Grassland Reserve Program, 73912-73934 [2010-29513]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Commodity Credit Corporation

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73912-73934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29513]



[[Page 73911]]

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

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





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



Commodity Credit Corporation



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



7 CFR Part 1415



Grassland Reserve Program; Final Rule

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

[[Page 73912]]


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

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 https://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 https://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 E-File Act, which require government 
agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting 
information or transacting business electronically to the maximum 
extent possible. 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.

[[Page 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 long-term 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 Sec.  1415.4 ``Program 
requirements,'' Sec.  1415.11 ``Restoration agreements,'' and Sec.  
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 https://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

[[Page 73914]]

USDA Performance Accountability Report. Related performance measurement 
and reporting policies are set forth in agency guidance (GM--340--401 
and GM--340--403) (https://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 Sec.  1415.4 
``Program requirements,'' Sec.  1415.11 ``Restoration agreements,'' and 
Sec.  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 long-term 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 (https://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) 
(https://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 
field-level 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 Sec.  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) 
(https://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

[[Page 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Description of      Information for FY
      Baseline/Scenario         baseline/scenario       2009-FY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Baseline One.............  GRP policy remains    Baseline of pre-2008
                               unchanged and         program.
                               acreage will
                               continue at FY 2007
                               acreage levels
                               through FY 2009-FY
                               2012. That is, no
                               action on the 2008
                               Act GRP changes.
B. Policy Scenario One......  GRP policy remains    Outcomes given the
                               unchanged, but        2008 Act GRP
                               acreage increases     acreage goals using
                               to reflect the 2008   ``Baseline one''
                               Act acreage goal      program provisions
                               levels through FY     (pre-2008 program).
                               2009-FY 2012.
C. Baseline Two.............  Full implementation   Outcomes given full
                               of the 2008 Act GRP   implementation of
                               changes.              the 2008 Act.
D. Policy Scenario Two......  Full implementation   Outcomes given the
                               of the 2008 Act GRP   2008 Act GRP
                               changes, but          statutory
                               funding/acreage       provisions with
                               goals set at FY       previous acreage
                               2007 acreage levels   goals.
                               through FY 2009-FY
                               2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net benefits (0%  Net benefits (3%  Net benefits (7%
            Baseline/Scenario                Total acres        discount)         discount)         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

[[Page 73916]]

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 USDA-administered 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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 https://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 Sec.  
1415.2(b)(4) to require input from the State Technical Committee when 
developing program outreach materials, and that USDA revise Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1415.11 Restoration agreements, 
and Sec.  1415.17 Cooperative agreements. Section 1415.11 describes the 
applicability of restoration agreements and the terms of such 
agreements; and Sec.  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 Sec.  
1415.17(c)(10) places undue financial burden on the potential 
cooperators, and the policy in Sec.  1415.17(c)(13) places undue 
restrictions and unfair burdens that will make it difficult for 
cooperators to participate.
    Further, Sec.  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 Sec.  
1415.11(l) regarding easements held by eligible entities.
    Response: USDA agrees that the provisions in paragraphs (k) and (l) 
of Sec.  1415.11 may reduce the interest in

[[Page 73918]]

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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1415.2(b)(6) to read ``Developing GRP management plans 
and restoration agreements, when applicable.''

Cooperative Agreement

    Comments: One commenter questioned how Sec.  1415.12(a) will be

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 73920]]

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 deve