73912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1415 

RIN 0578–AA53 

Grassland Reserve Program 

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), through the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2009, an interim final rule 

for the Grassland Reserve Program 

(GRP) with a 60-day public comment 

period. On August 21, 2009, the CCC 

published an amendment to the interim 

final rule and reopened the public 

comment period for an additional 60 

days. The CCC is publishing a final rule 

that incorporates the changes associated 

with passage of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Act) and 

addresses the comments received during 

the public comment periods. 

DATES: Effective Date: The rule is 

effective November 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie Deavers, Team Leader, Easement 

Support Team, Easement Programs 

Division, Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

6819 South Building, Washington, DC 

20250; Telephone: (202) 720–0907; Fax: 

(202) 720–9689. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communicating 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact the USDA Target Center 

at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) reviewed the January 21, 2009, 

interim final rule and determined that it 

was a significant regulatory action. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

USDA conducted an economic analysis 

of the potential impacts associated with 

this program. OMB also determined that 

this final rule is a significant regulatory 

action. USDA evaluated the economic 

analysis and expanded it to include net 

present value analyses using OMB’s 

recommended 3 percent and 7 percent 

discount rates. In addition, policy 

scenario three was dropped from the 

analysis because it was very similar to 

one of the other policy options. 

The administrative record is available 

for public inspection at the Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6819 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250. 

A summary of the economic analysis 

can be found at the end of the regulatory 

certifications of the preamble, and a 

copy of the analysis is available upon 

request from Leslie Deavers, Team 

Leader, Easement Support Team, 

Easement Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6819 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 

applicable to this final rule because 

USDA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, 

or by any other provision of law, to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

with respect to the subject matter of this 

rule. 

Environmental Analysis 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was prepared in 

association with the interim final rule. 

The analysis determined there will not 

be a significant impact to the human 

environment and as a result, an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

not required to be prepared (40 CFR 

1508.13). For this final rule, the agency 

has determined that there are no new 

circumstances or significant new 

information that has a bearing on 

environmental effects which warrant 

supplementing the previous EA and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). The proposed changes 

identified in this final rule are 

considered minor changes that should 

be implemented for the program. The 

majority of these changes are 

administrative or technical changes to 

the regulation. 

Copies of the EA and FONSI may be 

obtained from Matt Harrington, National 

Environmental Coordinator, Ecological 

Sciences Division, Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6151 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250. 

The EA and FONSI are also available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ 

Env_Assess/. 

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. 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 USDA programs. GRP applies 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 from Leslie 

Deavers, Team Leader, Easement 

Support Team, Easement Programs 

Division, Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

6819 South Building, Washington, DC 

20250, or electronically at http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Section 2904 of the 2008 Act (Pub. L. 

110–245), requires that implementation 

of programs authorized under Title II of 

the Act be made without regard to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Title 

44, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, 

USDA is not reporting recordkeeping or 

estimated paperwork burden associated 

with this final rule. 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

USDA is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act and the Freedom to EFile 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. To better accommodate public 

access, USDA has developed an online 

application and information system for 

public use. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not 

retroactive and preempts State and local 

laws to the extent that such laws are 

inconsistent with this rule. Before an 

action may be brought in a Federal court 

of competent jurisdiction, the 

administrative appeal rights afforded 

persons at 7 CFR parts 11, 614, and 780 

must be exhausted. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73913 

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 

USDA assessed the effects of this final 

rule on State, local, and Tribal 

governments, and the public. This 

action does not compel the expenditure 

of $100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted by inflation) 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. 

USDA has determined that this final 

rule conforms with the Federalism 

principles set forth in the Executive 

Order; would not impose any 

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, 

USDA 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. USDA has assessed the 

impact of this final rule on Indian Tribal 

governments and concluded that this 

final rule will not negatively affect 

Indian Tribal governments or their 

communities. The rule neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments nor preempts Tribal 

law. However, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) plans to 

undertake a series of at least six regional 

Tribal consultation sessions before 

December 30, 2010, on the impact of 

USDA conservation programs and 

services on Tribal governments and 

their members to establish a baseline of 

consultation for future actions. Reports 

from these sessions will be made part of 

the USDA annual reporting on Tribal 

Consultation and Collaboration. USDA 

will respond in a timely and meaningful 

manner to all Tribal governments’ 

requests for consultation. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more, a major increase in costs or prices, 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States based companies to 

compete in domestic and export 

markets. However, section 2904(c) of the 

2008 Act requires that the Secretary use 

the authority in section 808(2) of Title 

5, U.S.C., which allows an agency to 

forego SBREFA’s usual congressional 

60-day review delay of the effective date 

of a regulation if the agency finds that 

there is a good cause to do so. USDA 

hereby determines that it has good cause 

to do so to meet the congressional intent 

to have the conservation programs 

authorized or amended by Title II of the 

2008 Act in effect as soon as possible. 

Accordingly, this rule is effective upon 

filing for public inspection by the Office 

of the Federal Register. 

Section 2708 of the 2008 Act 

Section 2708, ‘‘Compliance and 

Performance,’’ of the 2008 Act added a 

paragraph to section 1244(g) of the Food 

Security Act of 1985, as amended 

entitled, ‘‘Administrative Requirements 

for Conservation Programs,’’ which 

states the following: 

(g) Compliance and performance.— 

For each conservation program under 

Subtitle D, the Secretary shall develop 

procedures— 

(1) To monitor compliance with program 

requirements; 

(2) To measure program performance; 

(3) To demonstrate whether long-term 

conservation benefits of the program are 

being achieved; 

(4) To track participation by crop and 

livestock type; and 

(5) To coordinate activities described in 

this subsection with the national 

conservation program authorized under 

section 5 of the Soil and Water Resources 

Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2004). 

This new provision presents in one 

place the accountability requirements 

placed on the agency as it implements 

conservation programs and reports on 

program results. The requirements 

apply to all programs under Subtitle D, 

including the Wetlands Reserve 

Program, Conservation Security 

Program, Conservation Stewardship 

Program, Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program, Grassland Reserve 

Program, Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (including the 

Agricultural Water Enhancement 

Program), Wildlife Habitat Incentive 

Program, and the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed initiative. These 

requirements are not directly 

incorporated into these regulations, 

which set out requirements for program 

participants. However, certain 

provisions within these regulations 

relate to elements of section 1244(g) of 

the Food Security Act of 1985, as 

amended and the agency’s 

accountability responsibilities regarding 

program performance. NRCS is taking 

this opportunity to describe existing 

procedures that relate to meeting the 

requirements of section 1244(g) of the 

Food Security Act of 1985, as amended 

and agency expectations for improving 

its ability to report on each program’s 

performance and achievement of longterm conservation benefits. Also 

included is reference to the sections of 

these regulations that apply to program 

participants and that relate to the 

agency accountability requirements as 

outlined in section 1244(g) of the Food 

Security Act of 1985, as amended. 

Monitor compliance with program 

requirements. NRCS has established 

application procedures to ensure that 

participants and eligible entities meet 

eligibility requirements and follow-up 

procedures to ensure that participants 

and eligible entities are complying with 

the terms and conditions of their 

contractual arrangement with the 

government, and that the installed 

conservation measures are operating as 

intended. These and related program 

compliance evaluation policies will be 

set forth in agency guidance. The 

program requirements applicable to 

participants and eligible entities that 

relate to compliance are set forth in 

these regulations in § 1415.4 ‘‘Program 

requirements,’’ § 1415.11 ‘‘Restoration 

agreements,’’ and § 1415.17 ‘‘Cooperative 

agreements.’’ These sections make clear 

the general program requirements, as 

well as participant and entity 

obligations. 

Measure program performance. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–62, Section 

1116) and guidance provided by OMB 

Circular A–11, NRCS has established 

performance measures for its 

conservation programs. Program-funded 

conservation activity is captured 

through automated field-level business 

tools, and the information is available at 

http://ias.sc.egov.usda.gov/PRSHOME/. 

Program performance also is reported 

annually to Congress and the public 

through the annual performance budget, 

annual accomplishments report, and the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

USDA Performance Accountability 

Report. Related performance 

measurement and reporting policies are 

set forth in agency guidance 

(GM_340_401 and GM_340_403) 

(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

The conservation actions undertaken 

by participants are the basis for 

measuring program performance— 

specific actions are tracked and reported 

annually, while the effects of those 

actions relate to whether the long-term 

benefits of the program are being 

achieved. The program requirements 

applicable to participants that relate to 

undertaking conservation actions are set 

forth in these regulations in § 1415.4 

‘‘Program requirements,’’ § 1415.11 

‘‘Restoration agreements,’’ and § 1415.17 

‘‘Cooperative agreements.’’ These 

sections make clear participant and 

eligible entity obligations for 

implementing, operating, and 

maintaining GRP-funded conservation 

improvements, which in aggregate result 

in the program performance that is 

reflected in agency performance reports. 

Demonstrate whether long-term 

conservation benefits of the program are 

being achieved. Demonstrating the longterm natural resource benefits achieved 

through conservation programs is 

subject to the availability of needed 

data, the capacity and capability of 

modeling approaches, and the external 

influences that affect actual natural 

resource condition. While NRCS 

captures many measures of ‘‘output’’ 

data, such as acres of conservation 

practices, it is still in the process of 

developing methods to quantify the 

contribution of those outputs to 

environmental outcomes. NRCS 

currently uses a mix of approaches to 

evaluate whether long-term 

conservation benefits are being achieved 

through its programs. Since 1982, NRCS 

has reported on certain natural resource 

status and trends through the National 

Resources Inventory (NRI), which 

provides statistically reliable, nationally 

consistent land cover/use and related 

natural resource data. However, a 

connection between these data and 

specific conservation programs has been 

lacking. In the future, the interagency 

Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

(CEAP), which has been underway since 

2003, will provide nationally consistent 

estimates of environmental effects 

resulting from conservation practices 

and systems applied. CEAP results will 

be used in conjunction with 

performance data gathered through 

agency field-level business tools to help 

produce estimates of environmental 

effects accomplished through agency 

programs, such as GRP. In 2006, a Blue 

Ribbon panel evaluation of CEAP 

strongly endorsed the project’s purpose, 

but concluded ‘‘CEAP must change 

direction’’ to achieve its purposes. In 

response, CEAP has focused on 

priorities identified by the Panel and 

clarified that its purpose is to quantify 

the effects of conservation practices 

applied on the landscape. Information 

regarding CEAP, including reviews and 

current status, is available at (http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ 

ceap). 

Since 2004 and the initial 

establishment of long-term performance 

measures by program, NRCS has been 

estimating and reporting progress 

toward long-term program goals. Natural 

resource inventory and assessment and 

performance measurement and 

reporting policies are set forth in agency 

guidance (GM–290–400; GM–340–401; 

and GM–340–403) (http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

Demonstrating the long-term 

conservation benefits of conservation 

programs is an agency responsibility. 

Through CEAP, NRCS is in the process 

of evaluating how these long-term 

benefits can be achieved through the 

conservation practices and systems 

applied by participants under the 

program. The program requirements 

applicable to participants that relate to 

producing long-term conservation 

benefits are described previously under 

‘‘measuring program performance.’’ 

Track participation by crop and 

livestock type. NRCS’ automated fieldlevel business tools capture participant, 

land, and operation information. This 

information is aggregated in the 

National Conservation Planning 

database and is used in a variety of 

program reports. Additional reports will 

be developed to provide more detailed 

information on program participation to 

meet congressional needs. These and 

related program management 

procedures supporting program 

implementation will be set forth in 

agency guidance. 

The program requirements applicable 

to participants that relate to tracking 

participation by crop and livestock type 

are put forth in these regulations in 

§ 1415.4 ‘‘Program Requirements,’’ 

which makes clear program eligibility 

requirements, including the requirement 

to provide NRCS the information 

necessary to implement GRP. 

Coordinate these actions with the 

national conservation program 

authorized under the Soil and Water 

Resources Conservation Act (RCA). The 

2008 Act reauthorized and expanded on 

a number of elements of the RCA related 

to evaluating program performance and 

conservation benefits. Specifically, the 

2008 Act added a provision stating, 

‘‘Appraisal and inventory of resources, 

assessment and inventory of 

conservation needs, evaluation of the 

effects of conservation practices, and 

analyses of alternative approaches to 

existing conservation programs are basic 

to effective soil, water, and related 

natural resources conservation.’’ 

The program, performance, and 

natural resource and effects data 

described previously will serve as a 

foundation for the next RCA, which will 

also identify and fill, to the extent 

possible, data and information gaps. 

Policy and procedures related to the 

RCA are set forth in agency guidance 

(GM–290–400; CPM–440–525; and GM– 

130–402) (http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

The coordination of the previously 

described components with the RCA is 

an agency responsibility and is not 

reflected in these regulations. However, 

it is likely that results from the RCA 

process will result in modifications to 

the program and performance data 

collected, to the systems used to acquire 

data and information, and potentially to 

the program itself. Thus, as the 

Secretary proceeds to implement the 

RCA in accordance with the statute, the 

approaches and processes developed 

will improve existing program 

performance measurement and outcome 

reporting capability and provide the 

foundation for improved 

implementation of the program 

performance requirements of section 

1244(g) of the Food Security Act of 

1985, as amended. 

Economic Analysis—Executive 

Summary 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, NRCS 

has conducted a benefit-cost analysis of 

GRP as formulated for the final rule. 

This requirement provides 

decisionmakers with the opportunity to 

develop and implement a program that 

is beneficial, cost-effective, and that 

minimizes negative impacts to health, 

human safety, and the environment. 

GRP is a voluntary program for 

landowners and operators to protect, 

restore, and enhance grassland, 

including rangeland, pastureland, 

shrubland, and certain other lands. The 

program emphasizes support for grazing 

operations, enhancement of plant and 

animal biodiversity, and protection of 

grassland and land containing shrubs 

and forbs under threat of conversion. 

Methodology Employed in This Study 

NRCS has been charged with 

implementing GRP as authorized and 

funded by Congress in ‘‘protecting and 

restoring eligible grasslands through 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73915 

easement purchases and rental contracts 

with private landowners and operators.’’ 

Given the scope of GRP, the analysis is 

national in scope and evaluates the 

potential costs and benefits under 

several scenarios. When possible, 

environmental, economic, and social 

costs and benefits were identified for 

the land user, the general public, and 

the government. 

Given the current backlog of GRP 

applicants, full producer participation is 

expected up to the acreage constraint 

mandated in the 2008 Act. The main 

costs of agricultural land retention 

efforts include the restrictions on the 

activities landowners can pursue on the 

grazing land and Federal program costs 

that consist of initial costs for easement 

contracts and annual payments for 

rental contracts. It is assumed that 

easement costs and annual rental costs 

capture the future land use. These costs 

must then be compared to the benefits 

of preserving the land for grazing or 

forage production. Benefits include the 

maintenance (and possible 

improvement) of the flow of ecological 

goods and services emanating from its 

current use in agriculture, forage 

production, recreation, scenic views, 

and other non-use benefits such as 

knowing that grazing lands will be 

available for future generations. 

Two baselines were considered in this 

analysis. Baseline One assumes that no 

changes were made to GRP, with both 

program features and acreage levels 

continued at pre-2008 levels. Baseline 

Two assumes that all program and 

acreage levels mandated in the 2008 Act 

are implemented. Against these baseline 

scenarios, two policy scenarios were 

examined. Policy scenario one assessed 

the benefits and costs of the expanded 

acreage targets in the 2008 Act without 

the program changes. Policy scenario 

two assessed the benefits and costs of 

the program changes mandated in the 

2008 Act without expanded acreage 

targets (i.e., use fiscal year (FY) 2007 

acreage levels). The baselines and policy 

scenarios are shown in the table below. 

SUMMARY OF GRP POLICY SCENARIOS

Baseline/Scenario Description of baseline/scenario Information for FY 2009–FY 2012 

A. Baseline One ................... GRP policy remains unchanged and acreage will continue at FY 2007 acreage levels through FY 2009–FY 

2012. That is, no action on the 2008 Act GRP 

changes.

Baseline of pre-2008 program. 

B. Policy Scenario One ........ GRP policy remains unchanged, but acreage increases 

to reflect the 2008 Act acreage goal levels through 

FY 2009–FY 2012.

Outcomes given the 2008 Act GRP acreage goals 

using ‘‘Baseline one’’ program provisions (pre-2008 

program). 

C. Baseline Two ................... Full implementation of the 2008 Act GRP changes ....... Outcomes given full implementation of the 2008 Act. 

D. Policy Scenario Two ....... Full implementation of the 2008 Act GRP changes, but 

funding/acreage goals set at FY 2007 acreage levels 

through FY 2009–FY 2012.

Outcomes given the 2008 Act GRP statutory provisions 

with previous acreage goals. 

Analysis 

The benefits and costs of the baseline 

and policy scenarios are shown in the 

following table. These results suggest 

that GRP creates positive net benefits. 

Given the estimates of benefits and costs 

which are described in the main text, 

the scenario that maximizes 

undiscounted net benefits is Baseline 

Two, implement all GRP program 

changes mandated in the 2008 Farm 

Act. The mandated allocation of 40 

percent of contract funds to rental 

contracts and 60 percent to easements 

plus the elimination of the 30-year 

easements and 30-year contracts 

contributed to the estimated $424 

million in undiscounted net benefits for 

Baseline Two. Although these two 

factors raised initial program costs, they 

generated a longer stream of 

undiscounted benefits over a longer 

time period. When discounting is 

applied, Baseline Two maximizes 

discounted net benefits at the 3 percent 

level. At higher discount rates such as 

7 percent, net benefits decrease 

significantly for Baseline Two. The 

higher upfront costs of permanent 

easements offset the heavily discounted 

(7 percent) stream of future benefits. 

COMPARISON OF NET BENEFITS FOR THE BASELINE AND POLICY SCENARIOS

Baseline/Scenario Total acres Net benefits 

(0% discount) 

Net benefits 

(3% discount) 

Net benefits 

(7% discount) 

Baseline One 1 ................................................................................. 541,900 $152,557,735 $65,396,686 $11,752,922 

Policy Scenario One 2 ...................................................................... 1,220,000 343,456,522 147,229,336 26,460,025 

Baseline Two 3 ................................................................................. 1,220,000 423,798,000 152,220,692 4,895,332 

Policy Scenario Two 4 ...................................................................... 542,000 186,282,400 67,373,841 2,630,771 

1 Do not implement GRP program changes mandated in the 2008 Act. Obligate new contracts using the FY 2007 program acres for FY 2009– 

FY 2012. 2 Implement the new acreage goal of the 2008 Act, but do not implement any of the other required changes. 

3 Implement program changes mandated by the 2008 Act. These include dropping the 30-year easements and 30-year rental contracts and allocating 40 percent of the funding to rental contracts and 60 percent to permanent easements. 4 Implement program changes (elimination of 30-year easements and rental contracts and 40–60 split between rental contracts and easements) mandated by the 2008 Act except for acres, which remain 542,000. 

Conclusions 

Substantial social, economic, and 

environmental benefits are associated 

with protecting grasslands in and 

around metropolitan and rural 

communities. These benefits include 

improved water quality, soil quality, 

soil conservation, plant and animal 

diversity, scenic vistas, community 

heritage, economies, and recreational 

activities. Although not all of these 

benefits were estimated in this analysis, 

both the previous GRP and the modified 

GRP in the 2008 Act yielded sufficient 

measureable benefits to offset 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

measurable costs. GRP, as currently 

implemented, maximized undiscounted 

net benefits as well as net benefits 

discounted at 3 percent. At the higher 

7 percent discount rate, the front 

loading of costs of permanent easements 

at the beginning of the contracts 

overwhelmed the flow of discounted 

benefits over time. A more complete 

accounting of ecosystem goods and 

services would increase benefits over 

time, thus increasing net benefits for all 

the baseline and policy scenarios. Given 

this information, NRCS recommends 

Baseline Two, full implementation of 

GRP as specified in the 2008 Act. 

Discussion of the Program 

Healthy grasslands protect soil 

quality; prevent soil erosion, provide 

sustainable forage for livestock, forage, 

and cover for wildlife; improve water 

quality; and sequester carbon. GRP is a 

voluntary program to assist landowners 

and agricultural operators in restoring 

and protecting eligible grassland, land 

that contains forbs, or shrublands for 

which grazing is the predominant use 

through rental contracts and easements. 

The Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), Pub. 

L. 107–171, authorized GRP by adding 

sections 1238N through 1238Q to the 

Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 

16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.; and providing 

$254 million through FY 2007 to enroll 

no more than 2 million acres of restored 

or improved grassland, rangeland, 

shrubland, and pastureland. The 

program regulations are set forth at 7 

CFR part 1415. 

Section 2403 of the 2008 Act (Pub. L. 

110–246) reauthorized GRP and made 

several amendments to the 

implementation of the program. The 

2008 Act authorized the enrollment of 

an additional 1.22 million acres of 

eligible land from FY 2009 through FY 

2012. 

The Secretary of Agriculture 

delegated the authority to administer 

GRP on behalf of the CCC to the Chief, 

NRCS, who is a CCC Vice President and 

the Administrator, Farm Service Agency 

(FSA), who is the CCC Executive Vice 

President. NRCS has the lead 

responsibility on regulatory matters, 

technical issues, and easement 

administration, and FSA has the lead 

responsibility for rental contract 

administration and financial activities. 

The agencies consult on regulatory and 

policy matters pertaining to both rental 

contracts and easements. At the State 

level, the NRCS State Conservationist 

and the FSA State Executive Director 

determine how best to utilize the human 

resources of both agencies to deliver the 

program and implement national 

policies in an efficient manner given the 

general responsibilities of each agency. 

On January 21, 2009, the CCC 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 2317) to 

incorporate programmatic changes 

authorized by the 2008 Act. The CCC 

also incorporated improvements to 

program administration. The changes 

made by the interim final rule included: 

(a) Identifying that the program’s 

focus changed from protecting, 

conserving, and restoring grassland 

resources on private lands to assisting 

owners and operators of private and 

Tribal land in protecting grazing uses 

and related conservation values by 

restoring and conserving eligible land; 

(b) Changing the term rental 

agreements to rental contracts; 

(c) Adding new definitions, revising 

existing definitions for clarity and 

consistency with other USDAadministered programs, and removing 

definitions that were no longer relevant 

to GRP; 

(d) Removing the 30-year rental 

agreement and 30-year easement 

enrollment options; 

(e) Removing the minimum acreage 

enrollment requirement. Previously, 

applicants needed to submit 40 

contiguous acres for enrollment to be 

eligible; 

(f) Offering enrollment priority for 

land previously enrolled in the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

providing certain conditions exist; 

(g) Expanding land eligibility criteria 

to include land that has been 

historically dominated by grassland, 

forbs, or shrubland when it contains 

historical or archaeological resources, or 

when it would address issues raised by 

State, regional, and national 

conservation priorities; 

(h) Allowing for the inclusion of 

permissible and prohibited activities 

under a rental contract or easement; 

(i) Including a separate payment 

limitation for restoration agreements 

and rental contracts; 

(j) Establishing the requirements for 

determining easement compensation; 

(k) Requiring implementation of a 

GRP management plan; 

(l) Adding the authority to enter into 

cooperative agreements with eligible 

entities to own, write, and enforce 

easements; and 

(m) Establishing that the entity will 

provide a share of the purchase price at 

least equivalent to the amount provided 

by the CCC, when eligible entities are 

acquiring easements under cooperative 

agreements. 

On August 21, 2009, the CCC 

published an amendment to the January 

21, 2009, interim final rule (74 FR 

42170) to clarify the nature of the 

contingent right of enforcement, expand 

its discussion regarding GRP policy for 

wind and solar power facilities, and 

remove the blanket prohibition upon 

wind power facilities for off-farm power 

generation. Additionally, the CCC 

sought public comment to these changes 

and additional public input on the 

January 21, 2009, interim final rule. 

Registration and Reporting 

Requirements of the Federal Funding 

and Transparency Act of 2006 

OMB recently published two 

regulations, 2 CFR part 25 and 2 CFR 

part 170, to assist agencies and 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

comply with the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2006 (FFATA) (Pub. L. 109–282, as 

amended). Both regulations have 

implementation requirements beginning 

October 1, 2010. 

The regulations at 2 CFR part 25 

require, with some exceptions, 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

to apply for and receive a Dun and 

Bradstreet Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number and register in the 

Central Contractor Registry (CCR). The 

regulations at 2 CFR part 170 establish 

new requirements for Federal financial 

assistance applicants, recipients, and 

sub recipients. The regulation provides 

standard wording that each agency must 

include in its awarding of financial 

assistance that requires recipients to 

report information about first-tier sub 

awards and executive compensation 

under those awards. 

NRCS has determined that 2 CFR part 

25 and 2 CFR part 170 apply to certain 

awards of financial assistance provided 

under GRP. Therefore, NRCS has 

incorporated, by reference, these 

registration and reporting requirements 

at § 1415.6 and will include the 

requisite provisions as part of the GRP 

contract. 

Comments and CCC Responses 

USDA received a total of 19 responses 

that included 148 comments in response 

to the two GRP public comment periods. 

USDA received 16 responses that 

included 129 comments during the 

January 21, 2009, interim final rule 

comment period and 3 responses that 

included 19 comments during the 

August 21, 2009, interim final rule 

amendment comment period. 

In this preamble discussion, the 

comments have been organized in 

alphabetic order by topic. The topics 

include: Administration, administrative 

costs, allocation, compatible use, 

compensation, conservation and grazing 

plans, cooperative agreement, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73917 

definitions, easements or agreements 

(duration), easements or agreements (60/ 

40 split), ecosystem credits, enrollment 

requirements, general, land eligibility, 

misrepresentation and violations, 

participant, program requirements, 

ranking, restoration agreements, and 

windmills. Additionally, USDA 

received comments that did not fit any 

of these topic areas. 

Administration 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the policy that allows State officials to 

identify State priorities for project 

selection (with input from the State 

Technical Committee) and the authority 

for States to develop ranking criteria. 

The commenter would also like 

provisions to allow local stakeholders to 

identify priorities for GRP funds. 

Response: USDA appreciates the 

support for its policies and maintains 

decisionmaking responsibilities at the 

lowest level reasonable. Local 

stakeholders may provide GRP input on 

program priorities by participating in 

local working groups authorized by 7 

CFR part 610. The local working groups 

provide input to the State Technical 

Committee, authorized by 7 CFR part 

610, on a myriad of topics including 

potential program application ranking 

criteria. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: Section 1415.2(a)(3) 

provides that the NRCS Chief and FSA 

Administrator ensure that national, 

State, and local-level information 

regarding program implementation is 

made available to the public. Two 

commenters recommended USDA 

clarify in the final rule how the 

information will be made available to 

the public and identify whether there 

will be an opportunity for further public 

input. They recommended that USDA 

utilize public input through State 

Technical Committees for improving 

implementation of the program. 

Response: Section 1415.2(a)(3) 

provides flexibility for the agency 

leaders to determine the appropriate 

approach and methods for ensuring the 

public is provided information 

regarding program implementation. 

State Technical Committee meetings are 

open to the public, and USDA provides 

opportunity for people to comment on 

program implementation at any time. 

The public can view the State Technical 

Committee standard operating 

procedures at http:// 

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/, or obtain a 

copy from their local NRCS office. No 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that USDA revise 

§ 1415.2(b)(4) to require input from the 

State Technical Committee when 

developing program outreach materials, 

and that USDA revise § 1415.2(b)(6) by 

requiring input from the State Technical 

Committee when developing grazing 

management plans and restoration 

agreements. The commenter indicated 

that grazing management plans should 

improve biodiversity and requested that 

guidance be provided by the State 

Technical Committee on criteria that is 

needed and must be included in the 

grazing management plans to address 

the biodiversity component. 

Response: The State Technical 

Committee is established to assist USDA 

by making recommendations relating to 

the implementation and technical 

aspects of natural resource conservation 

activities and programs. The State 

Technical Committee provides 

recommendations on a myriad of topics 

including, but not limited to, 

recommendations on: 

(1) The criteria to be used in 

prioritizing program applications; 

(2) The State-specific application 

criteria; 

(3) Priority natural resource concerns 

in the State; 

(4) Emerging natural resource 

concerns and program needs; and 

(5) Conservation practice standards 

and specifications. 

USDA agrees with the comment that 

reference to the State Technical 

Committee should be added to 

§ 1415.2(b)(4). Therefore, paragraph 

(b)(4) has been revised to read as 

follows: ‘‘With advice from the State 

Technical Committee, developing 

program outreach materials at the State 

and local levels to help ensure 

landowners, operators, and tenants of 

eligible land are aware and informed 

that they may be eligible for the 

program.’’ 

USDA believes that the State 

Technical Committee provides guidance 

on GRP management plans by making 

recommendations on conservation 

practice standards and specifications. 

Biodiversity is addressed in the NRCS 

Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) 

and through its conservation practice 

standards. 

Administrative Costs 

USDA received five comments from 

two respondents related to the 

administrative cost provisions in 

§ 1415.11 Restoration agreements, and 

§ 1415.17 Cooperative agreements. 

Section 1415.11 describes the 

applicability of restoration agreements 

and the terms of such agreements; and 

§ 1415.17 describes the terms through 

which USDA will enter into an 

agreement with an eligible entity for 

such entity to write, hold, and enforce 

a GRP easement. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

that the policy in § 1415.17(c)(10) places 

undue financial burden on the potential 

cooperators, and the policy in 

§ 1415.17(c)(13) places undue 

restrictions and unfair burdens that will 

make it difficult for cooperators to 

participate. 

Further, § 1415.17(c)(13) expressly 

disallows GRP funds for expenditures 

for administrative costs such as 

appraisals, surveys, and title insurance 

that are authorized when the United 

States purchases a GRP easement 

directly from the landowner. The 

commenter contends it is appropriate 

for GRP funds to be used for these 

expenses on at least a cost-share basis 

when a qualified eligible entity is 

conducting this administrative function 

under a cooperative agreement. 

Response: The GRP statute provides 

that eligible entities who enter into an 

agreement with USDA to acquire 

easements will assume the costs 

incurred in administering the easement. 

In the interim final rule, USDA 

explained that it patterned GRP after the 

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program (FRPP) where the partnering 

entity assumes responsibility for the 

majority of the administrative costs 

related to acquisition. This decision was 

intended to apply consistent policies to 

the extent allowable under the terms of 

each program’s statute. Financial 

assistance funds are used in both GRP 

and FRPP to purchase a share of the 

conservation easement. USDA will use 

program funds to conduct an 

environmental database records search 

and appraisal reviews as it does with 

FRPP. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: Section 1415.11(k) 

includes provisions for restoration 

agreements when title for an easement 

acquired by USDA is transferred to an 

eligible entity. One commenter 

recommended revising policy that 

requires the entity be responsible for 

providing funding for the completion of 

the restoration agreement. The 

commenter recommended the entity 

only be responsible for the 

administration of the restoration 

agreement. The commenter contends 

that the policy limits USDA’s ability to 

transfer easements to other entities 

capable of managing the easement. The 

commenter had a similar comment 

about the policy in § 1415.11(l) 

regarding easements held by eligible 

entities. 

Response: USDA agrees that the 

provisions in paragraphs (k) and (l) of 

§ 1415.11 may reduce the interest in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

holding or acquiring GRP easements for 

some otherwise eligible entities. 

However, these provisions are required 

by the GRP statute (16 U.S.C. 

3838q(c)1(C)). When the Secretary 

transfers easement title of ownership to 

an eligible entity to hold and enforce, in 

lieu of the Secretary, and when the 

Secretary enters into a cooperative 

agreement with an eligible entity for the 

entity to acquire easements, the eligible 

entity agrees to assume the costs 

incurred in administering and enforcing 

the easement, including the costs of 

restoration or rehabilitation of the land 

as specified by the owner and the 

eligible entity. No changes were made to 

the final rule. 

Allocation 

Comments: Seven commenters 

recommended USDA revise 

§ 1415.2(a)(2) to require USDA to use 

State wildlife action plans in 

determining national allocation 

formulas or when establishing program 

priorities. The commenters also 

recommend that USDA coordinate with 

State fish and wildlife agencies as part 

of assessing natural resource concerns. 

Another commenter expressed that 

considering issues raised by State, 

regional, and national conservation 

priorities, as required in 

§ 1415.5(b)(2)(iii), to inform local 

ranking priorities should also be used to 

inform the national allocation process. 

By incorporating fish and wildlife 

resource priorities for grasslands into 

the allocation process, USDA can help 

maximize the fish and wildlife benefits 

while emphasizing the support for 

grazing operations. 

Response: USDA considered using 

State wildlife action plans in national 

allocation formulas. However, USDA 

concluded that the plans do not lend 

themselves to being used in a 

standardized formula process because of 

inconsistencies in the format of the 

plans across the country. USDA will 

consider using these plans in allocation 

formulas when a more consistent format 

is developed. State wildlife action plans 

can be used by State Technical 

Committees to assess natural resource 

concerns and determine project ranking 

at the State level. No changes were 

made to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

that § 1415.2(a)(2), as written, did not 

provide sufficient assurance that the 

agency will use the national allocation 

process in a way that maximizes the 

conservation benefits that grazing 

operations can deliver. 

Response: USDA developed an 

allocation process to consider the three 

priorities of the program as provided for 

in the 2008 Act at 16 U.S.C. 3838p(a)(2). 

The national allocation process 

considers the amount of range and 

pastureland and loss, number of 

livestock operations, Federally listed 

threatened and endangered species, and 

candidate species. Additional factors 

can be added at the State level for 

individual application ranking by State 

Technical Committees whose members 

include State fish and wildlife agencies. 

No changes were made to the final rule. 

Compatible Use 

Comments: Two commenters 

expressed concern related to a 

participating landowner’s rights 

regarding hunting and fishing. They 

wanted these activities identified as 

reserved rights of the landowner. The 

commenters recommended USDA 

change this language as well as other 

compatible use language in this final 

rule. 

Another commenter recommended 

rewording the definition of compatible 

use as follows: ‘‘Compatible use 

includes those activities, uses, or 

measures that do not interfere with the 

timely implementation or full 

effectiveness of conservation practices 

as described in the restoration plan.’’ 

Response: The term compatible use is 

not used in the GRP rule. The rule does 

provide the authority in § 1415.4(h)(6) 

to allow USDA to determine the 

manner, number, intensity, location, 

operation, and other features associated 

with an activity that will not adversely 

affect the grassland resources or related 

conservation values protected under an 

easement or rental contract. 

However, USDA did clarify the 

easement deed and rental contracts, as 

well as § 1415.4(h)(6) regarding hunting 

and other reserved rights by including 

the following revised language: ‘‘This 

also includes undeveloped, passive, 

recreational uses such as hiking, 

camping, bird watching, hunting, and 

fishing as long as such uses, as 

determined by the grantee, do not 

impair the grazing uses and other 

conservation values.’’ 

Compensation 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended NRCS eliminate the new 

requirement for market analysis and 

reinstate the use of an individual 

appraisal for determining value of a GRP 

easement. The commenter expressed an 

opinion that a market analysis will not 

accurately reflect the fair market value 

of a property. The main concern is that 

the broad brush approach will 

discourage landowners from applying 

for the program and ultimately 

protecting their land. 

Response: The 2008 Act specifies that 

easement compensation will not exceed 

the fair market value of the land less the 

grazing value of the land encumbered by 

the easement. Further, either an 

appraisal or area-wide market analysis 

will be used as one method for 

determining easement compensation. 

USDA agrees with the commenter that 

an area-wide market analysis would not 

accurately reflect the fair market value 

of a property in areas where insufficient 

market data exists. In those cases, USDA 

will be using an appraisal; therefore, no 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: Another commenter 

expressed that it is not clear in the 

interim final rule how FSA will 

determine grazing value for rental 

contracts. The commenter would like 

the final rule to clarify that the NRCS 

Chief and FSA Administrator may allow 

flexibility to adjust rental rates to be 

competitive with other uses, such as 

pasture rental, to attract program 

participants. 

Response: USDA agrees that if rental 

rates become too low, inadequate offers 

will be received to maximize the 

environmental benefits. Currently 

however, demand for rental contracts is 

high with more applicants than funding 

allows. Raising rental rates would 

reduce the acres enrolled. FSA 

determines GRP rental rates by using an 

administrative process which considers 

rates established for similar uses under 

other conservation programs. This 

process considers rates such as marginal 

pastureland rates and other rates used 

for CRP, as well as trying to ensure 

consistency between counties. With the 

current high demand for GRP rental 

contracts at the present rental rates, no 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Conservation and Grazing Plans 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended USDA revise 

§ 1415.2(b)(6) to include ‘‘developing 

conservation plans’’ to the list of State 

Conservationist’s responsibilities. 

Response: The State Conservationist 

is responsible for all planning activities 

including conservation plans, when 

applicable. USDA agrees with the 

commenter that clarity is needed. USDA 

is using the term GRP management plan 

to include conservation plans and 

restoration plans in addition to any 

applicable grazing management systems. 

Therefore, USDA revised § 1415.2(b)(6) 

to read ‘‘Developing GRP management 

plans and restoration agreements, when 

applicable.’’ 

Cooperative Agreement 

Comments: One commenter 

questioned how § 1415.12(a) will be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73919 

interpreted. The commenter 

recommended that USDA clarify that 

conservation easements may be 

amended if such amendments clearly 

preserve or benefit the conservation 

values of the property. Most easements 

include an amendment provision. The 

commenter expressed concern that a 

strict no amendment standard may have 

future adverse and unintended 

consequences as management practices 

change and knowledge of proper 

resource management advances. 

Response: USDA agrees that 

§ 1415.12(a) should be clarified. USDA 

understands the commenter’s concerns 

and is aware that easement deeds 

typically include modification 

provisions if the modification serves the 

conservation purposes of the easement. 

USDA does not currently have legal 

authority to change the substantive 

terms of a GRP conservation easement 

once it has been recorded. Specifically, 

modifications that would result in 

acquisition or divestiture of additional 

property rights cannot be made. 

However, deed changes that do not 

result in the acquisition or divestiture of 

property rights may be made, such as 

technical changes or clarifications of 

deed text. As management practices 

change, the GRP management plan may 

be modified to address advances in 

resource management knowledge. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

that to the extent an eligible entity is 

holding and managing an easement, the 

eligible entity must be privy to the 

grazing plan in addition to USDA and 

the landowner. The eligible entity 

should also be privy and a party to any 

modifications of a grazing plan if it is 

holding the easement. The commenter 

believes this is what is meant under 

statutory reference to mutual agreement 

of the parties under section 12380(b)(6). 

Another commenter questioned whether 

it is the responsibility of the eligible 

entity or NRCS to develop these plans. 

If it is the role of NRCS, the commenter 

suggested the eligible entity should 

provide input into the plans if they are 

expected to monitor and enforce them. 

Response: Section 1415.4(c) provides 

that all participants are required to 

implement a GRP management plan. 

USDA added, ‘‘NRCS will develop GRP 

management plans with eligible 

entities.’’ This language ensures the 

partnering entity is fully aware of the 

GRP management plan requirements 

and is party to the development of these 

plans. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the GRP statute does not specify 

that a dedicated fund is required by an 

eligible entity for the purpose of 

easement management, monitoring, and 

enforcement. While the commenter 

agreed that it is appropriate and 

desirable for entities to have an 

adequate stewardship endowment fund 

to assure they can meet the perpetual 

management of conservation easements 

they hold and administer, they 

identified that conservation monitoring 

and management functions may be 

addressed separately from enforcement 

purposes in the organization’s 

operational budget. In such cases, the 

various funding sources may not be 

considered dedicated. They recommend 

that USDA change the final rule to 

clarify the funds be a necessary 

requirement for eligible entities, but the 

fund need not be dedicated. The 

commenter also expressed that GRP 

should be set up and run in a similar 

manner to the FRPP, so that eligible 

third parties can certify for both 

programs. 

Response: The GRP statute provides 

that the Secretary may approve an 

eligible entity if the Secretary 

determines the entity has the resources 

necessary to effectuate the purposes of 

its charter. The dedicated fund 

requirement established in the interim 

final rule provides USDA a level of 

assurance that the easement will be 

managed, monitored, and enforced for 

the duration of the easement. Unlike the 

FRPP statute, the GRP statute does not 

include a certification process. The 

dedicated fund requirement, however, 

provides USDA a means to evaluate if 

an eligible entity has sufficient 

resources to administer, manage, 

monitor, and defend a GRP conservation 

easement. NRCS will evaluate the 

funding structure of an entity’s 

stewardship activities when making the 

determination of whether there is a 

dedicated fund. No changes were made 

to the final rule. 

Comments: Six commenters expressed 

that USDA should include landowners’ 

donations, when applicable, as part of 

the entity’s share of the purchase. The 

commenters further expressed that it is 

important to note that eligible entities 

are providing a significant role in 

furthering the purpose of GRP by 

committing to perpetually monitoring 

and enforcing the terms of the 

easements and plans. Many States with 

considerable grassland resources do not 

have dedicated State resources for 

leveraging Federal funds. The 

commenters believe USDA’s policy 

inhibits GRP participation in areas of 

the country where local conservation 

easement purchase funds are limited or 

nonexistent, and thus, the restriction 

places too great a financial burden on 

potential cooperating entities. 

Response: USDA evaluated the policy 

related to landowner donations and 

entity purchase price. USDA agrees with 

the commenters and has revised the 

definition of purchase price to read: 

‘‘Purchase price means the amount paid 

to acquire an easement under a 

cooperative agreement between NRCS 

and an eligible entity. It is the fair 

market value of the easement.’’ This 

change allows landowner donations to 

count as part of the entity share. 

Comments: USDA received a number 

of comments related to the Federal 

Government’s interest in GRP 

easements. The GRP interim final rule 

amendment alleviated a number of 

concerns related to the easement 

acquisition process and whether Federal 

real property acquisition requirements 

apply. One commenter supported 

maintaining language in § 1415.17(e)(1) 

that the rights acquired by the United 

States are a vested property right and 

cannot be condemned or terminated by 

State or local government. 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

comment about § 1415.17(e)(1). No 

changes were made to the final rule 

regarding the interest of the United 

States being a vested property right. 

Definitions 

Biodiversity 

Comments: Eleven commenters 

requested USDA add a definition for the 

term biodiversity. They would like to 

add a definition for biodiversity to read: 

Biodiversity means the variety and 

variability among living organisms 

native to the local ecological sub-region 

and ecological complex. They also want 

the term biodiversity added to the 

Common Grazing Practices definition as 

follows: ‘‘Common Grazing Practices 

means * * * activities necessary to 

maintain and improve the biodiversity 

and viability of forage. * * *’’ 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

commenters that including a definition 

for biological diversity improves 

understanding of the regulation. 

Therefore, USDA adds a definition for 

biological diversity to the final rule that 

reads as follows: ‘‘Biological diversity 

means the variety and variability among 

living organisms and the ecological 

complexes in which they live.’’ USDA 

removed the definition for the term 

‘‘plant and animal biodiversity’’ because 

this term is no longer needed. 

Common grazing practices are 

allowable uses in a local area. Plant 

species composition is considered in the 

development of GRP management plans. 

Because specific grazing practices vary 

by region, they may or may not improve 

biodiversity. While GRP emphasizes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

support of biodiversity, common grazing 

practices customary to the region are 

allowed. No change was made to the 

definition of common grazing practices 

in the final rule. 

Conservation Plan 

Comments: One commenter requested 

USDA expand the definition of 

conservation plan to reflect all grassland 

values. Specifically, the commenter 

requested the definition be amended as 

follows: ‘‘conservation plan means a 

record of the GRP participant’s 

decisions and supporting information 

that will be developed to address 

resource concerns in addition to grazing 

land uses. The conservation plan will 

describe the conservation values of the 

grassland or shrubland to be addressed 

and will include. * * *’’ 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

comment and added the definition of 

GRP management plan to include a 

conservation plan. The GRP 

management plan means the document 

developed by NRCS that describes the 

implementation of the grazing 

management system consistent with the 

prescribed grazing standard contained 

in the FOTG. The GRP management 

plan will include a description of the 

grazing management system, 

permissible and prohibited activities, 

any associated restoration plan or 

conservation plan if applicable, and a 

description of USDA’s right of ingress 

and egress. 

A conservation plan will be accepted 

as a GRP management plan and will 

describe the implementation and 

maintenance of grazing management 

and conservation practices directly 

related to eligibility criteria under 

which the land is enrolled. 

Conservation Values 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended USDA revise the 

definition of conservation values to 

mean those natural resource attributes 

that ‘‘sustain and enhance ecosystem 

functions and values of grasslands and 

shrublands including, but not limited 

to, native plant and animal biodiversity, 

habitat for native grassland and 

shrubland. * * *’’ 

Response: The purpose of GRP is to 

assist owners and operators to protect 

grazing use and related conservation 

values. Improved range and pasture 

which protect grazing uses may or may 

not include native grasslands as a 

related conservation value. USDA did 

not restrict the definition of 

conservation value to only native plants 

and animals since the primary purpose 

of the program is to protect grazing uses. 

However, USDA agrees the definition 

can be improved. Therefore, the 

definition has been amended to read 

‘‘Conservation values means those 

natural resource attributes that sustain 

and enhance ecosystem functions and 

values of the grassland area including, 

but not limited to, habitat for grassland 

and shrubland dependent plants and 

animals, native plant and animal 

biodiversity, soil erosion control, forage 

production, and air and water quality 

protection.’’ 

Enhancement 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

that the definition of enhancement 

refers to the viability of grassland 

resources but fails to recognize grazing 

values. The definition only refers to 

wildlife habitat, which is just one 

purpose of the program. The commenter 

wants the definition of enhancement to 

recognize grazing values. 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

comment and added grazing resources 

to the definition. 

Grazing Management Plan 

Comments: Several comments were 

received regarding the definition of 

grazing management plans. They 

expressed that the grazing management 

plan should always be associated with 

a conservation plan and recommended 

rewording the definition to reflect this. 

One specific concern is that grazing 

management plans will not address 

related conservation values; another 

concern is that the definition of grazing 

management plans does not accomplish 

the protection of related conservation 

values and is not consistent with the 

stated intent of the managers to ensure 

conservation purposes are met. 

One commenter recommended 

specific amendatory language to read: 

‘‘The grazing management plan will 

include a description of the grazing 

management system, permissible and 

prohibited activities, an associated 

conservation plan, any associated 

restoration plan, if applicable, and a 

description of USDA’s right of ingress 

and egress.’’ Other commenters also 

expressed that requiring participants 

and grantees to develop and follow two 

separate plans adds complexity and 

confusion. Section 1415.4(c) indicates 

participants may have to agree to and 

implement a grazing management plan 

and a conservation plan when a 

participant receives ranking points for 

resource concerns other than grazing 

resources. A more practicable approach 

would be to require the grazing 

management plan to incorporate 

specific conservation objectives if the 

application is accepted because of State 

priorities for local conservation needs. 

They want to stress that any 

management plan must be developed 

and agreed to by the grantor and grantee 

prior to the closing of the easement 

deed. Furthermore, especially for land 

in perpetual easements, it may be 

necessary to modify or restructure 

management plans as environmental 

conditions and grassland management 

knowledge and opportunities develop in 

the future. 

Response: USDA agrees that the 

language in the interim final rule is 

confusing regarding when a grazing 

management plan is required and when 

a conservation plan is required. This 

final rule changes the definition of 

‘‘grazing management plan’’ to a ‘‘GRP 

management plan’’ as the minimum 

planning requirement for GRP 

participation. A conservation plan is not 

required, but can be used as a GRP 

management plan for certain lands 

enrolled in the program. The prescribed 

grazing standard used for developing a 

GRP management plan does address 

related conservation values because it 

includes vegetation and forage 

management, water quality and 

quantity, riparian and watershed 

function, soil erosion and condition, 

wildlife, and prescribed fire. 

USDA revised the language in 

§ 1415.4(c) to read that all participants 

in GRP are required to implement a GRP 

management plan approved by NRCS. 

NRCS will develop GRP management 

plans with eligible entities. In cases 

where a participant receives ranking 

points on the basis of resource concerns 

other than grazing land concerns, all 

such resource concerns will be 

addressed in an applicable conservation 

plan. 

Infrastructure 

Comments: The interim final rule 

amendment discusses the footprint of 

the related infrastructure but does not 

include a definition. USDA received 

comments that suggested describing the 

infrastructure of power generation 

facilities to include transmission 

corridors and roads. 

Response: USDA did not adopt the 

recommendation to add a definition for 

the term infrastructure. Specific 

infrastructure needs may vary from 

project-to-project and are difficult to 

define. Since USDA will conduct sitespecific environmental analysis for 

proposed projects associated with 

renewable energy, the specific types of 

infrastructure will be addressed on a 

case-by-case basis. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73921 

Native 

Comments: USDA received multiple 

comments recommending that GRP be 

restricted to native grassland systems. 

Response: The GRP statute provides 

that the purpose of the program is to 

‘‘assist owners and operators in 

protecting grazing uses and related 

conservation values. * * *’’ Native 

grasslands are included in program 

purposes, as are improved rangeland 

and pastureland for which grazing is the 

predominant use. Priority for native 

grasslands can be addressed through the 

ranking process. Native grasslands can 

be a priority at either the national, State, 

or regional level. No changes were made 

to the final rule. 

Nesting Season 

Comments: GRP participants are 

permitted to hay, mow, or harvest for 

seed production subject to appropriate 

restrictions, as determined by the State 

Conservationist, during the nesting 

season for birds in the local area that are 

in significant decline, or are conserved 

in accordance with Federal or State law. 

The interim final rule defined nesting 

season as the time of year that animals 

(birds and others) build or otherwise 

find a place of refuge for purposes of 

reproduction or dormancy. Commenters 

requested clarification of the intent of 

the term dormancy in the definition. 

USDA received a number of comments 

on the definition of nesting season 

including clarifying or removing the 

phrase ‘‘subject to appropriate 

restrictions;’’ insert ‘‘birds and other 

animals’’ in place of birds and others; 

and clarify ‘‘or dormancy.’’ 

Response: The GRP statute identifies 

birds in the local area that are in 

significant decline. For clarification, 

given the specificity in the statute, 

USDA revises the definition of nesting 

season to read ‘‘the time of year that 

grassland dependent birds in significant 

decline in the local area build nests or 

otherwise find a place of refuge for 

purposes of reproduction.’’ NRCS 

identifies the bird species and nesting 

season in the GRP management plan. 

Purchase Price 

Comments: USDA received comments 

expressing that the rule goes beyond 

statutory authority to define the term 

purchase price in such a way as to 

require a cash match from the eligible 

entity, which the statute does not 

require. The commenters suggested that 

the eligible entity at least match the 

Secretary with a combination of cash 

and landowner donation. 

Response: USDA has revised the 

definition of purchase price to read 

‘‘Purchase price means the amount paid 

to acquire an easement under a 

cooperative agreement between NRCS 

and an eligible entity. It is the fair 

market value of the easement.’’ This 

change allows landowner donations to 

count as part of the entity share. 

Shrubland 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended USDA remove the 

following words from the shrubland 

definition: ‘‘and generally produces 

several basal shoots instead of a single 

bole.’’ The commenter explained there is 

a number of shrubland species that are 

single boled and such distinction is not 

necessary to include in this definition. 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

comment and has changed the 

definition in the final rule. 

Easements or Agreements (Duration) 

Comments: One commenter disagreed 

with the removal of the 30-year rental 

agreement as an enrollment option. The 

commenter supports shorter-term 

easements and cost-share agreements 

over permanent easements. 

Response: The removal of the 30-year 

agreement and easement options was 

the result of the 2008 Act, and therefore, 

USDA has no discretion to change it. No 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Easements or Agreements (60/40 Split) 

Comments: USDA received four 

comments on the statutory requirement 

that the Secretary will use, to the extent 

practicable, 40 percent of the funds for 

rental contracts and 60 percent of the 

funds for easements. The interim final 

rule provides that USDA will manage 

the program nationally to ensure that, to 

the extent practicable, ‘‘no more than 60 

percent of the funds are used for the 

purchase of easements * * * and no 

more than 40 percent of the funds are 

used for rental contracts.’’ The 

commenters recommended USDA drop 

the ‘‘no more than’’ language since it is 

not required in statute and is 

unnecessarily limiting. 

Response: USDA agrees that the 

phrase ‘‘no more than’’ creates an 

inflexibility that was not established in 

statute. Further, it creates an impractical 

impediment to efficient program 

implementation. Therefore, USDA 

removed ‘‘no more than’’ in § 1415.8(j). 

Ecosystem Credits 

Comments: Three comments were 

received requesting § 1415.10(h) be 

revised to be consistent with the 

Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) 

regulation in 7 CFR part 625. 

Response: The following revision was 

made to § 1415.10(h) to be consistent 

with HFRP: 

USDA recognizes that environmental 

benefits will be achieved by implementing 

conservation practices and activities funded 

through GRP, and that ecosystem credits may 

be gained as a result of implementing 

activities compatible with the purposes of a 

GRP easement, rental contract, or associated 

restoration agreement. USDA asserts no 

direct or indirect interest in these credits 

except: 

(1) In the event the participant sells or 

trades credits arising from GRP funded 

activities, USDA retains the authority to 

ensure that the requirements for GRP rental 

contracts, easements, or restoration 

agreements are met and maintained 

consistent with this part; and 

(2) If activities required under an 

ecosystem credit agreement may affect land 

covered under a GRP rental contract, 

easement, or restoration agreement, 

participants are highly encouraged to request 

an assessment from USDA about the 

compatibility of the activity prior to entering 

into such agreements. 

Enrollment Requirements 

Comments: In addition to the requests 

to amend the definition of grazing 

management plan as explained above, 

USDA received requests to revise the 

second sentence of § 1415.9(e) to read 

‘‘NRCS will proceed with the 

development of the grazing and 

conservation management plans and 

the restoration plan, if applicable.’’ The 

commenters expressed that all grazing 

management plans should be part of a 

conservation plan which addresses 

related conservation values associated 

with the program purpose. 

Response: Grazing management plans 

are usually a part of a conservation plan. 

The GRP management plan includes 

grazing, conservation, and restoration 

planning. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern about policy related to crop 

acreage bases in § 1415.4(l). Paragraph 

(l) requires rental contract participants 

to suspend any existing cropland base 

and allotment history for the land under 

another program administered by the 

Secretary. The commenter expressed 

support for allowing producers to 

maintain their crop base history as long 

as the producer has met all contract 

obligations. However, the commenter 

recommends that if program payments 

are reduced or delayed for 90 days or 

longer, the producer should have the 

option to withdraw from the contract 

without penalty, and program crop 

bases would be restored to their prior 

level. 

Response: GRP rental contracts are 

fully funded for all years under the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

contract once it is approved and signed 

by the CCC. USDA does not foresee a 

situation where producer’s payments 

could be delayed for 90 days; therefore, 

no changes were made to the final rule. 

General 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that § 1415.4(h)(4) be 

revised to read: ‘‘Grazing related 

activities, such as fencing and livestock 

watering facilities, provided that such 

activities will not adversely affect the 

related conservation values, including 

habitat for grassland and shrubland 

dependent birds and other animals.’’ 

Response: All permitted activities 

listed under § 1415.4(h) must be 

consistent with the conservation 

easement deed or rental contract terms. 

Permitted activities, such as grazing 

related activities, must also follow the 

GRP management plan and be 

consistent with GRP purposes, 

including related conservation values 

and appropriate restrictions during the 

nesting season for birds in the local area 

that are in significant decline. 

Comments: USDA received one 

comment on the provisions related to 

permitted activities in § 1415.4(h)(6) 

that describes limits on infrastructure 

development along existing right-ofways. The commenter identified that the 

text appears to prohibit any 

development on future right-of-ways. It 

was suggested that USDA and the 

grantee should have the ability to use 

discretion for future right-of-ways, 

especially when it is determined to be 

in the public benefit and grassland 

resources and related conservation 

values will not be adversely impacted. 

Response: USDA recognizes the 

difficulty related to developing 

agreements without complete foresight 

into the potential future needs for the 

enrolled property. However, USDA does 

not have the statutory authority to 

amend GRP conservation easements. 

Therefore, USDA cannot amend an 

easement to reflect future right-of-ways. 

No changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter supports 

the use of the grazing management plan 

as the primary plan for GRP 

participants. No matter which of these 

plans are used (conservation plans, 

restoration plans, and grazing 

management plans), the commenter 

believed that landowners operating 

under these plans or agreements should 

have assurance they will not be found 

in violation of the Endangered Species 

Act or other Federal or State 

environmental laws by implementing 

their requirements. 

Response: USDA follows its National 

Planning and Procedures Handbook in 

the development of GRP management 

plans to ensure that conservation 

practices are identified in accordance 

with NRCS standards and 

specifications. While the GRP 

management plans identify the 

management activities the landowner 

will conduct on the easement area, 

including implementation of 

conservation practices, the 

identification of an activity in a plan 

does not bestow upon the activity 

immunity from other legal requirements 

that a landowner must follow when 

conducting activities on private land, 

nor do USDA approvals bind other 

Federal or State agencies in the 

implementation of their own 

regulations. A landowner remains 

responsible for ensuring the activities 

conducted on his or her farm or ranch 

operation are in compliance with the 

law, including obtaining any necessary 

permits or approvals by other 

governmental entities. No changes were 

made to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended an increase in the 

percentage of incidental land allowed. 

The commenter expressed that limiting 

the amount of incidental land that may 

be included in the GRP easement to 10 

percent will result in awkward 

configurations that may not be the best 

conservation outcome and may be 

difficult to steward. 

Response: The regulation does not 

limit incidental land to a percentage. 

The interim final rule provided in 

§ 1415.5(c) that incidental land may be 

considered for enrollment to allow for 

the efficient administration of an 

easement or rental contract. The rule 

did not specify a percentage. Since the 

regulation provides USDA the flexibility 

to make determinations about incidental 

land, no changes were made to the final 

rule. 

Comments: One commenter strongly 

disagreed with the statement in the 

preamble (in the section entitled 

Summary of 2008 Act Changes) that the 

expansion of the statement of purposes 

was intended to change the program’s 

focus from protecting, conserving, and 

restoring grassland resources on private 

lands. Both the 2002 Act and the 2008 

Act referred to restoring and conserving 

eligible land. The commenters 

identified that no language in the statute 

or the Statement of Managers supports 

the interpretation the agency has 

apparently taken that the addition of the 

reference to grazing uses represents a 

significant shift that justifies a 

decreased focus in the rule on meeting 

the program’s conservation purposes. 

The commenter expressed that it is 

important to make this point because 

the change in program purposes in the 

statute is cited in the preamble to the 

interim final rule as justification for a 

number of changes USDA has made to 

the final rule. For example, the change 

in purposes is cited to support the 

agency’s decision to remove in 

§ 1415.1(b), the statement that one of the 

objectives of GRP is to emphasize 

preservation of native and naturalized 

grasslands and shrublands. The 

preamble states that the change in 

program purposes means that the 

program is not limited to native and 

naturalized grasslands. 

Response: The change in emphasis 

was made to implement the intent of 

Congress as indicated in the statutory 

changes made in the new Farm Bill. 

Specifically, the statute states that the 

purpose of GRP is to assist owners and 

operators in protecting grazing uses and 

related conservation values. The 

previous statute emphasized 

preservation of native and naturalized 

grasslands and shrublands. Native 

grasslands are included in program 

purposes in this statute, as are improved 

rangeland and pastureland for which 

grazing is the predominant use. 

Applications are evaluated and ranked 

to emphasize support for grazing 

operations, plant and animal 

biodiversity, and threat to conversion to 

uses other than grazing. Native grasses 

are considered during the ranking 

process, and native grasslands are 

considered as part of the biodiversity 

emphasis. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Land Eligibility 

Comments: Two commenters 

supported the policy that allows and 

gives priority to enrollment of expiring 

CRP lands and for continuing to 

recognize the value of native grasslands. 

One commenter that recommended 

priority to native grasslands also 

suggested that expiring CRP, that was 

not established to native grasslands but 

that supported lesser or greater prairie 

chickens, should be an exception to a 

priority of native grasslands. 

Response: USDA appreciates the 

support for its policies and maintains 

decisionmaking responsibilities at the 

lowest level reasonable. Priority for 

expiring CRP is authorized in 16 U.S.C. 

3838n(A). Determination of the high 

ecological value and threat of 

conversion to uses other than grazing of 

these lands is determined by the State 

Conservationist, with input from the 

State Technical Committee. Local 

stakeholders do have the opportunity in 

GRP to provide input on land eligibility 

by participating in local working groups 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73923 

authorized under 7 CFR part 610. No 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: Three commenters 

recommended adding the word native 

in § 1415.5(b)(2)(i). 

Response: The purpose of GRP is to 

assist owners and operators in 

protecting grazing uses and related 

conservation values, and USDA 

recognizes the value of conserving 

native grasslands. USDA does not want 

to limit land eligibility to only native 

grasslands because this would preclude 

acceptance of other significant habitats 

such as expiring CRP lands with nonnative grasses supporting lesser or 

greater prairie chickens. No changes 

were made to the final rule. 

Comments: Two commenters 

suggested USDA coordinate with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

State fish and wildlife agencies when 

assessing potential impact of third party 

mineral rights for a GRP easement under 

§ 1415.5(e). Another commenter 

believes that § 1415.5(e) will make it 

possible to place a GRP easement on a 

property with a split estate. 

Response: Gas, oil, earth, or other 

mineral rights exploration may have 

adverse affects on the conservation 

values the GRP is protecting. USDA 

reserves the right to deny funding when 

there are exceptions to clear title on a 

property offered for a GRP easement that 

may undermine the purposes for which 

the United States acquired the 

easement. As part of its due diligence to 

determine whether outstanding rights 

may impact the conservation values, 

USDA will require a mineral remoteness 

test for any property with severed 

mineral rights. Consultation with the 

USFWS and State fish and wildlife 

agencies would not determine the 

potential for extraction of resources; 

therefore, no changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: One commenter 

appreciated the recognition of State, 

regional, and national conservation 

priorities and the inclusion of incidental 

lands under § 1415.5. 

Response: USDA agrees with the 

comment and appreciates support of its 

policies. 

Comments: One commenter believes 

that § 1415.5(b)(1) will allow USDA to 

target large tracts of grassland in the 

West. 

Response: Grasslands, land that 

contains forbs, or shrubland, for which 

grazing is the predominant use, are 

eligible for funding consideration. 

Lands located in areas historically 

dominated by grassland, forbs, or 

shrubland that is compatible with 

grazing uses and related conservation 

values are also eligible. USDA is not 

targeting any particular region of the 

country. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Misrepresentation and Violations 

Comments: One commentor requested 

that USDA revise § 1415.14(b)(2) and (3) 

to include provisions for NRCS or an 

easement holder representative to enter 

easement lands when there is an 

easement violation and to allow both 

NRCS and an easement holder, who 

acquires an easement in accordance 

with either § 1415.17 or § 1415.18, to 

monitor the easement for violations. 

Response: Section 1415.14 includes 

provisions for when the United States 

remains the easement holder. Sections 

1415.17 and 1415.18 include provisions 

for when someone other than the United 

States holds title to the deed. The GRP 

deed provides ‘‘Upon notification to the 

grantor, grantee, or grantee’s agents may 

enter the property to inspect for 

violations including, but not limited to, 

assessing compliance with the GRP 

management plan. However, 

notification by the grantee prior to entry 

is not required when the grantee 

believes there may be a violation of the 

terms of this deed. If the grantee finds 

a violation, the grantee may at its 

discretion take appropriate legal action 

in law or equity. Upon discovery of a 

violation, the grantee will notify the 

grantor in writing of the violation. 

Except when an ongoing or imminent 

violation could, as determined by 

grantee, seriously impair the 

conservation values of the property, the 

grantee will give the grantor written 

notice of the violation and 30 days to 

correct it before filing any legal action.’’ 

Participant 

Comments: Two commenters 

recommended adding the following 

phrase to § 1415.4(h)(6): ‘‘ * * * when 

it is determined by NRCS, in 

consultation with USFWS and State fish 

and wildlife agencies, that granting such 

right-of-way. * * *’’ 

Response: USDA recognizes the need 

to engage appropriate expertise when 

considering allowing infrastructure 

development. Each State Technical 

Committee includes USFWS and State 

and fish wildlife agencies. USDA will 

coordinate with those agencies when 

evaluating any allowable activities. No 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Program Requirements 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

removing any restrictions to haying, 

mowing, or harvesting for seed 

production, stating that there should not 

be any restrictions on GRP land due to 

nesting season. The commenter also 

suggested that restrictions during the 

nesting season may be considered as 

part of a grazing management plan only 

if it is in the interest of the landowner. 

Response: These restrictions are 

required by section 1238O(d)(1)(B) of 

the Food Security Act of 1985, as 

amended. Haying, mowing, or 

harvesting for seed production were 

made permissible activities provided 

appropriate restrictions were in place to 

protect birds in the local area that are in 

significant decline or are conserved in 

accordance with Federal or State law. 

No changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested adding the words other 

animals after birds in the restriction to 

haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed 

production in § 1415(h)(2). 

Response: Haying, mowing, or 

harvesting for seed production may 

impact habitat for grassland dependent 

bird species if done during the nesting 

season in some areas. USDA agrees that 

other animals may also be impacted in 

local areas. The State Conservationist 

has authority to determine these 

impacts based upon species concerns at 

the local level. No changes were made 

to the final rule. 

Comments: Two commenters 

suggested adding ‘‘and related 

conservation values’’ in § 1415.4(i)(1) 

and § 1415.4(i)(2). One of the 

commenters also suggested that 

orchards be specifically prohibited. 

Response: USDA agrees that 

consistent terms should be used in both 

§ 1415.4(i)(1) and § 1415.4(i)(2) and so 

has added the phrase ‘‘and related 

conservation values’’ to both sections in 

the final rule. Because orchards include 

fruit trees, as well as other agricultural 

commodities such as nuts, USDA has 

revised § 1415.4(i)(1) to read: ‘‘The 

production of crops (other than hay), 

orchards, vineyards, or other 

agricultural commodity that is 

inconsistent with maintaining grazing 

land and related conservation values.’’ 

Ranking 

Comments: Three commenters 

requested USDA insert in § 1415.8(i)(2) 

the words ‘‘with advice from the State 

Technical Committee’’ after USDA to 

ensure informed decisions regarding 

high ecological value and significant 

threats. 

Response: USDA accepts the 

comment and has revised § 1415.8(i)(2) 

accordingly. 

Comments: Section 1415.8(i)(4) 

provides that expired CRP land enrolled 

under the CRP priority will not exceed 

10 percent of the total number of acres 

accepted for enrollment in GRP in any 

year. Three commenters requested 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

USDA insert national before enrollment 

so that the CRP 10 percent limitation is 

managed at a national level. Another 

commenter requested USDA limit use of 

the CRP priority enrollment to areas 

where there is little or no remnant 

native prairie available. 

Response: Because the CRP 

enrollment is managed nationally, the 

suggested change was made to 

§ 1415.8(i)(4). USDA supports 

decisionmaking at the lowest level 

reasonable and believes that States with 

expiring CRP acres in areas with little or 

no remnant native prairie will rank 

these applications appropriately. 

Comments: USDA received multiple 

requests to give the highest priority to 

native grasslands. 

Response: No changes were made to 

the final rule. The statutory language 

does not restrict GRP to native grassland 

systems. There are situations in which 

the native habitat has been destroyed 

and introduced species are utilized to 

protect soil resources. The insertion of 

the term native would create a barrier 

for participation in those situations. 

Additionally, the GRP management plan 

addresses plant composition and is 

written to accomplish grazing 

management objectives, including 

biodiversity. 

Restoration Agreements 

The interim final rule in § 1415.11(g) 

provides if the participant is receiving 

cost-share for the same conservation 

practice or activity from another 

conservation program, USDA will adjust 

the GRP cost-share rate proportionately 

so that the amount received by the 

participant does not exceed 100 percent 

of the costs of restoration. The 

participant cannot receive cost-share 

from more than one USDA cost-share 

program for the same conservation 

practice or activity on the same land. 

Comments: Two commenters 

recommended changing another 

conservation program to another Federal 

source. USDA and the States need the 

ability to use other non-Federal funding 

sources and opportunities to facilitate 

implementation. Both commenters also 

expressed that the paragraph was 

confusing as written. 

Response: To reduce confusion, NRCS 

separated § 1415.11(g) into two 

paragraphs, paragraphs (g) and (h), to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(g) If the participant is receiving cost-share 

for the same conservation practice or activity 

from another conservation program, USDA 

will adjust the GRP cost-share rate 

proportionately so that the amount received 

by the participant does not exceed 100 

percent of the costs of restoration. 

(h) The participant cannot receive costshare from more than one USDA cost-share 

program for the same conservation practice 

or activity on the same land. 

Regarding the cost-share limitation 

language, USDA believes that the 

Federal cost-share assistance 

contribution should not enable a 

participant to receive more than 100 

percent of the cost of the practice, no 

matter what the source. No changes 

were made to the final rule. 

Windmills 

Comments: In response to USDA’s 

specific request for public comment on 

its policy related to windmill 

placement, the following comments 

were received: 

(a) The GRP statute does not 

specifically address wind turbines or 

renewable energy within context of 

GRP. It is not authorized. Based on soil 

disturbance and associated road 

infrastructure needed for maintenance, 

as well as potential power substations, 

wind turbines should not be allowed 

with GRP. Wind turbines are not 

consistent with the GRP purpose to 

protect grazing uses and related 

conservation values or priority to land 

that could provide habitat for animal or 

plant populations of significant 

ecological value. 

(b) USDA should revise the preamble 

to read: 

* * * USDA will follow the guidelines 

being developed by the USFWS on avoiding 

and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind 

turbines. Until the guidelines are published, 

USDA will assess potential wildlife impacts 

in coordination with USFWS and the 

appropriate State fish and wildlife agency 

before authorizing any wind power 

generation facilities (on-farm or off-farm) on 

GRP lands. USDA will authorize power 

generation facilities only when the footprint 

of the facility and related infrastructure 

would have a minimal impact on the nature 

of the grazing lands and other conservation 

values obtained through the contract or 

easement. 

(c) One commenter was encouraged 

by open communication and 

coordination between USDA and 

interested stakeholders to develop a 

consistent process for determining 

impacts from wind and solar generation 

and related infrastructure to grassland 

and migratory wildlife and other natural 

resources. The commenter expressed 

support for USDA following USFWS 

guidelines to minimize wildlife impacts 

in landscapes where wind energy 

development is pursued. The 

commenter asked that USDA consider 

site-specific scale of energy generation 

facilities and impact on original intent 

and purpose of GRP. 

(d) The siting of wind power 

generation facilities must be consistent 

with the voluntary program’s goal of 

protecting grassland for which grazing is 

the predominant use. Clearly, wind 

power generation for any end-user is 

consistent with a voluntary grazing 

program. The final rule should 

acknowledge this. Requirements for an 

onsite evaluation to determine potential 

impacts from wind generation on 

threatened and endangered species or 

at-risk species, etc. should be removed. 

In addition § 1415.4(i)(3) also prohibits 

wind power generation and should be 

removed from the final rule. It should 

make no difference to USDA if the wind 

power is being generated for on-farm 

use or for sale to electrical generators. 

(e) One commenter recommended that 

existing or future State or Federal 

regulatory siting documents be used for 

wind energy developments proposed on 

GRP easements to minimize adverse 

effects on biodiversity. 

(f) Impact to wildlife and habitat from 

power generation facilities are often 

cumulative across the landscape. The 

commenter recommended analyses 

conducted on a case-by-case basis that 

includes larger, landscape consideration 

as part of the NEPA review. NRCS will 

still have to coordinate with USFWS 

and the appropriate State fish and 

wildlife agency in order to allow power 

generation facilities that do not 

adversely affect biodiversity. 

(g) Multiple comments were received 

that NRCS should consult with USFWS 

until the guidelines for windmill sitings 

are finalized. Some recommended 

USDA revise § 1415.4(h)(5) to read: ‘‘In 

addition, USDA will follow the 

guidelines being developed by the 

USFWS on avoiding and minimizing 

wildlife impacts from wind turbines. 

USDA will authorize wind power 

facilities only when the footprint of the 

facility and related infrastructure would 

have a minimal impact on the nature of 

the grazing lands and other conservation 

values obtained through the contract or 

easement.’’ 

(h) Four commenters agreed with the 

language in the interim final rule that 

limits consideration for windmill 

placement to on-farm use only. Another 

commended USDA for limiting wind 

power development on GRP easements. 

Footprint and associated disturbance 

can have adverse effects on biological 

diversity, a purpose of the program. 

(i) One commenter expressed that 

there may be instances for the marketing 

of excess electricity generation from 

smaller wind turbines and other 

renewable energy structures such as 

hydroelectric facilities and solar panels 

(designed for on-farm use) through netmetering or parallel electricity 

generation. USDA should consider 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73925 

allowing such small-scale use on GRP 

lands and allowing landowners to 

utilize the various renewable energy 

sources that are available, as long as 

they do not adversely impact the 

conservation values. 

Response: USDA will consider 

potential renewable energy on GRP 

lands when the scope and scale of the 

facility and associated infrastructure is 

consistent with protection of grazing 

uses and related conservation values. A 

site-specific analysis of the potential 

environmental effects will be conducted 

in consultation with the USFWS. USDA 

will not authorize any renewable energy 

generating facilities on GRP lands 

unless USDA determines, based on a 

site-specific NEPA environmental 

analysis conducted in coordination with 

USFWS and the appropriate State fish 

and wildlife agency, that there will be 

no adverse effect on threatened, 

endangered, or other at-risk species, 

migratory wildlife, or related natural 

resources, cultural resources, or the 

human environment or when the 

impacts of such facilities can be 

mitigated to a level of non-significance. 

Furthermore, USDA will only authorize 

power generation facilities after 

evaluating their site-specific and 

cumulative environmental effects, 

whether a reasonable alternative exists, 

whether there is a compelling public 

need, whether the purposes for which 

the easement was acquired can be 

maintained, and the degree to which the 

footprint of the facility and related 

infrastructure impacts the nature of the 

grazing lands and other conservation 

values obtained through the contract or 

easement. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Other 

Comments: Several comments were 

received regarding the content of the 

GRP conservation easement deed. One 

commenter recommended that USDA 

omit the language in the deed that 

prohibits any activity that breaks the 

surface of the soil. Another commenter 

suggested that USDA’s easement 

template deed be modified, and urged 

USDA to consider submitting a draft 

GRP easement deed for public review 

and comment before sign-up begins. 

Another commenter suggested that 

language be added to allow for periodic 

inspection upon appropriate notice to 

the landowner in § 1415.18(b). Another 

commenter suggested that requiring 

notices to be in writing and personally 

delivered or sent by certified return 

receipt would be over-burdensome and 

that electronic e-mail correspondence 

would be sufficient. 

Response: With the changes made to 

GRP by section 2403 of the 2008 Act, 

the GRP deed was changed, and the 

prohibition against breaking the surface 

of the soil was removed. Other changes 

include the requirement that all GRP 

easements will be permanent or the 

maximum duration allowed under State 

law. The GRP template deed ensures 

legal requirements of the authorizing 

legislation are met and is reviewed by 

USDA attorneys for legal sufficiency. 

USDA may also accept conservation 

easements owned, written, and enforced 

by eligible entities through a 

cooperative agreement. All GRP deeds 

require notification to the landowner 

prior to entering the property. In 

§ 1415.18(b), if USDA transfers title of 

ownership of an easement to an eligible 

entity, the terms and conditions of the 

deed remain in force, thus USDA or the 

eligible entity will be required to notify 

a landowner prior to entering a 

property. USDA has an established deed 

review process. No changes were made 

to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter 

questioned the need to require prior 

approval in writing for every instance of 

applying animal waste to property 

subject to a GRP easement. 

Response: The required GRP 

management plan addresses application 

of animal waste and can be updated 

with changes to the grazing management 

system. A written approval is not 

required for each instance of applying 

animal waste or fertilizer. The GRP deed 

supports the program requirement of a 

written grazing management plan. No 

changes were made to the final rule. 

Comments: One commenter points 

out that grasslands desirable for GRP 

participation are in remote areas where 

future public utility access may be 

unavoidable. The commenter supports 

the prohibition of development, but 

suggests that a total prohibition will 

invite unnecessary conflicts between 

public utility interests, neighbors, 

governments, and GRP participants. The 

commenter suggested language that 

ensures that any public utility access 

must be done in a manner that 

maintains the grassland and that other 

conservation values is sufficient to 

preserve the objectives of the program. 

Response: USDA understands the 

commenter’s concerns and is aware that 

easement deeds typically include 

modification provisions if the 

modification serves the conservation 

purposes of the easement. USDA does 

not currently have legal authority to 

change the substantive terms of a GRP 

conservation easement once it has been 

recorded. Specifically, modifications 

that would not result in acquisition or 

divestiture of additional property rights 

cannot be made. USDA will not 

knowingly enroll GRP easements in 

areas located along potential right-ofways for infrastructure projects and will 

include adequate buffers on existing 

infrastructure to allow for inevitable 

expansion. Additionally, the current 

deed will allow for utility easements 

that service the needs of the 

landowner’s operation. 

Comments: One commenter says that 

controlling wildlife damage is a critical 

factor in maintaining the success of 

American agriculture and suggests 

language that recognizes the lawful 

ability of landowners to remove trees, 

brush, and wildlife that may be 

jeopardizing agricultural or livestock 

enterprises. 

Response: USDA understands the 

rights of private landowners and utilizes 

conservation easements on a voluntary 

basis. GRP assists landowners and 

operators in protecting grazing uses and 

related conservation values. Protection 

of related conservation values, such as 

habitat for wildlife under GRP, may not 

be consistent with some landowner’s 

desires. Consequently, USDA 

encourages landowners and operators to 

consider their decision to enroll in any 

conservation easement program 

carefully. No changes were made to the 

final rule. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

clarification that the regulations require 

consultation with Indian Tribes when 

actions USDA funds off the reservation 

directly impact a treaty reserved 

resource of the Tribes. 

Response: USDA will comply with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and all applicable 

Federal laws, including treaties and 

executive orders. No changes were made 

to the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1415 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, agriculture, soil 

conservation, grassland, grassland 

protection, grazing land protection. 

■ For reasons stated above, the CCC 

revises part 1415 of Title 7 of the CFR 

to read as follows: 

PART 1415—GRASSLANDS RESERVE 

PROGRAM 

Sec. 

1415.1 Purpose. 

1415.2 Administration. 

1415.3 Definitions. 

1415.4 Program requirements. 

1415.5 Land eligibility. 

1415.6 Participant eligibility. 

1415.7 Application procedures. 

1415.8 Establishing priority for enrollment 

of properties. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1415.9 Enrollment of easements and rental 

contracts. 

1415.10 Compensation for easements and 

rental contracts acquired by the 

Secretary. 

1415.11 Restoration agreements. 

1415.12 Modifications to easements and 

rental contracts. 

1415.13 Transfer of land. 

1415.14 Misrepresentation and violations. 

1415.15 Payments not subject to claims. 

1415.16 Assignments. 

1415.17 Cooperative agreements. 

1415.18 Easement transfer to eligible 

entities. 

1415.19 Appeals. 

1415.20 Scheme or device. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838n–3838q. 

§ 1415.1 Purpose. 

(a) The purpose of the Grassland 

Reserve Program (GRP) is to assist 

landowners and operators in protecting 

grazing uses and related conservation 

values by conserving and restoring 

grassland resources on eligible private 

lands through rental contracts, 

easements, and restoration agreements. 

(b) GRP emphasizes: 

(1) Supporting grazing operations; 

(2) Maintaining and improving plant 

and animal biodiversity; and 

(3) Protecting grasslands and 

shrublands from the threat of 

conversion to uses other than grazing. 

§ 1415.2 Administration. 

(a) The regulations in this part set 

forth policies, procedures, and 

requirements for program 

implementation of GRP, as administered 

by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA). The regulations in this 

part are administered under the general 

supervision and direction of the NRCS 

Chief and the FSA Administrator. These 

two agency leaders: 

(1) Concur in the establishment of 

program policy and direction, 

development of the national allocation 

formula, and development of broad 

national ranking criteria; 

(2) Use a national allocation formula 

to provide GRP funds to NRCS State 

Conservationists and FSA State 

Executive Directors that emphasizes 

support for grazing operations, 

biodiversity of plants and animals, and 

grasslands under the greatest threat of 

conversion to uses other than grazing. 

The national allocation formula may 

also include additional factors related to 

improving program implementation, as 

determined by the NRCS Chief and the 

FSA Administrator. The allocation 

formula may be modified periodically to 

change the emphasis of any factor(s) in 

order to address a particular natural 

resource concern, such as the 

precipitous decline of a population of a 

grassland-dependent bird(s) or 

animal(s); 

(3) Ensure the national, State, and 

local-level information regarding 

program implementation is made 

available to the public; 

(4) Consult with USDA leaders at the 

State level and other Federal agencies 

with the appropriate expertise and 

information when evaluating program 

policies and direction; and 

(5) Authorize NRCS State 

Conservationists and FSA State 

Executive Directors to determine how 

funds will be used and how the program 

will be implemented at the State level. 

(b) At the State level, the NRCS State 

Conservationist and the FSA State 

Executive Director are jointly 

responsible for: 

(1) Determining how funds will be 

used and how the program will be 

implemented at the State level to 

achieve the program purposes; 

(2) Identifying State priorities for 

project selection based on input from 

the State Technical Committee; 

(3) Identifying Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) employees at the 

field level responsible for implementing 

the program by considering the nature 

and extent of natural resource concerns 

throughout the State and the availability 

of human resources to assist with 

activities related to program enrollment; 

(4) Developing, with advice from the 

State Technical Committee, program 

outreach materials at the State and local 

levels to help ensure landowners, 

operators, and tenants of eligible land 

are aware and informed that they may 

be eligible for the program; 

(5) Approving conservation practices 

eligible for cost-share and cost-share 

rates; 

(6) Developing GRP management 

plans and restoration agreements, when 

applicable; 

(7) Administering and enforcing the 

terms of easements and rental contracts 

unless this responsibility is transferred 

to an eligible entity as provided in 

§ 1415.17 and § 1415.18; and 

(8) Developing, with advice from the 

State Technical Committee, criteria for 

ranking eligible land consistent with 

national criteria and program objectives 

and State priorities. 

(c) The funds, facilities, and 

authorities of the Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC) are available to NRCS 

and FSA to implement GRP. 

(d) Subject to funding availability, the 

program may be implemented in any of 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United 

States, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

(e) The NRCS Chief or the FSA 

Administrator may modify or waive a 

provision of this part if he or she deems 

the application of that provision to a 

particular limited situation to be 

inappropriate and inconsistent with the 

conservation purposes and sound 

administration of GRP. This authority 

cannot be further delegated. No 

provision of this part, which is required 

by law, may be waived. 

(f) No delegation in this part to lower 

organizational levels will preclude the 

NRCS Chief or the FSA Administrator 

from determining any issue arising 

under this part or from reversing or 

modifying any determination arising 

from this part. 

(g) The USDA Forest Service may 

hold GRP easements on properties 

adjacent to USDA Forest Service land, 

with the consent of the landowner. 

(h) Program participation is voluntary. 

(i) Applications for participation will 

be accepted on a continual basis at local 

USDA Service Centers. Eligible entities 

wishing to enter into a cooperative 

agreement under § 1415.17 in order to 

purchase, own, write, and hold 

easements may apply on a continuous 

basis to the NRCS State Conservationist. 

The NRCS State Conservationist and 

FSA State Executive Director will 

establish cut-off periods to rank and 

select applications for participation. 

These cut-off periods will be available 

in program outreach material provided 

by the local USDA Service Center. Once 

funding levels have been exhausted, 

unfunded eligible applications will 

remain on file until they are funded or 

the applicant chooses to be removed 

from consideration. 

(j) The services of third parties as 

provided for in part 652 of this title may 

be used to provide technical services to 

participants. 

§ 1415.3 Definitions. 

Activity means an action other than a 

conservation practice that is included as 

a part of a GRP management or 

conservation plan that has the effect of 

alleviating problems or improving 

treatment of the resources, including 

ensuring proper management or 

maintenance of the functions and values 

restored, protected, or enhanced 

through an easement or rental contract. 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of FSA or the person 

delegated authority to act for the 

Administrator. 

Applicant means a person, legal 

entity, joint operator, or Indian Tribe 

who applies to participate in the 

program. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73927 

Chief means the Chief of NRCS or 

designee. 

Biological diversity means the variety 

and variability among living organisms 

and the ecological complexes in which 

they live. 

Commodity Credit Corporation is a 

government-owned and operated entity 

that was created to stabilize, support, 

and protect farm income and prices. The 

CCC is managed by a Board of Directors, 

subject to the general supervision and 

direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

who is an ex-officio director and 

chairperson of the Board. The CCC 

provides the funding for GRP, and FSA 

and NRCS administer GRP on its behalf. 

Common grazing practices means 

those grazing practices, including those 

related to forage and seed production, 

common to the area of the subject 

ranching or farming operation. Included 

are routine management activities 

necessary to maintain the viability of 

forage or browse resources that are 

common to the locale of the subject 

ranching or farming operation. 

Conservation district means any 

district or unit of State, Tribal, or local 

government formed under State, Tribal, 

or territorial law for the express purpose 

of developing and carrying out a local 

soil and water conservation program. 

Such district or unit of government may 

be referred to as a conservation district, 

soil conservation district, soil and water 

conservation district, resource 

conservation district, natural resource 

district, land conservation committee, or 

similar name. 

Conservation plan means a record of 

the GRP participants’ decisions and 

supporting information that will be 

developed to address resource concerns 

in addition to grazing land uses. The 

conservation plan will describe the 

implementation and maintenance of 

GRP management and conservation 

practices directly related to any 

additional land eligibility criteria under 

which the land is enrolled. Additional 

land eligibility criteria may include, but 

is not limited to, significant animal or 

plant habitat and historical or 

archeological resources. 

Conservation practice means a 

specified treatment, such as a 

vegetative, structural, or land 

management practice, that is planned 

and applied according to NRCS Field 

Office Technical Guide (FOTG) 

standards and specifications. 

Conservation values means those 

natural resource attributes that sustain 

and enhance ecosystem functions and 

values of the grassland area including, 

but not limited to, habitat for grassland 

and shrubland dependent plants and 

animals, native plant and animal 

biodiversity, soil erosion control, forage 

production, and air and water quality 

protection. 

Cost-share payment means the 

payment made by USDA to a program 

participant or vendor to achieve the 

restoration, enhancement, and 

protection goals in accordance with the 

GRP restoration plan component of the 

restoration agreement. 

Dedicated account means a dedicated 

fund of the eligible entity held in a 

separate account for the management, 

monitoring, and enforcement of 

conservation easements and that cannot 

be used for other purposes. 

Easement means a conservation 

easement, which is an interest in land 

defined and delineated in a deed 

whereby the landowner conveys certain 

rights, title, and interests in a property 

to the United States, an eligible entity, 

or both for the purpose of protecting the 

grassland and other conservation values 

of the property. Under GRP, the 

property rights are conveyed by a 

conservation easement deed. 

Easement area means the land 

encumbered by an easement. 

Easement payment means the 

consideration paid to a landowner for 

an easement conveyed to the United 

States, an eligible entity, or both under 

GRP. 

Eligible entity means, for the purposes 

of entering into a cooperative agreement 

under 16 U.S.C. 3838q(d), an agency of 

State or local government, an Indian 

Tribe, or a nongovernmental 

organization that has the relevant 

experience necessary, as appropriate for 

the application, to administer an 

easement on grassland, land that 

contains forbs, or shrubland; has a 

charter that describes a commitment to 

conserving ranchland, agricultural land, 

or grassland for grazing and 

conservation purposes; and has the 

resources necessary to effectuate the 

purposes of the charter. 

Enhancement means to increase or 

improve the viability of grassland and 

grazing resources, including habitat for 

declining species of grassland 

dependent birds and animals. 

Farm Service Agency is an agency of 

the Department of Agriculture. 

FSA State Executive Director means 

the FSA employee authorized to 

implement GRP and direct and 

supervise FSA activities in a State, 

Caribbean Area, or the Pacific Islands 

Area. 

Field Office Technical Guide means 

the official local NRCS source of 

resource information and interpretations 

of guidelines, criteria, and requirements 

for planning and applying conservation 

practices and conservation management 

systems. It contains detailed 

information on the conservation of soil, 

water, air, plant, and animal resources 

applicable to the local area for which it 

is prepared. 

Fire pre-suppression means activities 

as outlined in a GRP management plan 

such as the establishment and 

maintenance of firebreaks and 

prescribed burning to prevent or limit 

the spread of fires. 

Forb means any herbaceous plant 

other than those in the grass family. 

Functions and values of grasslands 

and shrublands means ecosystem 

services provided, including domestic 

animal productivity, biological 

productivity, plant and animal richness 

and diversity, fish and wildlife habitat 

(including habitat for pollinators and 

native insects), water quality and 

quantity benefits, aesthetics, open 

space, and recreation. 

Grantor means the landowner who is 

transferring land rights to the United 

States or an eligible entity, or both 

through an easement. 

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. 

GRP management plan means the 

document developed by NRCS that 

describes the implementation of the 

grazing management system consistent 

with the prescribed grazing standard 

contained in the FOTG. The GRP 

management plan will include a 

description of the grazing management 

system, permissible and prohibited 

activities, any associated restoration 

plan or conservation plan, if applicable, 

and a description of USDA’s right of 

ingress and egress. 

Grazing value means the financial 

worth of the land as used for grazing or 

forage production. The term is used in 

the calculation of compensation for 

rental contracts and easements. For 

easements, this value is determined by 

NRCS through an appraisal process or a 

market survey process. For rental 

contracts, FSA determines the grazing 

value based upon an administrative 

process. 

Historical and archeological resources 

mean resources that are: 

(1) Listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places (established under the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.); 

(2) Formally determined eligible for 

listing the National Register of Historic 

Places by the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO) and Keeper 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of the National Register in accordance 

with section 106 or the NHPA); 

(3) Formally listed in the State or 

Tribal Register of Historic Places of the 

SHPO (designated under section 

101(b)(1)(B) of the NHPA) or the Tribal 

Register of Historic Places (designated 

under section 101(d)(1)(C) of the 

NHPA); or 

(4) Included in the SPHO or THPO 

inventory with written justification as to 

why it meets National Register of 

Historic Places criteria. 

Improved rangeland or pastureland 

means grazing land permanently 

producing naturalized forage species 

that receives varying degrees of periodic 

cultural treatment to enhance forage 

quality and yields and is primarily 

harvested by grazing animals. 

Indian Tribe means any Indian Tribe, 

band, nation, or other organized group 

or community, including any Alaska 

Native village or regional or village 

corporation as defined in or established 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 

that is eligible for the special programs 

and services provided by the United 

States to Indians because of their status 

as Indians. 

Landowner means a person, legal 

entity, or Indian Tribe having legal 

ownership of land and those who may 

be buying eligible land under a 

purchase agreement. The term 

landowner may include all forms of 

collective ownership including joint 

tenants, tenants-in-common, and life 

tenants. The term landowner includes 

Indian Tribes. State governments, local 

governments, and nongovernmental 

organizations that qualify as eligible 

entities are not eligible as landowners. 

Legal entity means an entity created 

under Federal or State law and that: (1) 

Owns land or an agricultural 

commodity, product, or livestock; or (2) 

produces an agricultural commodity, 

product, or livestock. 

Maintenance means work performed 

to keep the applied conservation 

practice functioning for the intended 

purpose during its life span. 

Maintenance includes work to manage 

and prevent deterioration, repair 

damage, or replace the practice to its 

original condition if one or more 

components fail. 

Native means a species that is 

indigenous and is a part of the original 

fauna or flora of the area. 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service is an agency of the Department 

of Agriculture. 

NRCS State Conservationist means 

the NRCS employee authorized to 

implement GRP and direct and 

supervise NRCS activities in a State, 

Caribbean Area, or the Pacific Islands 

Area. 

Naturalized means an introduced, 

desirable forage species that is 

ecologically adapted to the site and can 

perpetuate itself in the community 

without cultural treatment. The term 

naturalized does not include noxious 

weeds. 

Nesting season means the time of year 

that grassland dependent birds in 

significant decline in the local area 

build nests or otherwise find a place of 

refuge for purposes of reproduction. 

Nongovernmental organization means 

any organization that: 

(1) Is organized for, and at all times 

since, the formation of the organization, 

and 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— 

(i) In section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) of 

that Code, or 

(ii) Is described in section 509(a)(3) of 

that Code and is controlled by an 

organization described in section 

509(a)(2) of that Code. 

Participant means a person, legal 

entity, joint operation, or Indian Tribe 

who is accepted to participate in GRP 

through a rental contract or option 

agreement to purchase an easement. 

Pastureland means grazing lands 

comprised of introduced or 

domesticated native forage species that 

are used primarily for the production of 

livestock. These lands receive periodic 

renovation and cultural treatments, such 

as tillage, aeration, fertilization, 

mowing, and weed control, and may be 

irrigated. This term does not include 

lands that are in rotation with crops. 

Permanent easement means an 

easement that lasts in perpetuity or for 

the maximum duration allowed under 

the law of a State. 

Private land means land that is not 

owned by a governmental entity and 

includes Tribal lands. 

Purchase price means the amount 

paid to acquire an easement under a 

cooperative agreement between NRCS 

and an eligible entity. It is the fair 

market value of the easement. 

Rangeland means a land cover or use 

category with a climax or potential plant 

cover composed principally of native 

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs suitable for grazing and 

browsing, and introduced forage species 

that are managed like rangeland. 

Rangeland includes lands re-vegetated 

naturally or artificially when routine 

management of that vegetation is 

accomplished mainly through 

manipulation of grazing. This term 

includes areas where introduced hardy 

and persistent grasses are planted and 

such practices as deferred grazing, 

burning, chaining, and rotational 

grazing are used with little or no 

chemicals or fertilizer being applied. 

Grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, 

some deserts, and tundra are considered 

to be rangeland. Certain communities of 

low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, 

chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon 

juniper are also included as rangeland. 

Rental contract means the legal 

document that specifies the obligations 

and rights of a participant in GRP, 

including the annual rental payments to 

be provided to the participant for the 

length of the contract to maintain or 

restore grassland functions and values 

under GRP. 

Restoration means implementing any 

conservation practice, system of 

practices, or activities to restore 

functions and values of grasslands and 

shrublands. The restoration may reestablish grassland functions and values 

on degraded land, or on land that has 

been converted to another use. 

Restoration agreement means an 

agreement between the program 

participant and NRCS or eligible entity 

to carry out activities and conservation 

practices necessary to restore or 

improve the functions and values of that 

land. A restoration agreement will 

include a restoration plan. 

Restoration plan is the portion of the 

restoration agreement that includes the 

schedule and conservation practices and 

activities to restore the functions and 

values of grasslands and shrublands, 

including protection of associated 

streams, ponds, and wetlands. The 

restoration plan incorporates the 

requirement that program participants 

will maintain GRP-funded conservation 

practices and activities for their 

expected lifespan as described in the 

plan. 

Right of enforcement means a 

property interest in the easement the 

Chief may exercise on behalf of the 

United States under specific 

circumstances in order to enforce the 

terms of the conservation easement. The 

right of enforcement provides that the 

Chief has the right to inspect and 

enforce the easement if the eligible 

entity fails to uphold the easement or 

attempts to transfer the easement 

without first securing the consent of the 

Secretary. 

Secretary means the Secretary of the 

Department of Agriculture. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73929 

Shrubland means land where the 

dominant plant species is shrubs, which 

are plants that are persistent, have 

woody stems, and a relatively low 

growth habit. 

Significant decline means a decrease 

of a species population to such an 

extent that it merits conservation 

priority as determined by the State 

Conservationist, in consultation with 

the State Technical Committee. 

State Technical Committee means a 

committee established by the Secretary 

in a State pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3861. 

Tribal land means: 

(1) Land held in trust by the United 

States for individual Indians or Indian 

Tribes; or 

(2) Land, the title to which is held by 

individual Indians or Indian Tribes 

subject to Federal restrictions against 

alienation or encumbrance; or 

(3) Land which is subject to rights of 

use, occupancy, and benefit of certain 

Indian Tribes; or 

(4) Land held in fee title by an Indian, 

Indian family, or Indian Tribe. 

USDA means the Department of 

Agriculture and its agencies and offices, 

as applicable. 

§ 1415.4 Program requirements. 

(a) Except as provided for under 

§ 1415.17, only landowners may submit 

applications for easements. For rental 

contracts, applicants must own or 

provide written evidence of control of 

the property for the duration of the 

rental contract. 

(b) The easement or rental contract 

will require that the area be maintained 

in accordance with GRP goals and 

objectives for the term of the easement 

or rental contract, including the 

conservation, protection, enhancement, 

and if necessary, restoration of the 

grassland functions and values. 

(c) All participants in GRP are 

required to implement a GRP 

management plan approved by NRCS. 

When an eligible entity holds the GRP 

easement, NRCS will develop GRP 

management plans with eligible entities. 

In cases where a participant receives 

ranking points on the basis of resource 

concerns other than grazing land 

concerns, all such resource concerns 

will be addressed in an applicable 

conservation plan. 

(d) The easement or rental contract 

must grant USDA or its representatives 

a right of ingress and egress to the 

easement or rental contract area. For 

easements, this access is legally 

described by the conservation easement 

deed and the GRP management plan. 

Access to rental contract areas is 

identified in the GRP management plan. 

(e) Easement participants are required 

to convey unencumbered title that is 

acceptable to the United States and 

provide consent or subordination 

agreements from each holder of a 

security or other interest in the land. 

The landowner must warrant that the 

easement granted the United States or 

eligible entity is superior to the rights of 

all others, except for exceptions to the 

title that are deemed acceptable by 

USDA. 

(f) Landowners are required to use a 

standard GRP conservation easement 

deed developed by USDA or developed 

by an eligible entity and approved by 

USDA under § 1415.17 of this part. The 

easement grants development rights, 

title, and interest in the easement area 

in order to protect grassland and other 

conservation values. 

(g) The program participant must 

comply with the terms of the easement 

or rental contract, and comply with all 

terms and conditions of the GRP 

management plan and any associated 

conservation plan or restoration 

agreement. 

(h) Easements and rental contracts 

allow, consistent with their terms and 

the program purposes, the following 

activities as outlined in the GRP 

management plan: 

(1) Common grazing practices, 

including maintenance and necessary 

conservation practices and activities 

(e.g., prescribed grazing; upland wildlife 

habitat management; prescribed 

burning; fencing, watering, and feeding 

necessary for the raising of livestock; 

and related forage and seed production) 

on the land in a manner that is 

consistent with maintaining the 

viability of grassland, forb, and shrub 

species common to the locality; 

(2) Haying, mowing, or harvesting for 

seed production subject to appropriate 

restrictions, as determined by the State 

Conservationist, during the nesting 

season for birds in the local area that are 

in significant decline, or are conserved 

in accordance with Federal or State law; 

(3) Fire pre-suppression, 

rehabilitation, and construction of 

firebreaks; 

(4) Grazing related activities, such as 

fencing and livestock watering facilities; 

(5) Facilities for power generation 

through renewable sources of energy 

production provided the scope and 

scale of the footprint of the facility and 

associated infrastructure is consistent 

with program purposes as determined 

by USDA through analysis of the 

potential site-specific environmental 

effects; and 

(6) Other activities that USDA 

determines the manner, number, 

intensity, location, operation, and other 

features associated with the activity will 

not adversely affect the grassland 

resources or related conservation values 

protected under an easement or rental 

contract. This includes infrastructure 

development along existing right-ofways where the easement deed allows 

the landowner to grant right-of-ways 

when it is determined by NRCS that 

granting such right-of-ways are in the 

public interest, that grassland resources 

and related conservation values will not 

be adversely impacted, and the 

landowner agrees to a restoration plan 

for the disturbed area as developed by 

NRCS, but at no cost to NRCS. This also 

includes undeveloped, passive, 

recreational uses such as hiking, 

camping, bird watching, hunting, and 

fishing as long as such uses, as 

determined by the grantee, do not 

impair the grazing uses and other 

conservation values. 

(i) Easement and rental contracts 

prohibit the following activities: 

(1) The production of crops (other 

than hay), orchards, vineyards, or other 

agricultural commodity that is 

inconsistent with maintaining grazing 

land and related conservation values; 

and 

(2) Except as permitted under a 

restoration plan, the conduct of any 

other activity that would be inconsistent 

with maintaining grazing uses and 

related conservation values protected 

under an easement or rental contract. 

(j) Rental contracts may be terminated 

by USDA without penalty or refund if 

the original participant dies, is declared 

legally incompetent, or is otherwise 

unavailable during the contract period. 

(k) Participants, with the agreement of 

USDA, may convert a rental contract to 

an easement, provided that funds are 

available and the project meets 

conditions established by USDA. Land 

cannot be enrolled in both a rental 

contract option and an easement 

enrollment option at the same time. The 

rental contract will be terminated prior 

to the date the easement is recorded in 

the local land records office. 

(l) Rental contract participants are 

required to suspend any existing 

cropland base and allotment history for 

the land under another program 

administered by the Secretary. 

(m) Easement participants are 

required to eliminate any existing 

cropland base and allotment history for 

the land under another program 

administered by the Secretary. 

§ 1415.5 Land eligibility. 

(a) GRP is available on privately 

owned lands, which include private and 

Tribal land. Publicly owned land is not 

eligible. 

(b) Land is eligible for funding 

consideration if the State 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Conservationist determines that the land 

is: 

(1) Grassland, land that contains forbs 

or shrubland (including improved 

rangeland and pastureland) for which 

grazing is the predominant use; or 

(2) Located in an area that has been 

historically dominated by grassland, 

forbs, or shrubland, and the State 

Conservationist, with advice from the 

State Technical Committee, determines 

that it is compatible with grazing uses 

and related conservation values, and 

(i) Could provide habitat for animal or 

plant populations of significant 

ecological value if the land is retained 

in its current use or is restored to a 

natural condition, 

(ii) Contains historical or 

archeological resources, or 

(iii) Would address issues raised by 

State, regional, and national 

conservation priorities. 

(c) Incidental lands, in conjunction 

with eligible land, may also be 

considered for enrollment to allow for 

the efficient administration of an 

easement or rental contract. Incidental 

lands may include relatively small areas 

that do not specifically meet the 

eligibility requirements, but as a part of 

the land unit, may contribute to 

grassland functions and values and 

related conservation values, or its 

inclusion may increase efficiencies in 

land surveying, easement management, 

and monitoring by reducing irregular 

boundaries. 

(d) Land will not be enrolled if the 

functions and values of the grassland 

are already protected under an existing 

contract, easement, or deed restriction, 

or if the land already is in ownership by 

an entity whose purpose is to protect 

and conserve grassland and related 

conservation values. This land becomes 

eligible for enrollment in GRP if the 

existing contract, easement, or deed 

restriction expires or is terminated, and 

the grassland values and functions are 

no longer protected. 

(e) Land on which gas, oil, earth, or 

other mineral rights exploration has 

been leased or is owned by someone 

other than the applicant may be offered 

for participation in the program. 

However, if an applicant submits an 

offer for an easement project, USDA will 

assess the potential impact that the third 

party rights may have upon the 

grassland resources. USDA reserves the 

right to deny funding for any 

application where there are exceptions 

to clear title on the property. 

§ 1415.6 Participant eligibility. 

To be eligible to participate in GRP, 

an applicant, except as otherwise 

described in § 1415.17: 

(a) Must be a landowner for easement 

participation or be a landowner or have 

control of the eligible acreage being 

offered for rental contract participation; 

(b) Agree to provide such information 

to USDA that is necessary or desirable 

to assist in its determination of 

eligibility for program benefits and for 

other program implementation 

purposes; 

(c) Meet the Adjusted Gross Income 

requirements in 7 CFR part 1400 of this 

title, unless exempted under part 1400 

of this title; 

(d) Meet the conservation compliance 

requirements found in part 12 of this 

title; and 

(e) Comply with applicable 

registration and reporting requirements 

of the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 

109–282, as amended) and 3 CFR parts 

25 and 170. 

§ 1415.7 Application procedures. 

(a) Applicants, except as otherwise 

described under § 1415.17, may submit 

an application through a USDA Service 

Center for participation in GRP. 

Applications may be submitted 

throughout the year. 

(b) By filing an application for 

participation, the applicant consents to 

a USDA representative entering upon 

the land offered for enrollment for 

purposes of assessing the grassland 

functions and values and for other 

activities that are necessary for USDA to 

make an offer of enrollment. Generally, 

the applicant will be notified prior to a 

USDA representative entering upon 

their property. 

(c) Applicants submit applications 

that identify the duration of the 

easement or rental contract for which 

they seek to enroll their land. Rental 

contracts may be for the duration of 10- 

years, 15-years, or 20-years; easements 

may be permanent in duration or for the 

maximum duration authorized by State 

law. 

§ 1415.8 Establishing priority for 

enrollment of properties. 

(a) USDA, at the national level, will 

provide to NRCS State Conservationists 

and FSA State Executive Directors, 

national guidelines for establishing 

State-specific ranking criteria for 

selection of applications for funding. 

(b) NRCS State Conservationists and 

FSA State Executive Directors, with 

advice from State Technical 

Committees, establish criteria to 

evaluate and rank applications for 

easement and rental contract 

enrollment, including applications from 

eligible entities under § 1415.17, 

following the guidance established in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Ranking criteria will emphasize 

support for: 

(1) Grazing operations; 

(2) Protection of grassland, land that 

contains forbs, and shrubland at the 

greatest risk from the threat of 

conversion to uses other than grazing; 

(3) Plant and animal biodiversity; and 

(4) In ranking parcels offered by 

eligible entities, these additional criteria 

will also be considered— 

(i) Leveraging of non-Federal funds, 

and 

(ii) Entity contributions in excess of 

50 percent of the purchase price, as 

defined in § 1415.3. 

(d) When funding is available, NRCS 

State Conservationists and FSA State 

Executive Directors will periodically 

select for funding the highest ranked 

applications, including applications 

from entities under § 1415.17, based on 

applicant and land eligibility and the 

State-developed ranking criteria. 

(e) NRCS State Conservationists and 

FSA State Executive Directors may 

establish separate ranking pools to 

address, for example, specific 

conservation issues raised by State, 

regional, and national conservation 

priorities. 

(f) The NRCS State Conservationist 

and FSA State Executive Director, with 

advice from the State Technical 

Committee, may emphasize enrollment 

of unique grasslands or specific 

geographic areas of the State. 

(g) The NRCS State Conservationist 

and the FSA State Executive Director, 

with advice from the State Technical 

Committee, will select applications for 

funding. 

(h) If available funds are insufficient 

to accept the highest ranked application, 

and the applicant is not interested in 

reducing the acres offered to match 

available funding, the State 

Conservationist or State Executive 

Director may select a lower ranked 

application that can be fully funded. 

(i) Land enrolled in a Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) contract that is 

within one year of the scheduled 

expiration date will receive a priority 

for enrollment. To receive this priority, 

the following criteria must be met: 

(1) The land must be eligible as 

defined in § 1415.5; 

(2) USDA, with advice from the State 

Technical Committee, must determine it 

is of high ecological value and under 

significant threat of conversion to uses 

other than grazing; 

(3) The land must be offered for 

easement or 20-year rental contract 

enrollment; 

(4) Expired CRP land enrolled under 

this priority will not exceed 10 percent 

of the total number of acres accepted for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73931 

national enrollment in GRP in any year; 

and 

(5) This priority applies only up to 12 

months before the scheduled expiration 

of the CRP contract. 

(j) USDA will manage the program 

nationally to ensure that, to the extent 

practicable, 60 percent of funds are used 

for the purchase of easements, either 

directly or through cooperative 

agreements with eligible entities as set 

forth in § 1415.17 and 40 percent of 

funds are used for rental contracts. 

§ 1415.9 Enrollment of easements and 

rental contracts. 

(a) Based on the priority ranking, 

NRCS or FSA, as appropriate, will 

notify applicants in writing of their 

tentative acceptance into the program 

for either rental contract or conservation 

easement options. The letter notifies the 

applicant of the intent to continue the 

enrollment process unless otherwise 

notified by the applicant. Enrollment 

under cooperative agreements is 

described under § 1415.17. 

(b) An offer of tentative acceptance 

into the program neither binds USDA to 

acquire an easement or enter into a 

rental contract, nor binds the applicant 

to convey an easement, enter into a 

rental contract, or agree to restoration 

activities. 

(c) Offer of enrollment will be through 

either: 

(1) An agreement to purchase an 

easement presented by NRCS to the 

applicant which will describe the 

easement, the easement terms and 

conditions, and other terms and 

conditions that may be required by 

NRCS; or 

(2) A rental contract will be presented 

by FSA to the applicant which will 

describe the contract area, the contract 

terms and conditions, and other terms 

and conditions that may be required by 

FSA. 

(d) For rental contracts, land will be 

considered to be enrolled in GRP once 

an FSA representative approves the GRP 

rental contract. FSA may withdraw the 

offer before approval of the contract due 

to lack of available funds or other 

reasons. 

(e) For easements, after the option 

agreement to purchase an easement is 

executed by NRCS and the participant, 

the land will be considered enrolled in 

GRP. NRCS will proceed with the 

development of the GRP management 

plan, conservation or restoration plan if 

applicable, and various easement 

acquisition activities, which may 

include conducting a legal survey of the 

easement area, securing necessary 

subordination agreements, procuring 

title insurance, and conducting other 

activities necessary to record the 

easement or implement GRP. 

(f) Prior to closing an easement, NRCS 

may withdraw the land from enrollment 

at any time due to lack of available 

funds, title concerns, or other reasons. 

§ 1415.10 Compensation for easements 

and rental contracts acquired by the 

Secretary. 

(a) The Chief will not pay more than 

the fair market value of the land, less 

the grazing value of the land 

encumbered by the easement. 

(b) To determine this amount, the 

Chief will pay as compensation the 

lowest of: 

(1) The fair market value of the land 

encumbered by the easement as 

determined by the Chief using— 

(i) The Uniform Standards of 

Professional Appraisal Practice, or 

(ii) An area-wide market analysis or 

market survey; 

(2) The amount corresponding to a 

geographical cap, as determined by the 

State Conservationist, with advice from 

the State Technical Committee; or 

(3) An offer made by the landowner. 

(c) For 10-, 15-, and 20-year rental 

contracts, the participant will receive 

not more than 75 percent of the grazing 

value in an annual payment for the 

length of the contract, as determined by 

FSA. As provided by the regulations at 

part 1400 of this title, payments made 

under one or more rental contracts to a 

person or legal entity, directly or 

indirectly, may not exceed, in the 

aggregate, $50,000 per year. 

(d) In order to provide for better 

uniformity among States, the NRCS 

Chief and FSA Administrator may 

review and adjust, as appropriate, State 

or other geographically based payment 

rates for rental contracts. 

(e) Easement or rental contract 

payments received by a participant will 

be in addition to, and not affect, the 

total amount of payments that the 

participant is otherwise eligible to 

receive under other USDA programs. 

(f) Easement payments will be made 

in a single payment to the landowner 

unless otherwise requested by the 

landowner. 

(g) USDA may accept and use 

contributions of non-Federal funds to 

support the purposes of the program. 

These funds are available to USDA 

without further appropriation and until 

expended, to carry out the program. 

(h) USDA recognizes that 

environmental benefits will be achieved 

by implementing conservation practices 

and activities funded through GRP, and 

that ecosystem credits may be gained as 

a result of implementing activities 

compatible with the purposes of a GRP 

easement, rental contract, or associated 

restoration agreement. USDA asserts no 

direct or indirect interest in these 

credits except: 

(1) In the event the participant sells or 

trades credits arising from GRP funded 

activities, USDA retains the authority to 

ensure that the requirements for GRP 

rental contracts, easements, or 

restoration agreements are met and 

maintained consistent with this part; 

and 

(2) If activities required under an 

ecosystem credit agreement may affect 

land covered under a GRP rental 

contract, easement, or restoration 

agreement, participants are required to 

obtain an assessment from USDA about 

the compatibility of the activity prior to 

entering into such agreements. 

§ 1415.11 Restoration agreements. 

(a) Restoration agreements are only 

authorized to be used in conjunction 

with easements and rental contracts. 

NRCS, in consultation with the program 

participant, determines if the grassland 

resources are adequate to meet the 

participant’s objectives and the 

purposes of the program, or if a 

restoration agreement is needed. Such a 

determination is also subject to the 

availability of funding. USDA may 

condition participation in the program 

upon the execution of a restoration 

agreement depending on the condition 

of the grassland resources. When the 

functions and values of the grassland 

are determined adequate by NRCS, a 

restoration agreement is not required. 

However, if a restoration agreement is 

required, NRCS will set the terms of the 

restoration agreement. The restoration 

plan component of the restoration 

agreement identifies conservation 

practices and activities necessary to 

restore or improve the functions and 

values of the grassland to meet both 

USDA and the participant’s objectives 

and purposes of the program. If the 

functions and values of the grassland 

decline while the land is subject to a 

GRP easement or rental contract through 

no fault of the participant, the 

participant may enter into a restoration 

agreement at that time to improve the 

functions and values with USDA 

approval and when funds are available. 

(b) The NRCS State Conservationist, 

with advice from the State Technical 

Committee and in consultation with 

FSA, determines the conservation 

practices and activities and the costshare percentages, not to exceed 

statutory limits available under GRP. A 

list of conservation practices and 

activities approved for cost-share 

assistance under GRP restoration plans 

is available to the public through the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

local USDA Service Center. NRCS may 

work through the local conservation 

district with the program participant to 

determine the terms of the restoration 

plan. The conservation district may 

assist NRCS with determining eligible 

conservation practices and activities 

and approving restoration agreements. 

(c) Only approved conservation 

practices and activities are eligible for 

cost-sharing. Payments under the GRP 

restoration agreements may be made to 

the participant of not more than 50 

percent for the cost of carrying out the 

conservation practices or activities. As 

provided by the regulations at part 1400 

of this chapter, payments made under 

one or more restoration agreements to a 

person or legal entity, directly or 

indirectly, may not exceed, in the 

aggregate, $50,000 per year. 

(d) The participant is responsible for 

the operation and maintenance of 

conservation practices in accordance 

with the restoration agreement. 

(e) All conservation practices must be 

implemented in accordance with the 

FOTG. 

(f) Technical assistance is provided by 

NRCS, or an NRCS approved third 

party. 

(g) If the participant is receiving costshare for the same conservation practice 

or activity from another conservation 

program, USDA will adjust the GRP 

cost-share rate proportionately so that 

the amount received by the participant 

does not exceed 100 percent of the costs 

of restoration. 

(h) The participant cannot receive 

cost-share from more than one USDA 

cost-share program for the same 

conservation practice or activity on the 

same land. 

(i) Cost-share payments may be made 

only upon a determination by a 

qualified individual approved by the 

NRCS State Conservationist that an 

eligible restoration practice has been 

established in compliance with 

appropriate standards and 

specifications. 

(j) Conservation practices and 

activities identified in the restoration 

plan may be implemented by the 

participant or other designee. 

(k) Cost-share payments will not be 

made for conservation practices or 

activities implemented or initiated prior 

to the approval of a rental contract or 

easement acquisition unless a written 

waiver is granted by the NRCS State 

Conservationist or FSA State Executive 

Director, as appropriate, prior to 

installation of the practice. 

(l) Upon transfer of an easement with 

a restoration agreement to an eligible 

entity as described in § 1415.18, the 

entity will be responsible for 

administration of the agreement and 

providing funds for payment of any 

costs associated with the completion of 

the restoration agreement. The eligible 

entity may, with participant consent, 

revise an existing restoration agreement 

or develop a new restoration agreement. 

Restoration plans must be consistent 

with the GRP management plan or any 

associated conservation plan as 

described in § 1415.4. 

(m) Cooperating entities under 

§ 1415.17 will be responsible for 

development, administration, and 

implementation costs of restoration 

plans. 

§ 1415.12 Modifications to easements and 

rental contracts. 

(a) After an easement has been 

recorded, no substantive modification 

will be made to the easement. 

Modifications that would not result in 

acquisition or divestiture of additional 

property rights may be made. 

(b) State Conservationists may 

approve modifications for restoration 

agreements and GRP management plans 

or conservation plans where applicable, 

as long as the modifications do not 

affect the provisions of the easement 

and meet program objectives. 

(c) USDA may approve modifications 

to rental contracts, including 

corresponding changes to conservation 

plans, GRP management plans, and 

restoration plans to facilitate the 

practical administration and 

management of the enrolled area so long 

as the modification will not adversely 

affect the grassland functions and values 

for which the land was enrolled. 

§ 1415.13 Transfer of land. 

(a) Any transfer of the property prior 

to an applicant’s acceptance into the 

program will void the offer of 

enrollment, unless at the option of the 

State Conservationist or State Executive 

Director, as appropriate, an offer is 

extended to the new landowner and the 

new landowner agrees to the same 

easement or rental contract terms and 

conditions. 

(b) After acreage is accepted in the 

program, for easements with multiple 

payments, any remaining easement 

payments will be made to the original 

participant unless NRCS receives an 

assignment of proceeds. 

(c) Future annual rental payments 

will be made to the successor 

participant. 

(d) The new landowner is responsible 

for complying with the terms of the 

recorded easement, and the contract 

successor is responsible for complying 

with the terms of the rental contract and 

for assuring completion of all activities 

and practices required by any associated 

restoration agreement. Eligible costshare payments will be made to the new 

participant upon presentation that the 

successor assumed the costs of 

establishing the practices. 

(e) With respect to any and all 

payments owed to participants, the 

United States bears no responsibility for 

any full payments or partial 

distributions of funds between the 

original participant and the participant’s 

successor. In the event of a dispute or 

claim on the distribution of cost-share 

payments, USDA may withhold 

payments, without the accrual of 

interest, pending an agreement or 

adjudication on the rights to the funds. 

(f) The rights granted to the United 

States in an easement will apply to any 

of its agents or assigns. All obligations 

of the participant under the GRP 

conservation easement deed also bind 

the participant’s heirs, successors, 

agents, assigns, lessees, and any other 

person claiming under them. 

(g) Rental contracts may be transferred 

to another landowner, operator, or 

tenant that acquires an interest in the 

land enrolled in GRP. The successor 

must be determined by FSA to be 

eligible to participate in GRP and must 

assume full responsibility under the 

contract. FSA may require a participant 

to refund all or a portion of any 

financial assistance awarded under 

GRP, plus interest, if the participant 

sells or loses control of the land under 

a GRP rental contract, and the new 

landowner, operator, or tenant is not 

eligible to participate in the program or 

declines to assume responsibility under 

the contract. 

§ 1415.14 Misrepresentation and 

violations. 

(a) The following provisions apply to 

violations of rental contracts: 

(1) Rental contract violations, 

determinations, and appeals are 

handled in accordance with the terms of 

the rental contract; 

(2) A participant who is determined to 

have erroneously represented any fact 

affecting a program determination made 

in accordance with this part may not be 

entitled to rental contract payments and 

must refund to CCC all payments, plus 

interest, in accordance with part 1403 of 

this title; and 

(3) In the event of a violation of a 

rental contract, the participant will be 

given notice and an opportunity to 

voluntarily correct the violation within 

30 days of the date of the notice, or such 

additional time as CCC may allow. 

Failure to correct the violation may 

result in termination of the rental 

contract. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73933 

(b) The following provisions apply to 

violations of easement deeds: 

(1) Easement violations are handled 

under the terms of the easement deed; 

(2) Upon notification of the 

participant, NRCS has the right to enter 

upon the easement area at any time to 

monitor compliance with the terms of 

the GRP conservation easement deed or 

remedy deficiencies or violations; 

(3) When NRCS believes there may be 

a violation of the terms of the GRP 

conservation easement deed, NRCS may 

enter the property without prior notice; 

and 

(4) The participant will be liable for 

any costs incurred by the United States 

as a result of the participant’s 

negligence or failure to comply with the 

easement terms and conditions. 

(c) USDA may require the participant 

to refund all or part of any payments 

received by the participant under the 

program contract or agreement. 

(d) In addition to any and all legal and 

equitable remedies available to the 

United States under applicable law, 

USDA may withhold any easement 

payment, rental payment, or cost-share 

payments owing to the participant at 

any time there is a material breach of 

the easement covenants, rental contract, 

or any contract. Such withheld funds 

may be used to offset costs incurred by 

the United States in any remedial 

actions or retained as damages pursuant 

to court order or settlement agreement. 

(e) Under a GRP conservation 

easement, the United States will be 

entitled to recover any and all 

administrative and legal costs, including 

attorney’s fees or expenses, associated 

with any enforcement or remedial 

action. 

§ 1415.15 Payments not subject to claims. 

Any cost-share, rental, or easement 

payment or portion thereof due any 

person under this part will be allowed 

without regard to any claim or lien in 

favor of any creditor, except agencies of 

the United States Government. 

§ 1415.16 Assignments. 

(a) Any person entitled to any cash 

payment under this program may assign 

the right to receive such cash payments, 

in whole or in part. 

(b) If a participant that is entitled to 

a payment dies, is declared legally 

incompetent, or is otherwise unable to 

receive the payment, or is succeeded by 

another person who renders or 

completes the required performance, 

such a participant may be eligible to 

receive payment in such a manner as 

USDA determines is fair and reasonable 

in light of all the circumstances. 

§ 1415.17 Cooperative agreements. 

(a) NRCS may enter into cooperative 

agreements which establish terms and 

conditions under which an eligible 

entity will use funds provided by NRCS 

to own, write, and enforce a grassland 

protection easement. 

(b) To be eligible to receive GRP 

funding, an eligible entity must 

demonstrate: 

(1) A commitment to long-term 

conservation of agricultural lands, ranch 

land, or grassland for grazing and 

conservation purposes; 

(2) A capability to acquire, manage, 

and enforce easements; 

(3) Sufficient number of staff 

dedicated to monitoring and easement 

stewardship; 

(4) The availability of funds; and 

(5) For nongovernmental 

organizations, the existence of a 

dedicated account and funds for the 

purposes of easement management, 

monitoring, and enforcement of each 

easement held by the eligible entity. 

(c) NRCS enters into a cooperative 

agreement with those eligible entities 

selected for funding. Once a proposal is 

selected by the State Conservationist, 

the eligible entity must work with the 

appropriate State Conservationist to 

finalize and sign the cooperative 

agreement, incorporating all necessary 

GRP requirements. The cooperative 

agreement addresses: 

(1) The interests in land to be 

acquired, including the form of the 

easement deeds to be used and terms 

and conditions; 

(2) The management and enforcement 

of the interests acquired; 

(3) The responsibilities of NRCS; 

(4) The responsibilities of the eligible 

entity on lands acquired with the 

assistance of GRP; 

(5) The parcels accepted by the State 

Conservationist, landowners’ names, 

addresses, location map(s), and other 

relevant information in an a attachment 

to the cooperative agreement; 

(6) The allowance of parcel 

substitution upon mutual agreement of 

the parties; 

(7) The manner in which violations 

are addressed; 

(8) The right of the Secretary to 

conduct periodic inspections to verify 

the eligible entity’s enforcement of the 

easements; 

(9) The manner in which the eligible 

entity will evaluate and report the use 

of funds to the Secretary; 

(10) The eligible entity’s agreement to 

assume the costs incurred in 

administering and enforcing the 

easement, including the costs of 

restoration and rehabilitation of the land 

as specified by the owner and eligible 

entity. The entity will also assume the 

responsibility for enforcing the GRP 

management plan or conservation plan, 

as applicable. The eligible entity must 

incorporate any required plan into the 

conservation easement deed by 

reference or otherwise; 

(11) The source of funding. The 

eligible entity may include a charitable 

donation or qualified conservation 

contribution (as defined by section 

170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986) from the landowner as part of the 

entity’s share of the purchase price; 

(12) The schedule of payments to an 

eligible entity, as agreed to by NRCS and 

the eligible entity; 

(13) GRP funds may not be used for 

expenditures such as appraisals, 

surveys, title insurance, legal fees, costs 

of easement monitoring, and other 

related administrative and transaction 

costs incurred by the entity; 

(14) NRCS may provide a share of the 

purchase price of an easement under the 

program. The eligible entity will be 

required to provide a share of the 

purchase price at least equivalent to that 

provided by NRCS. The Federal share 

will be no more than 50 percent of the 

purchase price, as defined in § 1415.3; 

(15) The eligible entity’s succession 

plan, which describes how its 

successors or assigns will hold, manage, 

and enforce the interests in land 

acquired in the event that the eligible 

entity is no longer able to fulfill its 

obligations under the cooperative 

agreement entered into with NRCS; and 

(16) Other requirements deemed 

necessary by NRCS to protect the 

interests of the United States. 

(d) Easements funded under the 

cooperative agreement option will be in 

perpetuity, except where State law 

prohibits a permanent easement, and 

will require that the easement area be 

maintained in accordance with GRP 

goals and objectives for the term of the 

easement. 

(e) The entity may use its own terms 

and conditions in the conservation 

easement deed, but a conservation 

easement deed template used by the 

eligible entity will be submitted to the 

Chief within 30 days of the signing of 

the cooperative agreement. The 

conservation easement deed templates 

will be reviewed and approved by the 

Chief. NRCS reserves the right to require 

additional specific language or to 

remove language in the conservation 

easement deed to protect the interests of 

the United States. 

(1) In order to protect the public 

investment, the conveyance document 

must contain a right of enforcement. 

NRCS will specify the terms for the right 

of enforcement clause to read as set 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4

73934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

forth in the GRP cooperative agreement. 

This right is a vested property right and 

cannot be condemned or terminated by 

State or local government; 

(2) The eligible entity will acquire, 

hold, manage, and enforce the easement. 

The eligible entity may have the option 

to enter into an agreement with 

governmental or private organizations to 

carry out easement stewardship 

responsibilities if approved by NRCS; 

(3) Prior to closing, NRCS must sign 

an acceptance of the conservation 

easement, concurring with the terms of 

the conservation easement and 

accepting its interest in the conservation 

easement deed; 

(4) All conservation easement deeds 

acquired with GRP funds must be 

recorded in the appropriate land 

records. Proof of recordation will be 

provided to NRCS by the eligible entity; 

and 

(5) The conservation easement deed 

must include an indemnification clause 

requiring the participant (grantor) to 

indemnify and hold harmless the 

United States from any liability arising 

from or related to the property enrolled 

in GRP. 

§ 1415.18 Easement transfer to eligible 

entities. 

(a) NRCS may transfer title of 

ownership to an easement to an eligible 

entity to hold and enforce an easement 

if: 

(1) The Chief determines that transfer 

will promote protection of grassland, 

land that contains forbs, or shrubland; 

(2) The owner authorizes the eligible 

entity to hold and enforce the easement; 

and 

(3) The eligible entity agrees to 

assume the costs incurred in 

administering and enforcing the 

easement, including the costs of 

restoration or rehabilitation of the land 

as specified by the owner and the 

eligible entity, and the entity assumes 

responsibility for enforcing the GRP 

management plan or conservation plan, 

as applicable, as approved by NRCS. 

(b) NRCS has the right to conduct 

periodic inspections to verify the 

eligible entities enforcement of the 

easement, which includes the terms and 

requirements set forth in the GRP 

management plan and any associated 

restoration or conservation plan for any 

easements transferred pursuant to this 

section. 

(c) An eligible entity that seeks to 

hold and enforce an easement will 

apply to the NRCS State Conservationist 

for approval. 

(d) The Chief may approve an 

application if the eligible entity: 

(1) Has relevant experience necessary, 

as appropriate for the application, to 

administer an easement on grassland, 

land that contains forbs, or shrublands; 

(2) Has a charter that describes the 

commitment of the eligible entity to 

conserving ranch land, agricultural 

land, or grassland for grazing and 

conservation purposes; 

(3) Possesses the human and financial 

resources necessary, as determined by 

the Chief, to effectuate the purposes of 

the charter; 

(4) Has sufficient financial resources 

to carry out easement administrative 

and enforcement activities; 

(5) Presents proof of a dedicated fund 

for enforcement as described in 

§ 1415.17(b)(5), if the entity is a 

nongovernmental organization; and 

(6) Presents documentation that the 

landowner has concurred in the 

transfer. 

(e) The Chief or his or her successors 

and assigns, will retain a right of 

enforcement in any transferred GRP 

funded easement, which provides the 

Secretary the right to inspect the 

easement for violations and enforce the 

terms of this easement through any and 

all authorities available under Federal 

or State law, in the event that the 

eligible entity fails to enforce the terms 

of the easement, as determined by 

NRCS. 

(f) Should an easement be transferred 

pursuant to this section, all warranties 

and indemnifications provided for in 

the deed will continue to apply to the 

United States. Upon transfer of the 

easement, the easement holder will be 

responsible for enforcement of the GRP 

management plan, as approved by 

NRCS, and implementation of any 

associated conservation or restoration 

plans and costs of such restoration as 

agreed to by the landowner and entity. 

(g) Due to the Federal interest in the 

GRP easement, GRP-funded easements 

cannot be condemned. 

§ 1415.19 Appeals. 

(a) Applicants or participants may 

obtain a review of any administrative 

determination concerning eligibility for 

participation utilizing the 

administrative appeal regulations 

provided in parts 614 and 780 of this 

title. 

(b) Before a person may seek judicial 

review of any administrative action 

concerning eligibility for program 

participation under this part, the person 

must exhaust all administrative appeal 

procedures set forth in paragraph (a) of 

this section, and for the purposes of 

judicial review, no decision will be a 

final agency action except a decision of 

the NRCS Chief or the FSA 

Administrator, as applicable, under 

these procedures. 

(c) Any appraisals, market analysis, or 

supporting documentation that may be 

used by NRCS in determining property 

value are considered confidential 

information, and will only be disclosed 

as determined at the sole discretion of 

NRCS in accordance with applicable 

law. 

(d) Enforcement actions undertaken 

by NRCS in furtherance of its Federally 

held property rights are under the 

jurisdiction of the Federal District 

Courts and are not subject to review 

under administrative appeal regulations. 

§ 1415.20 Scheme or device. 

(a) If it is determined by USDA that 

a participant has employed a scheme or 

device to defeat the purposes of this 

part, any part of any program payment 

otherwise due or paid to such 

participant during the applicable period 

may be withheld or be required to be 

refunded with interest thereon, as 

determined appropriate by USDA. 

(b) A scheme or device includes, but 

is not limited to, coercion, fraud, 

misrepresentation, depriving any other 

person of payments for cost-share 

practices, rental contracts, or easements 

for the purpose of obtaining a payment 

to which a person would otherwise not 

be entitled. 

(c) A participant who succeeds to the 

responsibilities under this part will 

report in writing to USDA any interest 

of any kind in enrolled land that is held 

by a predecessor or any lender. A failure 

of full disclosure will be considered a 

scheme or device under this section. 

Signed this 15th day of November, 2010 in 

Washington, DC. 

Dave White, 

Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation, and Chief, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

Jonathan W. Coppess, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation, and Administrator, Farm 

Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29513 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES4