FR 2021-02268

General Summary

The document outlines the final rule for changes to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which were initially introduced in an interim rule published in January 2020. These modifications stem from the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill. The primary aim of these changes is to permanently integrate improvements that enhance the program's efficiency, refine definitions, and update regulations concerning agricultural land and wetland easement eligibility. The rule places a strong emphasis on voluntary participation by landowners and seeks to maximize the conservation value achieved from public investments.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One of the major concerns with the document is its complexity. The language used in some sections might be too dense for those not well-versed in legal or regulatory terminologies, potentially leaving landowners or other stakeholders confused. The document introduces intricate provisions, such as those for Buy-Protect-Sell (BPS) transactions, without providing simplified explanations or examples that could enhance understanding.

Additionally, the document acknowledges the difficulty in precisely measuring the program's benefits on a national scale, pointing to a possible gap in comprehensively assessing the program's full impact. This challenge comes alongside issues related to the accessibility of the program for small entities, which might lack adequate financial resources to partake meaningfully, even with the eliminations of cash contribution requirements.

Impact on the Public

The changes are designed to streamline the ACEP, potentially making it easier for landowners to participate and understand the program's requirements. By introducing more flexible non-Federal cost-sharing, the rule attempts to lower barriers to participation, which might encourage broader acceptance among landowners. However, the complexity of the document may serve as a barrier in itself, hindering the public's understanding of their eligibility or the benefits available under the program.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Landowners and Agriculture Entities: The rule is primarily beneficial for landowners interested in conserving their agricultural lands or restoring wetlands. By removing some cash requirements for non-Federal contributions, the program becomes more accessible for those who might not have significant financial resources. However, small entities may still find meaningful participation challenging due to the complexity of administrative requirements and the financial risk associated with program enrollment.

Tribal Entities and Underserved Communities: The document notes ongoing outreach and consultations with Tribal entities, aiming to increase engagement in ACEP. However, it could benefit from clearer details on specific actions and expected outcomes to ensure these stakeholders can effectively participate and benefit from the program. The flexibility granted to BPS transactions could also aid underserved communities by simplifying land acquisition for eligible farmers and ranchers.

Environmental and Conservation Interests: The explicit consideration of conservation goals, such as water quality and habitat protection, aligns well with the interests of those in environmental sectors. The rule's emphasis on enhancing conservation values could yield improved ecological outcomes if the regulations are effectively implemented and monitored.

Government and Administrative Bodies: While the rule aims to streamline operations, the roles of agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in oversight and enforcement might require clearer definitions to avoid ambiguity. This vagueness could result in inconsistent application across different states or projects.

Overall, the final rule for ACEP introduces substantial reforms aimed at increasing participation and improving conservation efforts. While the changes present opportunities for broader engagement, the document’s complexity and the detailed regulatory framework posed could limit its accessibility and effectiveness for some stakeholders.

The document under review provides detailed information on financial allocations and references related to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). This commentary will examine these financial aspects, highlighting spending and appropriations, and exploring how they relate to identified issues within the document.

Spending and Appropriations

The document outlines the authorized level of funding for ACEP for the period of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, amounting to $2.25 billion. This figure represents an increase in the average annual funding compared to the previous 2014 Farm Bill, with an annual rise from $405 million to $450 million. The enhancement represents an 11 percent increase in nominal dollars.

Another financial aspect noted is the imputation of the value of applicant and participant time, estimated at $1.1 million for the 5-year period from FY 2019 through 2023. This cost reflects the resources utilized by participants to access the program, highlighting the administrative burden on stakeholders involved.

The projected annualized real cost to producers accessing the program is $229,000, with annualized real transfers amounting to $433 million. Such transfers reflect direct financial movements under the program's auspices, illustrating the financial scale and impact.

There is also a mention of a recommended annual allocation for the Wetland Reserve Enhancement Partnership (WREP), with suggestions ranging between $35-50 million per year.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document notes challenges in quantifying program benefits on a national scale, which can lead to a potential gap in understanding the program's overall financial impact. While financial references provide explicit dollar amounts and allocations, the lack of clear benefit quantification might obscure the true value and efficiency of these expenditures.

Moreover, while the document is exempt from certain legislative requirements, such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, there is concern regarding the accessibility for smaller entities. The removal of cash contribution requirements could mitigate financial barriers but also introduce potential financial risks. Clear mitigation strategies are not extensively discussed, which could lead to uncertainties about financial oversight and the future sustainability of the program.

The cost-benefit analysis sections, though detailed, might benefit from streamlined explanations to make them more accessible to a general audience. Simplifying these parts could help demystify the financial complexities and encourage a broader understanding of the economic impacts of the ACEP.

In conclusion, while the document extensively details the financial aspects of the ACEP, further clarity and simplification would benefit stakeholders, especially in understanding how financial allocations will drive program objectives and benefit small and large entities alike.