42137
tequlations-
*..[.. ..'-'
Wetlands Reserve Program; .;.;.' '.-.-,
AGENCY: Commodity.'Credit Corporation/
Natural Resources Conservation.' Service,'-
USDA.' ".. /' /'':' ;'..''' .,..' "~ .
ACTIOS: Final rule.. -. "".-.. -'''
SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit :
Corporation (CCC) and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
'are issuing its final rule for the
Wetlands Reserve Program.. This ride '
adopts as Jmalthe interim rale for the ..
. Wetlands Reserve Program published on
June 1,^1995, responds to comments ' .
received from the public during the
comment period, and incorporates . ;.
specific changes required by the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and' Reform
Act of 1996. -The '-fmallrule'-will provide
the process by which the Wetlands
Reserve' Program is administered by the '
'' "' ' ''' '"
.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1996. .' .
FOR FURTHER 'INFORMATION CONTACT:/.'-' ",.'
Robert Misso, (202) 720-3534. , -. ."
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:' . ' "
Executive Order 12SS6
.The Office of Management and. Budget
(OMB) Las determined that this final'"
mis is significant and was reviewed b}'
the Office of Management and -Budget
under Executive Order 12856. Pursuant
to §6(a}(3) of Executive Order 12866, '
CCC arid NRCS prepared a cost- benefit
Assessment of the potential impact of
the piogre.m. The .jsspSKi:i«;it concliidfid
"^jv -.--vcr.".! uischanisiTiS si t3i« State and
maximized for each Federal dollar spent
' in the WRP. These mechanisms include :
-a'comprehensive' prioritization'and.; ; . ..
Kinking procedure for each site offered '>".''
.for.enrplhnent-iii th.e'.program and.the '/"
requirernentforlocally-deterinined;..; '
easement .payment caps baseoY on the :'
agricultural larid-value.-These" ,.;...'
mechanisms, are developed and ' ' ".
implemented.on a stata-by-state basis;-' -.
:with guidance and coordination from
-the National level of .the agency/to . .:- - >
ensure that regional'and geophysical:.";., ;:.
variations are addressed. The WRP costs
data indicate that the procedures in' :.';; ;-,
place are promoting cost-effectiveness. :"
Copies of the cost-benefit assessment'are.
available upon request from Robert : -.
vMissb;Program.ManagerVVi7atersheds ;.'
and Wetlands Division; Natural . .- ;.- .
Resources Conservation Service, P.O. ' :
Box 2890,.Washington', DC 20250. 'h ;"'
Regulatory Flexibility Act.-.'. -. .. - . ., :
.-' ' It has been determined that'the..-. .;. '
' Regulatorj' Flexibility Act is not"- .-.' ._ . '
.applicable to this rule because neither
the-CCC or NRCS are required by 5 .,
'U.S.G. 553 or any other provision'of law
to publish a notice of proposed .'
rufemaking with respsct to'.the subject
matter of this rule. . -". ' .
Environmental Evaluation'
. It has been determined through an' . .
environmental review that tliis action'is '
a modification of the existing WRP and"
is covered under the NRCS J9SO"
Environmental Assessment entitled, _
''Wetlands Reserve Program ! ''.-' ,..
Environmental Assessment: Wetlands' ;
Reserve Provision of the Conservation ' -
Program Improvements Act of 1S90."
NRCS supplemented the environmental.
.. assessment to evaluate the changes to
the program made pursuant to'the :- .'.
Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1993. Copies of the
environmental assessment with
supplement are available upon request
from: Robert Misso, Program Manager,
Watersheds and Wetlands Division, .
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Post'Office' Box 2890, Washington, DC -
20250.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is not subject to
the provisions of Executive Order 12372
bec:jx;sc u involva:; diroei p:iysr.sr>ts to.
i.ndivjdu^b s:=;ri oot to Stsiv- ivid locai
Part 3015, Subpart V, published at 48
; FR 29115 (June 24,1983)! J ,
Federal Domestic Assistance Program ^
i '. The title and number of the Federal
.Domestic Assistance Program^' as found
in the Catalqg.of.Federal Domestic
Assistance, to which tliis-rule applies
are: Wetlands Reserve Program10.072.
Paperwork Reduction Act
.. Nonsubstantive changes have been -
made in this final rule which affect the
' recordkeeping requirements and
estimatedburdens previously reviewed.
.,:and approved under OMB control
"number 0578-0013.
Executive Order-12778 -' .
-This.unal rule has been-reviewed in '
accordance with Executive Order.12778.
-The provisions of this final rule are not
. retroactive. Furthermore, except as'"
"provided at.16 U.S.C.-3337a(s)(2); the
'provisions of. this" final rule preempt
: State and local laws to the extent such
laws are" inconsistent with this final
rule. Before an action may be brought in
a Federal court-of competent
jurisdiction, the administrative appeal
rights afforded persons at 7 CFR Part
614 must be exhausted. .
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1S95 ''' ' ' - .
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
'Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which
the President signed into law-on March
22,1995', the affects of this rulemaking
: action-on State/local, and tribal
governments, and:the public have been
assessed.-This action does not compel
the expenditure of $100 million or more
.by any 'State, local or tribal ." .'
-. governments, 'or anyone in the private
sector,, arid therefore a statement under
' section'202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform'Act of 1995 "is not required.
Discussion of Program .
The NRCS published the current
regulations for the Wetlands Reserve
Program as an interim rule on June 1.
1995 (60 FR 28511). Enacted on April 4,
199b, the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and'Reform Act'(the 19QO
Act) authorized the enrollment oi'non-
easeirieal acres into the program.
. through tba use of resloratiou cost-shnvft
agreements and msoc other n;inor
chc!i;£8s to ''is focus of too rci^i'i^'o.
-------
42138 Federal Register
addition of the few changes.
recommended during'public comment
and/or required by the 1996 Act. These .
changes are described below. Minor .
editorial changes have also been made .
for clarification and administrative
Durposcs.'The 1996 Actamended. the . \
Food Security.Act'pf 1985-(the 1.985.- ,
Act),Fub/L. 99rl98. to provide that tne
WRP. should be funded by CCC.:; -.-,:
''coSniing trI!S^.rule diking-the.'..
, "60-day 'public domment penod that. ;: -
endedjuly 3ji i?9S, Respondents...
included national wildlife and
conservation organizations, state .
aeencies,'public utilities, anyone Slate.
firm organization. Two of 1^^comments
simply indicated support for the WRP
and did not offer-specifi;c ^uggested.
changes!.-'* ' j'-'.\-- f'^l "''';'-: ' ''' '.- ":;
Definitions-f^C-;-} :.:y\ "; ,. j '. .!
' NRCSreceivea-two''cci.rnments-,; ,:.
requesting.sligrit-moaifications-tq.the .
definitions in.§ 629:2 of the interim rule.'
One comment suggested that the . .:
definition for/'State Technical , ^ :-
Committee" be changed to allow tie
State Conservationist flexibility in
delegating' the chair p'osition to other
members of tlie .committee. Currently,
the State Conservationist may delegate .
the chair position to other NRCS
personnel. Even so. implementation of
the WRP at.tlie state level remains the
responsibility of tlie State
Conservationist and therefore, no,
changes were made to the definition o, -
State Technical Committee. The
commenter also suggested that the
definition of "wetland functions and .
' values"-be revised from "social worth
placed .upon these characteristics to
"the socio-economic value placed upon
these characteristics.1'This change
.' clarifies the intent of tlie interim rule
and is adopted in this final rule.
NRCS also received a comment irom .
a state forestry agency requesting that
"timber" be included in tlie definition
for "wetland functions and values.
NRCS did not adopt this change because
the concept'is incorporated in the
current definition but die actual term is
too specific for a nationwide program
which enrolls many different types 01
wetlands with differing wetlands
definition. Additionally, section 620.3(0
is modified to include conservation
districts by specific reference to clarify.
that NRCS' values the special
partnership that it has with -
conservation districts in'the effort to
improve the Nations soil, water and ^
other natural resources; and NRCb will,
continue to seek-iriput from; ' -. ......'
conservation districts in the ... .;.. ;. .
administration.^.its programs.. .-'. : .. ;
The Consolidated Farm Service . . ..
.'Agency CCFSA) is now known as .the... :.'. V,
Fim "Service-Agenc>'(FSA).'The-ruleis,.f
-amended to reflect this name change. X: v
^Utility Easements ..;' -...-^'. :/-. ;'-'<;v-"-.'--
NRCS received two comments from
utility companies, both of which '
' expressed concern about how NRCS ;.
would approach the overlapping of a
WRP easement with a'utiUty-easement:./ .-.,
'Utilitv easements are addressed during';.,
" the title clearance, process. During that -
process, the NRCS must determine '-: .-;-..
''.whether. (1) NRCS can obtain a .-, '.'
'subordination agreement from the _:.:-
utility easement holder; (2) the exercise .
' 'of the utility easement holder .s rights
Would be consistent.with the purposes ; .,.;
Of the WRP .easement; or, (3J the> _
exercise of the utility' easement holder s
rights would undermine tlie .purposes.. ..
for which the WRP easement would be -
established. If the NRCS is unable to
obtain a subordination agreement from .
tlie utility easement holder and the -
exercise "of that easement holder's rights
would undermine the WRP easement
then tlie NRCS will not purchase & WRF
easement on that property. One of these
. commenters also expressed support tor
the preference given permanent
easements by the interim rule.. -
(HGM)) to evaluate wetland [unctions
and values more objectively. NRCS will
be better able to rank wetland sites for
WRP that differ, thus providing for more
consistency wi'tlnn and between Slates.
Compatible Uses
NRCS received four letters from State
forestry organizations and one letter .; ;
from a State farm organization wmch .
expressed.oppositioato language placed.
'in the preamble tp the WRP interim rule
'' regarding compatible economic uses 01
kth! easement.iekas.it related to iorest
management .activities. NRCS also .
.'received a comment, however/from-a
''conservation'organization which
' supported the language used in tlie - .
preamble, suggesting that some .
^management approaches may .not: be
:consistent with the long-term-protection
. of xvetland resources. ' ,....
.'. '-According-to the WRP authorizing
' 'language at 16-U.S.C. 3837a(d), -.. '
'.compatible economic uses; including -
forest management, are permitted if
' consistent with the long-term protection -
and enhancement of the wetlands
'resources for which the easement was
" established. Li'the preamble, NRCS -
* . >« i_J ±\~*i VinfiTafi"\r>a
icated that fce
definition of "Conservation Districts be
modified to reflect better the msswn of
conservation districts. The NRC& aOoyls
the suggested lans"aSe as an
improvement to the ciuvity o, tu«
Water Quality .'.'.''
One utility company commenter .
requested Aat the impact on drinking
water sources be a ranking factor for.
oiving priority to purchasing a. . ..
particular easement. One of the. " '-,. ; -:
conservation organizations also urged
that easements that provided water
quality functions receive priority - .
treatment. Because water quality is one
of the wetland functions for which the
easement is being estaohshed, the NRCS
considers in its ranking .process, directly
or indirectly, the-impact en-easement.
wovld have on drinking water sources.
Currently, each State ConserysUomst in
consultation with the State Technical
Committee, will determine the weigh,
that xvater quality in general and impac
on drinking water specifically, should
rec»i'.'8 in the ranking process. In tne
f»«urc. NRCS rdoug with, other agencies
v.-itli WJtlan'i responsibilities will use a
system (llyUrogooinoiTihic Modeling
estaDiisneo. ui LIIK jjicmn^.^, ^^
simply indicated that harvesting
methods which are not consistent with
the long-term protection and . -
enhancement of wetland functions and
values on a particular easement area . -
. -will not be considered a compatible use.
' Upon request by a landowner, tlie NW-b
will evaluate the particular site on an
easement area and will make a
determination of what silvicultural -
approach, timing, intensity, and
duration may be considered compatiDie
with'the wetland functions and values..
. The document granting permission tor
forest management activities, or any .
other reouest for a compatible use,
specifies"the amount, method, timing,
-intensity, and duration of the use being
:'. granted. The NRCS, However,- reserves .
:its ability to'modify a-particular use
should easement area conditions .
change. The management plan for an.
easement area is a "living document
'and may be updated with additional
compatible use requests as they are
received from a landowner over time.
' For example, the wetland functions
and values that are established by the
WRP restoration efforts are.not available
for mitigation purposes. However, at a
later date, the landowner may request
permission from the NRCS to enhance
further the functions and values
established by the WRP restoration.
effort. If the NRCS determines that the
enhancement action is a compatible uts
and is clearly beyond the scope of
restoration, actions that woula bs_^
feasible under any subsequent \VKT
i
I
-------
4213S
restoration, efforts, the additional
increment of functions and values
which directly result from the
landowner's approved enhancement
action may be available to meet .
mitigation requirements under other
federal, slate,'or local law. '-._ .
No matter the use, the test remains: ,
"Is a particular proposed use consistent
with the long-term, protection and
enhancement of the wetlands resources -.
for which the easement was established
and Federal funds expended?"Thjs ; '
approach is consistent with the WRP -
statute and'does not require any change
to the WRP. rule. ; '
Non-permanent Easements . -
' The NRCS received four comments in
which 'the conimenters expressed .;-
'concern thatthe interim rule gave such. -
priority to the enrollment of permanert
easements that the. enrollment of non- ;
permanent easements would be
completely-excluded from the program..
One commenter expressed the concern;
that the priority placed on .permanent
easements overshadowed the other. .
priority mandated by statute. In
particular, the WRP authorizing
legislation at 16 U.S.C. 3837c(d) - ;.
provides that priority, should be placed
on acouiring-easements based on the
value of the easement for protecting and
enhancing habitat for migratory birds
ana other wildlife. ' .
Sections '620.6(b)(4) and (5) of the rule
require that-the NRCS. consider wneiner
any permanent easement offer has the
ecological and. cost-characteristics
' which warrants acquisition before
proceeding to acquire anon-permanent
easement. The conimenters recognized
'that non-permanent easements receive a
different easement payment than-a
permanent easement; but either, did not
express specific Opposition to the -,- : ^
differentiated payment rate or expressed
'. support for it. The 1996'Act : -.
amendments require,'to the extent ,
practicable after Octoberl, 1996, that
NRCS enroll one-third of total program
acres through the use of 30-year
easements. . ' ' ,
In response to the comments received
and explicit direction from statute,
NRCS has removed §§ 62Q.8(b)(4) and
(5) and thus eliminated thess particular
constraints upon .the enrollment of non-
psrmanent easements: The-1985 -.-
amendments also provided that the .
restoration, cost-share rate for a 30-year
easement should be from 50 to-75
pcrcMii. The interim rule provided thst
ihs cosfsment payment rate for a non- ^
liannaao.iit easement should parallel, ins
res',ora!ic!i cost-share rate. Therefore,
§ ry'.0.sn.0(3) has hosri emended to
K'1'".^ l'ic;-' the aascVTianl payment for
fan
a 30-year easement shall be between 50
percent and 75 percent of that which ' -
would have been paid for a permanent
' casement. . ' .," ' "
One commentet.noted that the ' ;
SC0 000 annual easement payment'
.limitation discriminated.unduly against.
the acouis'ition of less than permanent
easements. The interim final rule had ..
established the $50,000 annual =./ , \-.-
easement payment cap,for all non- .} -.-. __
permanent easem'ent:acquisitiOns. ;-.. '-.'
However, by statute,' the $50,000 annual = -
easement.p'ayment limitation for-non- :...
permanent easements is a discretionary -
cap. As such, the NRCS has determined ;
.that in special circumstances involving
proiects with partnership funding or - .
participation, a greater annual easement-
payment amount may be available.. -.. .
Additionally, the statute provides .that:
'payments are exempted from.the"? ..- -. -
payment limitation if the payment is ; -_
received by a State, political -. - ': -. ,;:
subdivision, or.-agency thereof in ..: > _
co^ection with- agreements entered^..;.'
into under a special wetland and ' -;
' environmental enhancement program-....
carried out by .that entity that has been - ..
approved by NRCS:.The final rule is,- .-
amended accordingly;''. ' .' ' '. .
S°ciion 620.17 addresses the
sd-^inisu-ative.appeal procedures to be
used wlicn a person desires review ot a
<=d'rr:'vstr?tion determination. '.
conceniin" eligibility for participation. .-
TV..-.interim -final rule for the National .
Appeals Division (NED) Pvules or
Procedures, 80 FR 67298. (December 29,
'->. 635), amended §- 620.17 to include^
rpf°r.-,nce to 7 CFR Part 780 and-7 CFR
Part 11. The NAD interim final rule also
amended 7 CFR Part 614, the NRCS
r-ppoals procedures originally .
referenced in § 620.1.7. Part 614, as
amended, references the other appeal
procedures at 7 CFR Part 780 and 7 CFR;
Part 11, and their additional mention in;
§ 6'0 17 is therefore redundant.-This-...-
" final rule amends .§620.17 to remove the
.redundant reference to -7 CFR-Part 780 ;
- 7 CFR Part 11.'; ;'_.- ".' --:..;.. . .. '
Discussion of the Federal Agriculture
. Improvement and Reform A.ct :
The Federal Agriculture Improvement
zs-t Reform Act (the 1996 Act) was
exacted on April 4,1996. The 1996 Act
amended the Food Security Act of 1985,
Is'u.S.C. 3801 etseq., to re-authorize
the Environmental Conservation .
Acreage Reserve Program as the
u»-.ii-.,-(jl'i:i conservation program
rr-.-n'tn ssiiig faQ Conservation Reserve
^rj..Vrn (IQ U.S.C. 3831-3836), the
,.,7.^^.C'-api-ed Enviromneiital Quality
!Vr:- Stives Fro-ram (10 U.S.C. 3840),
-.,.: '-, --V'^VncJs Reserve Program (1°
^'.: r-"'V;q7 V-isen.). Under tho
Environmental Conservation Acreage
Reserve program, the Secretary of
Agriculture may'designate areas as
. conservation priority areas to assist
landowners to meet nonpoint source
pollution requirements and 'other. -.^ .
'conservation needs. .--. '
The 1996 Act effects several changes . -
to the administration of the WRPr.In ' :-
particular, the 1996 Act amendments, .
authorize the enrollment of land into .'
the'Wetlands Reserve Program until, .- . .-.
: 2002/establishes a program cap at ;_
'975,000 acres,'and provides that eligible-.
land must maximize wildlife benefits
and wetland functions and values- '
The 1996-Act amendments also .
require that,.to the extent practicable ' '
beginning October 1,1996, one-third of.-
'the remaining program acres be enrolled.-
-"-through the use of permanent. -." _'
easements; one-third'through the use of, -
' 30-year easements, and one-third
through the use of restoration cost-share
-agreements. Further, after October 1, '.'.
1996 ho new permanent easement can
be en'roUed.u'ntil-at last 75,000 acres of .
non-permanent easement are enrolled in
the program. Section 721 of the '
aoriculture Appropriations-Act. enacted
August 6,1996, stated that this -
condition' on enrollment "shall be
deemed-met upon the enrollment.oi .
43,333 acres through the use of
temporary easements: Provided further
that'the Secretary shall not enroll acres
* * * through the use of new
permanent easements in fiscal yesr 1998
until-the Secretary has enrolled at least
31,667 acres in the program througn the
use of teniporary easements;" In
recognition thatthe NRCS must enroll
lands that maximize wildlife benents
and other wetland functions and values,
achieve-cost-efficient,restoration,.and .
provide the three identified enrollment
'.approaches, the NRCS will emphasize
""enrolling lands that have the least ;
likelihood o'f being reconverted. The ^
NRCS will work with landowners and
other conservation partners to achieve-
these lasting benefits for wetland'
resources. ' .
Through several public forums across
the county,- the NRCS received
comments-from the public about toe
new. conservation programs and t,ic
chanees to exist ing conservation
programs as a result of the enactment o,
the 1996 Act. The "NRCS greatly
appreciates the input pro video ay the
public through the forums snd written
comments submitted to the agency. I lie
NRCS will consider these comments
during the formulation of its policies
- and guidelines. . n-_.
Many of the changes to Uie vy;\.-r
required by the 1895 Act are diyoctives
to the as3;--cy v.-hich do not ijr.ijsct ih.c
-------
i Wr:dr;::ic%, Au,ju?t ':.
.u-'.j ass c:;::v;<:s are
r.::u:cintfli>y and do not j.\v.;u\ro s«pncy
intej'yrawt-on. She CCC aiiri NKCS have
incorporated them, into this final luie.
The following sections, and parts are
impacted: ~"
Section 620.2
The 1966 Act made several changes to
other programs which relate to WRP,'
including the wetland conservation- .
provisions, 7 CFR Part 12. and the
Conservation Reserve Program, 7-CFR .
Parts 704 and 1410'. Therefore; certain ' .'
definitions are removed from this part to.
avoid any.inconsistencies with the .-.-,.
implementation of these other .
provisions.- ,'.. .-'. ».'" ."'.
'Section620.3 ... ' -::: .-,' ...
' The 1996 Act requires th'e Department
of Agriculture to avoid duplication of.'.
conservation plans required for the
implementation of the highly credible '
land conservation provisions of the
Food Security Act of 1985, CRP, and the
WRP. In response to this requirement,
§ 620.3 (h) is amended to include .
coordination of the development of
conservation plans as an additional goal
in the administration of the WRP. The
1996 Act amendments also provide that.
areas may bs designated as conservation
priority areas to help producers comply '
with nonpoint source pollution .- .-.,.-
requirements and other conservation
needs.-Therefore, a new sentence is'
added to § 620.3(h) that the Secretary of-.
Agriculture may designate areas as .- .
conservation priorit}' areas to assist'-
landowners to meet nonpoint source -.-
pollution requirements and other.' ."/ :
conservation needs.'.' ..:*.'.-. -./.-«'..'
^Section 620.4 V; ';"" ;;;:; ;:;;.>
' The 1996 Act amendments authorize'.''_..
the enrollment of acres into the. WRP,..''
through the use of restoration co'st>share:
agreements.-Therefore.-the first sentence ,.
. of § 620.4 has been amended to include '
the term "restoration cost-share' ..-'.,». .. ^
agreements." ,. ,.''.".'! ,./ .-" / -' ';'
The 1996 Act amendments links ~ ':.
eligibility for WRP easement or cost-'- /,
share payments to the highly" ero'dible.; ,
land andwetland conservation.-.. -.L",'.--.- ''-.
provisions of'the 1985 Act',' 16 UJSic.'. :;
3801 etseq.,7 CFR part 12. Therefore,'.;..'.
landpwner.eligibility; § 620.4(c),-is,,v~;v.;''
, amended tq.reflect-that a p'erson-.rriay'<.-'/'.'
. hot be eligible fpr-participation in VyRP ' '
if the'requirernehts "of 7. CFR part.12'.--..'...
have not been met. .. - . '.'.I-, '
The 1996 Act amendments specify
.that the 25 percent county enrollment
cap and the 10 percent county easement
c."=r- Ciiiy ariijiy to saves u-irolk-.:- ;-r; Hi:;
Cor.ssfv::i:'n;i Reserve F.-ujravn (C'RPj
ana the Vv'I\P. and not aU acres eiiroiiod.
in the Environmental Coiiservstiou
Acreage Raserve Program. Therefore, the
reference to the Environmental
Conservation Acreage Reserve Program
in § 620.4(b)(l) has been replaced with
specific reference to the CRP.and die "
WE?. In. addition"to "consideration of
any adverse.effect on the local economy,
the 1996 Act amendments require that
a waiver from the county caps can only
be approved if operators in-the county
are having difficulties complying with
the conservation plans'implemented
under--.16 U.S.C.. 3812.-.Therefore,'. < ,-..
. §.62.0.4(fa)(2).has been amended to.. .-' ''
incorporate, this new. criterion.\ -.-'.'..,-'. ~s
... The 1996'Actamendments expanded
" the eligibility criteria ,tp require'.' ';. -:v"-:
specifically'that land enrplled;in th'e,'
program'maximize wildlife benefits:'. ;
.Th'ereforey§620:4(d)'is"amendedtp - .,
incorporate the additional eligibility.-'
criterion/ -.. >:"..'..'.;! :- V/H"':---.- .'
The 1985 Act provides that pasture'
land'established to trees under the CRP
is'ineligible for .enrollment in the WKP.
Even though such lands wore not
enrolled in the program, specific
mention of this ineligibility provision
v.-as not made in the interim rule.
Section 620.4(e) is amended to
incorporate specifically this statutory '
provisip'n.: -; ;.:'' .:..;. '-.. . -.-'
.Section:620:7 ": ..-.. '': :'"~, :'-'-.:
THe 1996 Act amendments require'
that after October 1,1996, to the extent
practicable, the NRCS enroll one-third
of the acres through the use of
permanent ea'seme'nts;:_one-thifd -of the
'acres through the/use .of 30-year ..-;.
easements, arid one-third of.the acre's -J':...
through.the"use of restoratipri'cost-share .
. agreements. The NRCS-has considered -
land enrolled, in.the program-at the time.
the NRCS .dete'i-niines' that a laridoiyner.'.s '
'offer is eligible-; funds are.committe'd to'1:;'
acquire that-particular easement, arid
. the laiidovvTier.agrees to'continue in the
program'. Because tHe 1996 Act ,
amendments ..require that'the NRCS '
.track the total acres enrolled through the.
- use of permanent .easements,'-307year :; '-
easements", 'arid.restoratidri'cbst-sHare -i--;
'agreements,-§620;7(b)'is arriended to '
..
'3837a(f);:tp eliminate the specific -'' -. ;...
reference to lump sum payments-for .;
permanent easements only; and further -
provides that annual compensation for
any easement may be in not less than 5
nor more than 3.0 annual payments of
is'.corpoKttod tho oriijUislsUiiutorv .
provisions as to payments, ara a:v.:-nri'.-.').
to refisct ibis specific change in !.v\v
regarding easement paymunts.
Section 620.9'and 620.10_.
To reflect that the NRCS shall enroll
land into the WRP through the.use of-
restoration cost-share agreements,
' section 620.9 is amended by adding .
. specific reference to restoration ccst-
share agreements and making associated
editorial adjustments to this new type of
'enrollment mechanism.' Additionally,
the 1996 Act-amendments provide that
the cost-share rate for restoration
'associated with 30-year easements shall
be no less than'50 nor more than 75
percent. Section 620.9(a) incorporates
this new statutory provision.'- - .
Likewise,' the requirements in . '. .
' § 620.10,, such as the granting of an-
easement to the United States, are -.-
specific to enrollment into the program
through the use of an easement and not
restoration cost-share agreements.
Therefore, the heading to §620.10
reflects that the section is no'longer
applicable as "Program requirements" :
but now more appropriately refers to
easement-enrollment requirements.
Section 620.11 .; '
The 1996 Act'amendments provide
that the development of the restoration
- plan shall be'made through the local
NRCS representative, in consultation
with the State-Technical Committee.
The 1996 Act amendments also removes
the specific requirement that . .
consultation with the Department of the
Interiormeans agreement at the local
level and consultation.at the State level.
.'Therefore, NRCS has added-these ..
changes to § 620'.11 by.lj by removing
.the regulatory language in paragraph (a)
which required agreement with the U.S.
Fish and.Wildlife Service at the local'.
level, and 2) replacing the language with
a new paragraph (a) 'which how
references the'development of the plan
by the local NRCS representative. ;-'
Section 620.14 , ;' '' ..." .,-," .
During the implementation of the' '
program under, the interim rule, ;
cpiifusion arose,'regarding the language
in § 620.14 about'"ass6ciated" contract.
;-The'terrn-''asspciated" was intended to/
. mean a contract-"associated -with' tHe
'program" other than the easement deed.
As stated, the term "associated'1 ,..
inadvertently created the mistake]!
conclusion that the contract is attached
to the easement deed. Therefore, the
term "associated" has been removed (q
improve the clarity of this section.
-------
Federal Register
Rules and Regulations 42141
Part's 620 and 14-67 ' V
Because funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be used for
administration of the WRP.'the'WRP.
rule is moved from Part 620 to. Part 1467
of Title VII of the CFR."Furthermore,
certain administrative responsibilities .
may be assumed by other agencies with
'List of Subjects "iia 7 CFR Part' 1467
: Administrative, practice and-
procedure, Agriculture, Soil
conservation, XVetlands.
Accordingly,-the interim rute
Agency.-.the'NRCS and the Farm Service
Agency will seek agreement in .<
establishing policies, priorities, and
guidelines related to the .;, -;;:
implementation of this-part.:;' . ''-.- '-""
* . * '* ' *:'*." ' !"'
' . (f) The Department may enter into .
cooperative agreements with Federal "or
State agencies', conservation districts. ..
and private conservation'organizations..,
to assist the .NRCS'with educational.. .;.;
' efforts"; easement rnahagemeht'and ..; . '
monitoring, outreach efforts, and .:; .-.
program/implementation assi'stance. .
- ^gj * ' * -* fhe NRCS may consult with
the Forest Service, other Federal or State
Commodity Credit Corporation pursuant
to 16 U.S.C. 3831-3836.
*: *: * * *
Contract means the document thai
specifies the obligations and rights of
any person who has been accepted for
participation in the program. . .
*"''.*' .* * * .
; Department means the United States '
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
includes the Commodity Credit
Corporation or any USDA agency or .' :
: instrumentality delegated program-
responsibility by the Secretary of
Agriculture. .
' * *. - * * . *
Person means an individual,
eSh-sheS76pFR^l?^uttlTaS ^££^^£^9T:°^ "partnership, association, corporation.
1 In-7 CFR, .chapter VI, part 620 is re-
designated as chapter XIV, part 1467;:,:.
arid the sections are re-designated as set
forth below:;;.. < ..v. ': \,''.'.'':.-.'}'
" ".'' '.-'. '.' New sec-
Old section -..- . .- tion
~>ni -' " ..;..:;..... :. " 1467.1
0si ration plans
in'-ploipsnted under 16 U.S.C. 3812.
" (c) Landowner elSj-ibiiity. The NUCS
mav dtftsrniinv; that n person is not
* Program
-------
vvi.' in .:.vt! r,u .:,>"$!.'.!. hi !br
V.'.VP, a ;::.: ,: j,..^t: - -
(2) Ltuid shall only'oa considered
oligibb Tor enrollment in the WRP if the
NRCS determines, in consuilaiion with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that:
(i) Such land maximizss.wildlife
benefits and wetland values and
functions;
(ii) The likelihood of the successful
restoration of such land and the
resultant wetland values merit inclusion
of such land in the program, talcing into
.consideration the cost of such
restoration; and ' -. .-.
(iii) Such land meets' the criteria of '
paragraph (d)(3) of this section. .'''.
(3] .The following land may be eligible
. -for enrollment in the WRP, which land.
may be' identified by the NRCS pursuant
to regulations and implementing
policies pertaining to wetland
conservation found at 7 CFR part 12, as:
'***-.
* ' * * * »
.' (e)* « '.
(2] Land that contains timber stands
established under a CRP contract or
pasture land established to trees under
a CRP contract.
» * * *
7. In § 1467.6, paragraphs (a) through
(c) are re-designated as paragraphs (b)
through (d), a new paragraph (a) is -.
added to read as follows:
§ 1467.6 Establishing priority for
enrollment of properties in WRP.
. (a) The NRCS shall place priority on
the enrollment of those lands that will
maximize wildlife values (especially
related to enhancing habitat for,
migratory birds and other wildlife); have
the least likelihood of re-conversion and
loss of these wildlife values at the end
of the WRP enrollment period; and'that
involve State, local, or other partnership
matching funds and participation.
* * * ' * *
8. Section 1467.7 is amended by
revising the heading to the section and
the heading to paragraph '(b) ,to read as
follows: ','.
§ 1467.7, Enrollment of easements.
* * : * *' it - '
(b) Effect of letter of intent to continue
(enrollment). * * * ,
* ."** .*
9. Section 1467i8 is amended by . .
(a) Revising paragraph (b)(3); ': '
(b) Removing paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5),'
and(e)(2); " .-
(c) Re-designating paragraph (e)(3) as
(:5!(2); and,
'iV;o r.rvisions road r.s fois-.:!.vs:
51437.3 Co.T.pooj-'aUi;;! ',cr o:,«:r.:
(b)
(3) Easement payments for nvn-
permaneut easements will be less than
those for permanent easements because
the quality and duration of the
ecological benefits derived from a non-
permanent easement are significantly
less than those derived from a
permanent easement on the same land.
Additionally, the economic value of the
easement interests being acquired is less
for a non-permanent easement than that
associated with a permanent easement.
An easement payment forthe short-term
30-ye.ar easement shall not be less than. "'
SO percent nor more than''75 percent of
that which would have-been paid, for'a
permanent easement. '''"..
* .'*"*','**
[e)* *> ' ,\ .." ' :.
(2) Annual easement payments may
be made in no less than 5 annual . "
payments and no more than 30 annual
payments of equal or unequal size..
. * * * , . * *
(h) Payment limitation on non-
permanent a'qsements. With respect'to .
non-permanent easements, the annual
amount of easement payments to any
. -person'may not exceed 550,000 except
for: ' ; . .-.,-''.
(1) Payments made pursuant to
projects involving partnership funding
or participation; or .
(2)_Payment, received by a State,
political subdivision, or agency thereof
in connection with agreements entered
' into under a special wetland and
environmental enhancement program
carried out by"that entity that has been '..
approved by NRCS.
' * *' '. * ; . /*. *' ,; .
10.' In § 1467.9, the first sentence''of
the introductory text of paragraph (a) '
and paragraph (a)(2) are revised to read
as follows: . . ...
§ 1467.9 Cost-share payments.
(a) The Department may share the'cost
with landowners of restoring the
enrolled land as provided in the '
WRPO> * * . ... ;
* *..'*. '* * . :
(2) On enrolled land subject to a non-'
permanent easement or restoration cost-
share'agreenient, the Department shall.
offer to pay not less than 50 percent nor
more than'75 percent of such costs.' '. '.
Restoration cbst:share payments offered
by.NRCS 'for the short-term,'3 0-year
easements shall be 50 to 75 percent
(5) Htivs the option to enter into an
agreement witli sovcrnmental or private
organizations to assist in carrying out
any landowner responsibilities on the
easement area;
* . * * * *
12. In § 1467.11, paragraph (aj is
revised and a new sentence is added at
the end of paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 1467.1 1 The WRPO development.
(a) The development of the WRPO .
. shall be' made through the local NRCS
representative, in consultation with the
State. Technical Committee, arid with
consideration of site specific technical
input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Conservation District.
(b)* * "-The WRPO shall be .
developed to ensure 'that cost-effective
restoration and maximization of wildlife
benefits and wetland functions and
values will result.
13. In § 1467.12, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§.1467.12 -Modifications.
* '. * * * , *
(b) WRPO. Insofar as is consistent
with the easement and applicable law,
the State Conservationist may approve
' modifications to the WRPO that do not
affect provisions of the easement in
consultation with the landowner and
the State Technical Committee and
following consideration of site specific
technical input from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Conservation
District. Any WRPO modification must
meet WRP.prograin objectives, and must
result hi equal or greater wildlife
benefits, wetland functions and values,
'ecological and economic values to die
United States. Modifications to the : '
WRPO which' are substantial and affect
provisions of the easement will require
agreement from the landowner and :
require- execution of an amended ' :.
.easement. . . ,.,..-.. ......;. . -
14. Section 1467.'l3 is amended by ' '
- revising paragraph (b)(l) to read as
'1 '' ''' ' ' ""
-§1467.13: -Transfer' of land.
' (b)
':"' ; *.'*.*;.";''*:*/'"".*"*,* . ""''-' ' ' ' -
* *;''.' "'.";" . - ' .. ,' ' 'r
(1) Foreasements'with multiple .
annual payments, any remaining
easement payments will be made to the
original landowner.unless the
-------
FceferaZ Register l_ Vol.
158 /
1996 / Rules and ^^^^^2.
Department receives an assignment of
proceeds.
* . *
15. In § 1407.14, remove the word ^
"associated" from paragraphs (a) and
16 Section 1467.17 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§1467.17 "Appeals.
'. (a) A person participating 'in the WRP
may obtain a review of any.
administrative determination "
concerning eligibility for participation
utilizing the administrative appeal
regulations provided in 7 CFR part 614.
x * * * * ' .
17 In addition to the amendments set
forth above, in 7 CFR part 1467 remove
the words "Consolidated Farm Service-
Agency" whereverthey appear and add,
fn their place, the words "Farm Service
l8"ti addition to the amendments' set
forth above, in 7 CFR part 1467 remove
the word "NRCS" whenever it appears
and add, in its place, the word
"Department".
Signed at Washington. B.C. on August 8,
1996.
Paul Johnson,,
Chief. Natural Resources Consecution
Service, Vice President. Commodity Credo.
Corporation.
(FR Doc. 95-20623 Filed 8-13-96; 8:45 am)
SILLINS CODE S41(MS-*S
.Food Safety and inspection Service
S CFR Part 317 ' '
[Docket No. SS-005DF]
5S3-AC03
Net Weight Statement for Shingle .
Packed Bacon
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA. '
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for
comments. __ ^ _ _ _ .__
SU»JiM«iRY: The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending
the Federal meat inspection regulations
bv removing an obsolete labeling
reouiremcnt for certain. sizes of shingle
packed bacon. This rule applies the
same requfc-emenls for net weight ^
statements to all sizes of shingle pacKsd
bacon.
C/.T-S: This mle will be effective on
Cooler 15, 1998 unless FSIS racoivss
'../''.ten adverse cornunyHs-'or vmttsn
u'l-'co cf intent U> sv.l«?.ii a-:sver.' s
ov... 'VjOii's on "or before S.ipv.W:-4"- i-s,
comments within the scope of this rule,
FSIS will withdraw .this rale and
publish a proposed rule for public-
comment. ;.; ' - ,
ADDRESSES: Send an original and two .
conies of xvritten comments to: Fblb ....
Dod^t Clerk. Docket S96-005DF, Room .
A352, South Agriculture Budding Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U-b.
Department^Agriculture, Washington,,.
DC 20250... '." ' . .., .- : '-
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Cheryl Wade, Director, Food Labeling
Division. Regulatory Programs, Food ;
Safety and inspection Service, U.S. .
Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC 20250, Area Code (202) 254-2590,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
.Background- -_ ' .'
FSIS has been petitioned to amend ..
th~ Federal meat inspection regulations ;
by"removing an obsolete labeling ".
requirement for certain sizes of shingle .
packed bacon. (Shingle packed bacon is
sliced bacon p'acked in overlapping
rows usually contained in a rectangular
PaSectfon 317.2(h)(13) of the Federal
meat inspection regulations requires .
' that the labeling of packages of bacon _
not in 8-ounce, 1-pound, or. 2-pound
containers display the net quantity of
the contents (net weight statement) with
"the same prominence.as toe largest
feature of the label. In addition, the
^ statement must be printed in a color of
ink that contrasts sharply with the
label's background. ".' '
Section 317.2(h)(G)(v) provides.tnat
shingle packed bacon packed in 8-
ounce, 1-pouiid, or 2-pound containers
is exempt from the labeling
requirements regarding: (l) the ". ; - -
placement of tternet weight statement?
withinthe.bdttom 30 percentof the ..
principal display panel, and (2) the -
expression of the net weight statement
in terms of both pounds and oxinces.-il.-.
. the net weight .statement appears in a ..;.-
conspicuous manner on-the principal:
shingle packedbacon,'
was sold in 8-6unce, 1-pound, or 2-
pound packages. Over time, bacon
manufacturers began packing bacon ol .
different weights in .the same size
containers used for the tradiUonal_8-
ounce,.l-pouud, and 2-pound packages
of bacon. For.example, a 12-ounce
oackage of bacon-was packed m.tne
arms sizs container as a 1-pound.
pr'.^fe.of.bacon. To ensure that
consumers wsro awaro that ihore v.-as
1,^ product in the same-size container,
FtfS promulgated rogulatioiis to
h-nithi to coii-suj.-w^ tns TIG', W33?A<-:
,-;": -r^=-.f on &^^ p~±^*- '--.lO'.YUVir,
xvith heightened consumer awareness,
the use of nutritional labeling, and the ..
use of .unit pricing at the retain level, -_
FSIS agrees'with the petitioner that this ,
labeling requirement is no-longer ,
needed. . ". ' ..--...
''Therefore, FSIS is amending the . .
Federal meat inspection-regulations by
removing the labeling requirement lor
shingle packed, bacon packed in other ,
than 8-ounce. 1-pound, or 2-pound ;,.-,..
containers in § 317.2(h)(13).. FSIS is also
removing the language that refers to 8- :
ounce, 1-pound, and 2.pound packages
of shingle packed bacon from
§ 317 2Xh)(9)(v). This action provides the
same requirements for net-weight .
statements for all sizes of shingle
packed bacon. "-.-'
"Effective Date
This-rule is being published without
'" a prior proposal because this action is'
viewed as noncontroversial, and FSIb ....
: -does not anticipate any adverse public
comments will bereceived^Thisrule; , .
will be effective 60 days after the date-;
of publication in the Federal Register .
unless FSIS receives written adverse
comments or written notice of intent to
' submit adverse comments within 30 ..
days of the date of publication of this..
rule in the Federal Register. .
If no adverse comments are received,
.- FSIS will publish a "notice in the
Federal Register confirming that the
rule is effective on the date indicated. -
Executive Ordsr 12886 and-Effect on
Small" Entities
This rule is considered not significant
and therefore has not been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
The Administrator, FSIS, has
determined that this rule will not have.
' a significant impact on a substantial..
number of small entities. The rule -.. .
merely -removes an obsolete labeling - -
requirement for shingle packedbacon ...
" packed in other than 8-ounce, 1-pound,
.or 2-pound containers.
Executive Order 12778 -
' '" This rule has been, reviewed under
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule (1) preempts all SUue
and local laws and regulations that are
inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3j does not
require administrative proceedings
before parties may lils suit in court
challenging this rule.
' List of Subjects in S CFil F.-.i" 3*7
Moat inspection, Food labeling.
For the reasons d-scussod in the ; -
pr^mbk, 9 CFR p«ri 317 is anionacQ K,
iV-)Tov.-i:
-------
------- |