§658.5. Criteria. — Inbound Citations

As stated above and as provided in the Act, each Federal agency shall use the criteria provided in § 658.5 to identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the protection of farmland. The agencies are to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen such adverse effects, and assure that such Federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with State, unit of local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland. The following are guidelines to assist the agencies in these tasks:

(a) An agency may determine whether or not a site is farmland as defined in § 658.2(a) or the agency may request that NRCS make such a determination. If an agency elects not to make its own determination, it should make a request to NRCS on Form AD-1006, the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form, available at NRCS offices, for determination of whether the site is farmland subject to the Act. If neither the entire site nor any part of it are subject to the Act, then the Act will not apply and NRCS will so notify the agency. If the site is determined by NRCS to be subject to the Act, then NRCS will measure the relative value of the site as farmland on a scale of 0 to 100 according to the information sources listed in § 658.5(a). NRCS will respond to these requests within 10 working days of their receipt except that in cases where a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond in 30 working days. In the event that NRCS fails to complete its response within the required period, if further delay would interfere with construction activities, the agency should proceed as though the site were not farmland.

(b) Federal agencies are to use the following criteria to assess the suitability of each proposed site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the score from the land evaluation criterion described in § 658.5(a). Each criterion will be given a score on a scale of 0 to the maximum points shown. Conditions suggesting top, intermediate and bottom scores are indicated for each criterion. The agency would make scoring decisions in the context of each proposed site or alternative action by examining the site, the surrounding area, and the programs and policies of the State or local unit of government in which the site is located. Where one given location has more than one design alternative, each design should be considered as an alternative site. The site assessment criteria are:

(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended?

(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?

(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than 5 of the last 10 years?

(4) Is the site subject to State or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?

(5) How close is the site to an urban built-up area?

(6) How close is the site to water lines, sewer lines and/or other local facilities and services whose capacities and design would promote nonagricultural use?

(7) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size farming unit in the county? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each State. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage of Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)

(8) If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?

(9) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?

(10) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns, other storage buildings, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures?

(11) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?

(12) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use?

(c) After the agency receives from NRCS the score of a site's relative value as described in § 658.4(a) and then applies the site assessment criteria which are set forth in § 658.5 (b) and (c), the agency will assign to the site a combined score of up to 260 points, composed of up to 100 points for relative value and up to 160 points for the site assessment. With this score the agency will be able to identify the effect of its programs on farmland, and make a determination as to the suitability of the site for protection as farmland. Once this score is computed, USDA recommends:

(1) Sites with the highest combined scores be regarded as most suitable for protection under these criteria and sites with the lowest scores, as least suitable.

(2) Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 need not be given further consideration for protection and no additional sites need to be evaluated.

(3) Sites receiving scores totaling 160 or more be given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection.

(4) When making decisions on proposed actions for sites receiving scores totaling 160 or more, agency personnel consider:

(i) Use of land that is not farmland or use of existing structures;

(ii) Alternative sites, locations and designs that would serve the proposed purpose but convert either fewer acres of farmland or other farmland that has a lower relative value;

(iii) Special siting requirements of the proposed project and the extent to which an alternative site fails to satisfy the special siting requirements as well as the originally selected site.

(c) The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information described in § 658.4(a). All criteria for corridor-type sites will be scored as shown in § 658.5(b) for other sites, except as noted below:

(1) Criteria 5 and 6 will not be considered.

(2) Criterion 8 will be scored on a scale of 0 to 25 points, and criterion 11 will be scored on a scale of 0 to 25 points.

(c) After the agency receives from NRCS the score of a site's relative value as described in § 658.4(a) and then applies the site assessment criteria which are set forth in § 658.5 (b) and (c), the agency will assign to the site a combined score of up to 260 points, composed of up to 100 points for relative value and up to 160 points for the site assessment. With this score the agency will be able to identify the effect of its programs on farmland, and make a determination as to the suitability of the site for protection as farmland. Once this score is computed, USDA recommends:

(1) Sites with the highest combined scores be regarded as most suitable for protection under these criteria and sites with the lowest scores, as least suitable.

(2) Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 need not be given further consideration for protection and no additional sites need to be evaluated.

(3) Sites receiving scores totaling 160 or more be given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection.

(4) When making decisions on proposed actions for sites receiving scores totaling 160 or more, agency personnel consider:

(i) Use of land that is not farmland or use of existing structures;

(ii) Alternative sites, locations and designs that would serve the proposed purpose but convert either fewer acres of farmland or other farmland that has a lower relative value;

(iii) Special siting requirements of the proposed project and the extent to which an alternative site fails to satisfy the special siting requirements as well as the originally selected site.