Comment on FR Doc # 2026-11327
Rural Investment to Protect our EnvironmentSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter, likely a farmer or rancher, supports keeping indirect benefits like soil erosion reduction and carbon storage in the language for Silvopasture. They argue that removing these benefits could negatively impact scoring and limit eligibility for contracts and programs.
In regards to Silvopasture (381) we encourage NRCS to keep the indirect, secondary benefits in the language. This includes reduced soil erosion and improved wildlife habitat, water quality, biological diversity, and carbon storage. We are concerned that removing these secondary benefits may impact scoring and diminishing that rank would cause issues with silvopasture qualifying for a contract. Keeping these benefits listed and not moved to the considerations section would help keep more farmers and ranchers eligible for programs.