Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

3738

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Program Administration
should be used for partnership renewals; use of honeybees and other pollinators; use of practices to support native vegetation; and implementation of a drought contingency plan.
Comment also recommended that NRCS:
a Identify selection criteria for partnership agreements, including whether there is the availability of alternative funding arrangements, in each APF;
b Use a simplified evaluation process;
c Consult with partners on all aspects of distributing RCPP financial assistance;
d Utilize fully AFAs;
e Work with local working groups as part of the proposal ranking criteria;
f Provide more certainty on reimbursement of real costs of both project implementation and proposal development;
g Work with the lead partner to rank and select priority projects;
h Involve the lead partner in program contract selection and development;
i Provide equal treatment for small, midsize, and large farms;
j Provide an option to forego a public and open enrollment process;
k Amend the priority resource concern definition in 1464.3 to highlight soil health as critical to water quality, aquifer recharge, carbon sequestration and water retention; and l Use caution applying innovation criteria since it is difficult to apply to flood damage reduction projects.
Response: RCPP encourages flexible and streamlined delivery of conservation assistance to producers. To maximize its flexibility and set it apart from other NRCS programs, evaluation criteria used to assess proposals are developed at the APF level. Moving forward, NRCS will consider the evaluation criteria proposed by commenters in developing APFs and, in doing so, will involve partners, stakeholders, and local working groups.
Of note, NRCS believes that including scientific conclusions about the role of soil health in the definition of priority resource concern is not congruent with the concept that identifying priority resource concerns depends on the needs of the CCA, rather than a broad, national objective. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

Evaluation Criteria
General
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending use of the following criteria when evaluating proposals for their conservation impact or outcomes, including suggestions that metrics
Comment: NRCS received comment requesting that NRCS:
a Clarify roles and responsibilities of conservation partners and Technical Service Providers TSPs from the time
renewal requests that qualify, even if it must be done at a reduced rate.
Response: Renewals of partnership agreements do not compete with new proposals, but criteria are needed so that NRCS only renews those partnership agreements that represent the best investment of additional RCPP
resources. To do so, NRCS uses screening questions to determine if a project has met or exceeded the original objectives, alongside other factors including available funding and project diversity geographic and typeto determine which projects will be offered renewal.
Partner Contributions Comment: NRCS received comment recommending:
a Increased practice payments to encourage producer participation in RCPP projects;
b Clarification that RCPP funding can be stacked with any other source of funding;
c Clarification that partners may reduce their contributions if NRCS
provides an award amount less than the partners proposal request;
d Landowner donations for example, related to practice implementation be allowed as partner contributions if they are based on verifiable expenses; and e A flexible structure for partner contributions that match overall objectives of individual projects.
Comment also supported NRCS
setting partner contribution goals for example, at least 1:1, allowing partner contribution expenditures after award announcement, and the explicit addition of in-kind contributions as allowable partner contributions.
Comment also expressed misplaced concerns that RCPP requires the partner contribution match to be made in cash.
Response: NRCS proportionally reduces expected partner contributions when the NRCS award is less than the amount requested, unless negotiated differently by the parties. NRCS will not consider landowner expenses to be partner contributions because the purpose is to stimulate assistance to producers. NRCS will continue to clarify contribution requirements in APFs. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:59 Jan 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

of application through the implementation phases;
b Simplify the proposal application, ranking, and implementation processes for example, maintain the adjustment of terms option;
c Require in regulation that there be a communication plan between NRCS
and the lead partner to facilitate the entire RCPP project;
d Specify the reporting requirements for both NRCS and RCPP partners;
e Clarify when contract type will be determined in the application process;
f Provide detail on the documentation and planning of technical assistance and contributions;
g Acknowledge source water protection as a goal, and;
h Publish a plan for comment that outlines how NRCS will track and report expenditures towards source water protection.
Response: NRCS appreciates feedback intended to improve processes and delivery. Proposal application questions are specific to each funding announcement and are created as part of the funding announcement development process. To ensure that projects are feasible and meet program goals and objectives, technical experts provide input into question development and are involved throughout the evaluation and ranking process.
Programmatic partnership agreements specify the responsibilities and expectations of both NRCS and the lead partner from project implementation to close. In addition, per 1464.2, NRCS
has designated an RCPP coordinator for each State, whose role is to guide and assist partners through program implementation. Because the existing process provides ample opportunity for communication between NRCS and the lead partner, no change is made to the regulation to require a communication plan.
NRCS tracks and documents technical assistance internally. NRCS will provide partners a semiannual report that contains the status of each pending and obligated contract under each project and an annual report describing how NRCS used that fiscal years TA.
RCPP funds associated with RCPP
producer contracts in a source water protection SWP area as modeled by the Environmental Protection Agency are counted towards the 10 percent of funds that statute requires to be utilized for source water protection. This final rule adjusted the rule language to incorporate SWP as a priority.

E:FRFM15JAR1.SGM

15JAR1