain, and monitor the wetland and other natural 
values of the easement area.
    (4) At the time NRCS enters into an agreement to purchase, NRCS 
agrees, subject to paragraph (e) of this section, to acquire and 
provide for restoration of the land enrolled into the program.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 4, 2016.
Jason A. Weller,
Vice-President, Commodity Credit Corporation and Chief, Natural 
Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24504 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-16-P