Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Historically Underrepresented HU
Groups Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS incorporate into the final rule benchmarks related to participation by HU groups to reflect the importance and increasing engagement of women who participate in RCPP, and to ensure that RCPP does not inadvertently favor large landowners.
Comment also recommended adding language to identify HU groups as a priority in the proposal procedures 1464.20, ranking and proposal selection 1464.21, and partnership agreement 1464.22 sections of the final rule.
Response: Consistent with the 2018
Farm Bill, NRCS gives priority consideration to RCPP proposals that provide outreach to, and engagement of, HU groups. HU groups, as specified in the RCPP authorizing legislation, include beginning farmers or ranchers, socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, limited resource farmers or ranchers, and veteran farmers and ranchers. NRCS has and will continue to provide program-specific outreach to HU groups at the national, State, and local levels. These efforts are often tailored to the needs of the service area, with targeted efforts for HU producers.
Gender is not a covered HU group, which is specified in the authorizing legislation; however, NRCS encourages the participation of all producers who are eligible.
This final rule encourages further HU
producer and landowner enrollment, including requiring partnership agreements to denote any authorizations for higher payment rates, advance payment options, or other methods for encouraging HU participation. Changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Outcomes Measuring and Reporting Comment: NRCS received comment requesting that the rule be updated to require partners to assess the conservation progress of their RCPP
projects in a quantified form to the extent practicable. Comment further recommended the use of existing metrics for outcomes measurement, and also suggested that NRCS provide partners with geospatial data on new and existing practices to help facilitate outcomes measurement and reporting.
Additionally, comment expressed concern that outcomes activities will further burden already strained NRCS
staff capacity. Lastly, comment requested dedicated NRCS funding for monitoring conservation practices implemented as part of RCPP projects.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:59 Jan 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill requires NRCS to gather quantitative data regarding conservation benefits, as set forth in the requirements of APFs.
RCPP lead partners are required, to the extent practicable, to report on the conservation environmental outcomes of their projects. Reporting on economic, financial, and social outcomes is optional but encouraged.
NRCS is committed to collaborating with lead partners to ensure that their reporting of outcomes help NRCS
evaluate the value of RCPP investments.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Payment Comment: NRCS received comment suggesting a per-producer payment limit of $450,000 under RCPP, consistent with payment limitations under EQIP.
Comment also suggested that NRCS base payment rates on real, local costs using prevailing wages or the regional Consumer Price Index.
Response: Payment limitations, such as those set forth in 7 CFR parts 1466
EQIP and 1470 CSP are established by statute. RCPP does not have a statutory payment limitation. NRCS
plans to have activity-level limitations on producer contracts to ensure wider availability of funding. These limitations will be identified in partnership agreements and posted on NRCS State websites. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Staff Support Comment: NRCS received comment supporting increased NRCS staffing to focus on RCPP projects and communicate with partners, including strong support for the 2018 Farm Bills requirement, as reflected in the interim rule, that each State identify an RCPP
Coordinator.
Comment emphasized the need for designated program staff including increasing staff where program workload was high and urged that NRCS further support the RCPP State Coordinators by developing job descriptions for the new role and providing adequate time needed to fulfill the responsibilities. Comment also requested that states provide additional local, technical contacts for RCPP projects to ensure program goals are achieved and urged process efficiencies that allow NRCS technical partners, such as conservation districts, to implement projects without incurring NRCS staff time.
Additionally, NRCS received comment expressing concern about NRCS dependence on partners and
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

3739

TSP, citing insufficient NRCS staffing at the state and local levels. Comment also requested that NRCS delegate authority to State and regional entities to carry out contract deliverables.
Response: NRCS has designated State RCPP coordinators. NRCS appreciates comments expressing concern about NRCS staffing capacity and NRCS
ability to meet and customer service needs in States with heavy workloads.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Technical and Software Upgrades Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS involve partners in implementing tools such as CART, ensure that all technology be in operation prior to accepting applications so that the process does not change midstream, and clarify how applicants will be selected for different program contract types. Comment additionally recommended including a standardized set of application questions and consistent reporting requirements, and that these be communicated to potential partners earlier in the process. Comment also expressed an interest in ensuring CART
remain size-neutral.
Response: NRCS has and will continue to develop and improve our business tools, such as CART, including evaluating how to remain size-neutral.
NRCS does not intend to change application procedures over the course of an application period, though it will continue to refine the process for future application periods. The process for matching an applicant with an RCPP
contract depends on the nature of the specific programmatic agreement. No changes are made in this final rule in response to these issues.
Technical Service Providers Comment: NRCS received comment about RCPPs use of TSPs, including that NRCS do more to encourage the use of TSPs and allow technical assistance to be provided by entities other than NRCS-certified TSPs.
Response: Requirements about delivery of technical services through TSPs is covered in 7 CFR part 652. The TSP regulation identifies the requirements for a producer to be reimbursed for the cost of hiring a TSP
to obtain technical services related to an NRCS conservation program, including RCPP, and such a TSP must be certified by NRCS. The TSP regulation also identifies that NRCS may obtain additional assistance in its delivery of technical assistance through a procurement contract or cooperative agreements. Since the solicitation
E:FRFM15JAR1.SGM

15JAR1