[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3735-3744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00300]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 3735]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1464
[Docket ID NRCS-2019-0012]
RIN 0578-AA70
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC), United States Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with minor changes, an interim rule
published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020. The interim
rule implemented changes to RCPP that were either necessitated by the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and changes
for administrative streamlining improvements and clarifications. CCC
amended this interim rule with a technical correction on March 17,
2020. NRCS received input from 65 commenters who provided 335 comments
in response to the interim rule. This final rule makes permanent the
provisions of the interim rule, responds to comments received, and
makes further adjustments in response to some of the comments received.
DATES: Effective: January 15, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari Cohen; phone: (202) 720-6037; or
email: [email protected]. Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized and amended RCPP. On February 13,
2020, an interim rule with request for comments was published in the
Federal Register (85 FR 8131-8145) that added RCPP regulations in 7 CFR
part 1464 to implement changes made by the 2018 Farm Bill. A technical
correction was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2020 (85
FR 15051-15052). This final rule adopts, with minor changes, the
interim rule.
Discussion of RCPP (7 CFR part 1464)
RCPP, implemented under the direction of the Chief of NRCS,
promotes coordination of NRCS conservation activities with partners
that offer value-added contributions to address on-farm, watershed, and
regional natural resource concerns. Through RCPP, NRCS seeks to co-
invest with partners to implement projects that demonstrate innovative
solutions to conservation challenges and provide measurable
improvements and outcomes.
RCPP projects may only be carried out on agricultural or
nonindustrial private forest land or associated land on which NRCS
determines an eligible activity would help achieve conservation
benefits. Eligible conservation activities may be implemented on public
lands when those activities will benefit eligible lands as determined
by NRCS and are included in the scope of an approved RCPP project.
The interim rule:
Created a new part in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to acknowledge that RCPP is now a stand-alone program, no longer
subordinated to its covered programs.
Identified three contract types for implementation of
RCPP, including programmatic partnership agreements, program contracts,
and supplemental agreements.
Defined terms to address changes made by the 2018 Farm
Bill, including--
[cir] Conservation benefits;
[cir] Eligible activity;
[cir] Eligible partner;
[cir] Lead partner;
[cir] Nonlead partner;
[cir] Participant;
[cir] Priority resource concern;
[cir] Project resource concern;
[cir] Proposal; and
[cir] RCPP plan of operations.
Identified that NRCS may award up to 15 Alternative
Funding Arrangement (AFA) projects, which rely on partner capacity to
implement conservation activities.
Acknowledged the reduction from three funding pools to two
and directed partners to apply to either the Critical Conservation Area
(CCA) or State and Multistate funding pool.
Added provisions requiring all RCPP project partners to
develop and report on their environmental outcomes.
Expanded the scope of RCPP by including the authorities of
the Conservation Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 3831-3835) and the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (Pub. L. 83-566),
excluding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, in the definition of
``covered programs.''
Expanded the purpose of RCPP to include protection of
drinking water and ground water on eligible land.
Allowed partnership agreements to be longer than 5 years
in certain situations, as determined by NRCS, to further purposes of
RCPP.
Allowed partnership agreement renewals for a period not to
exceed 5 years that in certain situations may be funded through an
expedited noncompetitive process.
Allowed a partnership agreement, or a renewal partnership
agreement, to be extended one time for up to 12 months.
Required reporting publicly at the time of selection the
amount of technical assistance (TA) that will be set aside for project
implementation.
Acknowledged an obligation to provide guidance for
partners on how to quantify and report project outcomes, including
achievement of conservation benefits.
Summary of Comments
The interim rule 60-day comment period ended May 12, 2020. NRCS
received 335 comments from 65 commenters in response to the rule. NRCS
reviewed these 335 comments and categorized and summarized them
according to the topics identified below. NRCS received comments on a
wide variety of topics, including several comments of a general nature,
most of which expressed support, as well as a few comments that were
not relevant to RCPP or to the RCPP interim rule. The topics that
generated the greatest response were easements, funding pools, program
administration, program contracts, and proposals.
[[Page 3736]]
In this rule, the comments have been organized alphabetically by
topic. The topics include:
Adjusted gross income (AGI) waivers;
Alternative funding arrangements (AFA);
Availability of program funding (APF);
Easements;
Eligibility;
Funding pools;
Partner contributions;
Program administration;
Program contracts;
Programmatic partnership agreements;
Proposals;
RCPP activity types;
Renewals; and
Supplemental agreements.
Adjusted Gross Income Waivers
Comment: NRCS received comment expressing concern about reporting
requirements necessary to receive an AGI eligibility determination from
the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Comment also expressed concern that the
AGI waiver process may harm the ability of small farms to receive
conservation assistance and suggested adding more detail on the process
and criteria for granting AGI waivers.
Response: AGI eligibility determination processes are not within
the purview of NRCS or this rulemaking. However, NRCS recently
published a National Bulletin (NB 440-20-26) which indicated that an
RCPP lead partner may request a waiver of the applicability of AGI at
the RCPP project level during the initial Partnership Project Agreement
(PPA) negotiation only. If granted, producers participating in RCPP
through individual contracts or agreements will not be required to file
AGI paperwork or have AGI determinations made by FSA. If the RCPP lead
partner does not request or receive a project-level waiver of the
applicability of AGI, a producer may seek a waiver of the AGI
limitation upon receiving an AGI determination. No changes are made in
the final rule in response to this issue.
Alternative Funding Arrangements
Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification that NRCS
retains administrative responsibility for conservation compliance, AGI,
and payment limitation determinations, tenant rights, producer appeals,
civil rights, and other similar responsibilities.
Additionally, comment requested that NRCS:
Remove the parenthetical about roads, dams, and irrigation
facilities used to describe the types of infrastructure upon which an
AFA could focus;
Provide guidance on AFA goals;
Only use AFAs in limited circumstances and apply stringent
criteria;
Support AFA irrigation projects and provide incentives for
projects that would benefit fish and other aquatic species,
particularly in overallocated basins;
Administer AFA projects through grant agreements; and
Expand the indirect costs eligible for reimbursement under
AFA projects.
Response: NRCS will define responsibilities in the APF
announcements and AFA partnership agreements, while still maintaining
flexibility. NRCS will identify which responsibilities must remain with
NRCS.
This final rule removes the parenthetical from Sec. 1464.25. RCPP
infrastructure projects relate to conservation activities that
significantly address resource concerns but require greater investment
than a single producer can make. NRCS's goal for AFA projects is to
fund proposals that are consistent with RCPP purposes but are more
effectively and efficiently carried out through lead partner efforts
than through NRCS's conservation delivery system. AFA criteria are
published as part of funding announcements when AFA funding is made
available. AFAs are ``programmatic instruments'' that provide NRCS with
the ability to balance the flexibility of grants or other agreement
mechanisms with statutorily mandated responsibilities regarding NRCS
roles. For all RCPP projects, including AFAs, the statutory limitation
on administrative costs prohibits use of RCPP funding for a partner's
indirect costs. Other than removing the parenthetical noted above,
there are no other changes made in the final rule in response to this
issue.
Availability of Program Funding (APF)
Comment: NRCS received comment expressing support for the existing
APF and requesting that NRCS:
Clarify its intent to cover project management costs;
Provide written feedback for projects that are not
selected; and
Follow procedures of lead public entities when possible to
promote efficiency.
Comment also included request for additional funding and
flexibility for TA, including TA-only projects or projects focused on
conservation planning.
Response: RCPP projects are collaborative, and NRCS works with each
partner to develop procedural flexibility to help deliver conservation
assistance effectively in the project area. While partners provide
significant contribution to project costs, NRCS focuses on the
technical and financial resources necessary to implement conservation
activities and covers much of the project costs. For projects that are
not selected, NRCS provides feedback to partners to help them develop
more competitive proposals for future submission. NRCS strongly
supports conservation planning and technical assistance delivery in its
program implementation efforts, including RCPP, and selects proposals
that most effectively delivery conservation outcomes. No changes are
made in the final rule in response to these issues. With respect to TA-
only type projects, the Farm Bill makes clear that all RCPP projects
are intended to generate conservation benefits and report on
conservation outcomes, therefore, RCPP should prioritize on-the-ground
conservation activities plus the TA required to get that conservation
on the ground. NRCS has an extensive Conservation Technical Assistance
program that provides such support to its partners.
Easements
Buy-Protect-Sell (BPS) Transactions
Comment: NRCS received comment related to BPS easement
transactions, including support for the availability of BPS
transactions under RCPP and requesting the extension of such
flexibility to U.S.-held easements. Comment also:
(a) Recommended that NRCS consider as eligible BPS projects that
encompass land purchased on an interim basis by State or county
governments to improve land access by Historically Underserved (HU)
producers;
(b) Addressed easement deed terms, recommending that NRCS make the
minimum deed terms available as soon as possible and provide full
flexibility in the use of entity-written deed terms; and
(c) Recommended that the entity match follow ACEP-ALE flexibility,
which allows a landowner's donation of easement value to constitute all
of the nonfederal match requirements.
Response: Based on the ACEP definition, BPS transactions are unique
transactions that require the transfer of an easement to an eligible
entity and do not include the United States as the ultimate easement
holder. ACEP land eligibility is limited to private and
[[Page 3737]]
Tribal lands. In contrast, RCPP land eligibility includes certain
public lands, and NRCS may allow States and local government agencies
to enter into a BPS transaction under RCPP. NRCS will announce any
authorizations for such transactions through an APF.
NRCS has posted the minimum deed terms to provide a full range of
options for US-held and entity-held easements. The minimum deed terms
provide eligible entities with maximum flexibility to use their own
terms while NRCS ensures that RCPP purposes and requirements are met.
NRCS will also maintain easement compensation flexibility under the
final rule. Future APFs will provide information on the best approach
for leveraging Federal funding and partner efforts.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
U.S.-Held Easement Compensation
Comment: NRCS received comment about the range of easement types
available under RCPP, expressing support for the flexibility and
requesting that NRCS avoid competition between RCPP U.S.-held
agricultural land easements and other farm protection programs. Comment
also addressed the easement valuation structure identified in the APF,
opposing the use of tiered easement compensation based upon level of
U.S.-held RCPP easement protection. Comment also recommended that NRCS
consider landowner charitable donation of easement value and landowner
management activities on an easement as part of the partner's
contribution.
Response: The three tiers of compensation paid to landowners
enrolling in a U.S.-held RCPP easement were established to emphasize
the partnership nature of RCPP and to ensure that RCPP would not
compete with other NRCS easement programs. While partner contributions
are encouraged to compensate landowners fully for enrollment of less
restrictive easement types, landowner donations of easement value or
associated management costs cannot be counted as partner contribution.
Doing so would reduce the incentive for partners to provide assistance
to producers. For example, when RCPP reimburses a producer for up to 75
percent of the cost of implementing a conservation practice, the
remaining 25 percent is the producer's responsibility. If the producer
solely pays for the 25 percent share, it is not considered a partner
contribution. A partner contribution only occurs if the partner assists
the producer with the cost of the practice. NRCS will continue to
encourage greater partner investment in project success through the
competitive tiering of easement compensation. No changes are made in
the final rule in response to these issues.
Eligibility
Comment: NRCS received comment about land eligibility in general,
including support for the eligibility of certain public agricultural
lands and some suggesting expansion of such eligibility to all public
land. Comment also supported the eligibility of lands owned by non-
governmental organizations, while other comment recommended that
eligibility be expanded to include forest land under threat from
grazing by ungulates.\1\ Commenters also expressed appreciation for the
consistency of land eligibility between the CSP and RCPP interim rules
and urged NRCS to be flexible in determining whether such land is under
the ``effective control'' of the producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ungulates are hooved mammals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: NRCS appreciates comments regarding land eligibility with
respect to lands owned by public and non-governmental entities. The
RCPP activity type informs whether or not public land or land owned by
a non-governmental entity is eligible given existing public trust
protections and related restrictions and the relationship of those
protections and restrictions to addressing resource concerns. As a
result, NRCS believes that the current parameters best reflect the
scope of land eligibility. No changes are made in the final rule in
response to these issues.
Funding Pools
Critical Conservation Areas
Comment: NRCS received comments related to Critical Conservation
Areas (CCAs), including recommending that NRCS:
(a) Add excess water as a concern for the Mississippi River basin;
(b) Consolidate the Columbia River basin and the California Bay
Delta into a single CCA;
(c) Add water source protection to all eight CCAs;
(d) Add soil health or soil quality as a priority resource concern
for all eight CCAs;
(e) Allow CCA projects to include areas outside of a CCA;
(f) Continue Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool (CART) use;
(g) Expand CCAs to include New England;
(h) Identify a new CCA focusing on coral reefs in the Pacific
Islands Areas and the Caribbean Area;
(i) Identify a new CCA focusing on the Puget Sound;
(j) Continue the CCA in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
(k) Update CCAs to cover all 50 states; and
(l) Clarify that if a proposal is within a CCA it will only receive
priority if it both achieves conservation benefits and addresses the
CCA's primary resource concern.
Response: While lands outside a CCA can influence resource concerns
within a critical conservation area, NRCS identified CCA boundaries to
provide clear demarcation. This final rule clarifies that lands outside
of a CCA are not eligible for proposals or applications in a CCA. The
regulation is also amended to reflect that NRCS will give priority to
proposals in CCAs that both (1) achieve conservation benefits and (2)
address at least one of a CCA's priority resource concerns.
NRCS appreciates the comments related to CART and suggestions
regarding RCPP and water resource, soil health, and soil quality.
Regarding proposed changes to the eight designated CCAs, the Secretary
identifies CCAs, including whether an existing CCA will be re-
designated. NRCS is working with the Office of the Secretary to
determine whether the current designation status of CCAs, including the
re-designation of current CCAs or new CCAs, should be undertaken. No
changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Other
Comment: NRCS received comment related to funding pools that did
not address CCAs. Comment expressed concern that the National funding
pool was eliminated and suggested that State Conservationists should be
the selecting official for the State and Multi-State funding pool.
Response: The 2018 Farm Bill mandated removal of the National
funding pool. NRCS provides State Conservationists with advisory
allocations to guide the State's ranking process. However, the Chief
makes all final selections. No changes are made in the final rule in
response to these issues.
Renewals
Comment: NRCS received support for the renewal process though some
comment critiqued its competitive nature due to limited funds. Comment
recommended that a renewal demonstrate the continued need for the
project and requested that NRCS post renewal criteria prior to
requesting renewal applications. Comment alternatively recommended
funding all
[[Page 3738]]
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 type)--to 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 partner's 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.
Program Administration
Evaluation Criteria
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending use of the following
criteria when evaluating proposals for their conservation impact or
outcomes, including suggestions that metrics 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 Sec.
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.
General
Comment: NRCS received comment requesting that NRCS:
(a) Clarify roles and responsibilities of conservation partners and
Technical Service Providers (TSPs) from the time 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 Sec. 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 year's 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.
[[Page 3739]]
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 (Sec.
1464.20), ranking and proposal selection (Sec. 1464.21), and
partnership agreement (Sec. 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.
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 Bill's 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 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 RCPP's 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
[[Page 3740]]
methods used for those contract or agreement types ensure that NRCS
obtains assistance from qualified TSPs, the TSP regulations specify
that such TSPs do not also need to be certified under 7 CFR part 652.
For more information, visit the NRCS TSP website at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these
issues.
Program Contracts
Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification as to
whether RCPP contracts can serve to meet existing compliance and
enforcement requirements. Comment also encouraged separate contracts
for easements on agricultural land, a focus on co-operators' needs and
resources rather than program requirements, and that NRCS provide a
visual depiction as to how the new contracting method will be efficient
and independent. Comment also expressed support for skipping an
eligible application on a ranking list if the remaining funding is
insufficient to fund that application or for other limited
circumstances that would warrant not selecting applications strictly
according to rank order.
Response: Conservation activities funded under RCPP, as with other
NRCS voluntary conservation programs, can address resource concerns
that meet a producer's compliance requirements, provided that the
producer is not under an administrative order or other compulsory
enforcement process related to the producer's failure to meet those
requirements. NRCS will provide informational materials to partners
about the new contracting methods as requested. No changes to the rule
were needed to address these issues.
Programmatic Partnership Agreements
Comment: Comment praised approval of salary expenses in PPAs and
the ability to make selections out of rank order for critical projects.
Comment also suggested that more clarification is needed in the rule on
expenses incurred prior to PPA completion, how and when funding will
become available, how funds for project management can be requested,
who measures success in TA and FA activities, and how partnerships can
be terminated.
Respondents suggested that NRCS should:
(a) Publicly report on its TA expenditures under PPAs;
(b) Require lead partners to periodically assess conservation
benefits;
(c) Increase PPA length beyond 5 years if needed; and
(d) Establish that lead partners will be required to follow all
applicable laws, rules, and guidelines expected of NRCS when awarding
contracts.
Response: The RCPP statute specifies the terms for PPAs and no
change is needed to address agreement duration in this rule. The AFAs
provide detail as to the ability to receive payment for pre-PPA
expenses. The terms and conditions associated with terminating a PPA
are specified in the PPA itself. The regulation addresses the
consequences should NRCS determine that PPA termination is necessary.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Proposals
Comment: NRCS received comment about several aspects of APFs,
recommending that the RCPP regulation include similar detail as APFs
regarding proposal requirements and the evaluation process beyond the
four overarching pillars. Comment also requested language:
(a) Addressing circumstances under which ``associated'' non-
agricultural lands would be eligible for RCPP;
(b) Defining ``eligible activities'' more clearly;
(c) Providing information about the percentages of project funding
that will be available for FA versus TA; and
(d) Providing clear guidance on what can and cannot count as direct
or in-kind partner contribution.
Further, NRCS received comment:
(a) Requesting clarity regarding ``innovation'' and
``flexibility'';
(b) Identifying that limiting the percentage of funding that can be
allocated using discretionary prioritization factors would increase
transparency;
(c) Requesting that the RCPP Portal be active at the beginning of
the application process; and
(d) Recommending language for the regulation to reflect
conservation benefits as a proposal requirement.
Response: The funding announcement process and timeline, including
the application questions and criteria, are published as part of each
funding announcement. This process provides the greatest program
flexibility regarding the diversity of partner capabilities, resource
concerns, and other program goals. The criteria are made public and
provide transparency about how NRCS is focusing its RCPP
implementation. The circumstances about eligible activities, associated
non-agricultural lands, and TA and FA percentages will be addressed in
upcoming APFs.
Similarly, APFs include more information about ``innovation,''
selection criteria, and weightings as these terms relate to program
priorities. Establishing funding percentages or limitations in the
regulation would reduce NRCS's ability to tailor APFs to critical
resource concerns. In response to comment, this rule revises Sec.
1464.20(b) to focus proposal priorities on conservation benefits. No
other changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
RCPP Activity Types
Rental Contract Duration
Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that RCPP rental
contracts should be for 10 years, as that is the duration authorized
under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Response: NRCS uses RCPP land rental contracts to focus on short-
term, targeted rental needs in the context of a larger RCPP project,
unlike the longer-term purpose of CRP rental contracts. RCPP rental
contracts are focused on actions such as incentivizing adoption of an
innovative cropping system or to transition to an organic production
system and thus are short term (3 years). No change was made in
response to this comment.
Other
Comment: NRCS received comment covering a variety of RCPP activity
types. For practice innovation related to land management contracts,
comment recommended:
(a) Simplifying the process for adding interim conservation
practice standards;
(b) Including practices focused on water recycling, the recycling
of liquid waste, and the adoption of advanced nutrient recovery
technology;
(c) Allowing a flexible fallow program to be eligible; and
(d) Allowing different practices and approaches to be used in the
same RCPP project and not limit practices in RCPP project awards.
For rental contracts, comment recommended:
(a) Clarifying the availability and eligibility of land-rental
practices (from CRP), especially for longer contracts and practices;
(b) Concern about not applying the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) authority for riparian buffers;
(c) Having project partners add a farmer mentor component to
projects utilizing the short-term land rental option; and
(d) Clarifying whether the use of CRP authorities (16 U.S.C. 3831-
3835) includes CREP.
[[Page 3741]]
For easement agreements, comment recommended:
(a) Expanding the reach of entity-held easements by allowing other
land, including forested land, wetlands, and riparian areas, as it
appeared to the commenter that the interim rule decoupled requirements
specific to NRCS's Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP); and
(b) Authorizing payments to producers participating in a project
that addresses water quantity concerns and that would encourage
conversion from irrigated to dryland farming.
Comment expressed support for the interim rule's inclusion of
expanding Public Law 83-566 activities nationwide within RCPP. Finally,
comment recommended that NRCS continue to allow for greater flexibility
in RCPP activity types.
Response: NRCS will maintain the integrity of its RCPP practices to
ensure wise use of Federal funds while supporting innovation. CREP is a
component of CRP (administered by FSA), and CREP agreements are
partnership agreements with state governments. NRCS believes that CREP-
style agreements would be redundant to the RCPP partnership agreement
and would not aid in meeting RCPP goals efficiently.
NRCS expanded the availability of both U.S.-held and entity-held
easements to the full extent of the RCPP land eligibility criteria, and
therefore the types of easements identified by the comment are already
available. In addition, the 2018 Farm Bill expanded the availability of
Public Law 83-566 authority nationwide, and NRCS has entered into PPAs
that utilize the Public Law 83-566 authority beyond CCAs.
HFRP land eligibility criteria differs from RCPP criteria. RCPP
forest land eligibility is limited to non-industrial private forest
land, while HFRP eligibility encompasses commercial forest land as
well.
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Supplemental Agreements
Comment: Comment expressed support for the addition of supplemental
agreements to the interim rule and recommended clarifying that NRCS
consult with the lead partner when entering into a supplemental
agreement with a non-lead partner and provide fuller discussion and
clarification of the use of supplemental agreements.
Response: A supplemental agreement is a flexible vehicle for
obligating RCPP funding to an eligible partner or third party to carry
out authorized RCPP activities. Supplemental agreements are used
generally to award TA funding, to implement watershed or public works
projects, or to implement an entity-held easement agreement. As a
condition of supplemental agreement(s), NRCS and a partner may
negotiate documentation requirements for payment, based on agreement
deliverables and activities. Supplemental agreements will require
additional reporting beyond that required of the overall project's lead
partner. No changes are made in the final rule in response to this
issue.
Notice and Comment, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Effective Date
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553)
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data,
views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation,
except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property,
loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This final rule involves matters
relating to benefits and therefore is exempt from the APA requirements.
Further, the regulations to implement the programs of chapter 58 of
title 16 of the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C. 3846, and the
administration of those programs, are:
To be made as an interim rule effective on publication,
with an opportunity for notice and comment,
Exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. ch.
35), and
To use the authority under 5 U.S.C. 808 related to
Congressional review and any potential delay in the effective date.
For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay in
the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for
Congressional Review. This rule is a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The authority in 5 U.S.C.
808 provides that when an agency finds for good cause that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest, that the rule may take effect at such time as the
agency determines. Due to the nature of the rule, the mandatory
requirements of the 2018 Farm Bill, and the need to implement the
regulations expeditiously to provide RCPP assistance to producers, NRCS
and CCC find that full notice and public procedure are contrary to the
public interest. Therefore, even though this rule is a major rule for
purposes of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, NRCS and CCC are not
required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of
publication to allow for Congressional review. Therefore, this rule is
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register. At the
same time, NRCS and CCC note that this final rule reflects
consideration of the comments that were provided in response to the
interim rule.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, and 13777
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777,
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' established a federal
policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American
people.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as
economically significant under Executive Order 12866, and, therefore,
OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are
summarized below. The full regulatory impact analysis is available on
https://www.regulations.gov/.
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' requires that in order to manage the private costs
required to comply with federal regulations for every new significant
or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be
offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. This rule
involves transfer payments and does not rise to the level required to
comply with Executive Order 13771.
OMB guidance in M-17-21, dated April 5, 2017, specifies that
``transfer rules'' are not covered by Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' Transfer rules are
Federal spending regulatory actions that cause only income transfers
between taxpayers and program beneficiaries. Therefore, this is
considered a transfer rule and is not covered by Executive Order 13771.
[[Page 3742]]
Cost Benefit Analysis
RCPP is a voluntary collaborative program that provides financial
and technical assistance to partner organizations to help agricultural
producers plan and implement conservation activities to address natural
resource concerns on private or Tribal agricultural, nonindustrial
private forest and certain associated lands. RCPP was first authorized
by Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill. To date, 375 projects have been
selected across the U.S. and Puerto Rico leveraging $1 billion in NRCS
technical and financial assistance with approximately $1.3 billion in
partner contributions.
Under the 2014 Farm Bill, conservation activities were undertaken
through partnership agreements (between NRCS and a lead partner) and
contracts or agreements with eligible landowners, entities, and
individuals under one or more covered programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP, HFRP,
and Pub. L. 83-566). EQIP, CSP, and ACEP each contributed seven percent
of their annual funding toward RCPP partnership projects. In addition,
the 2014 Farm Bill provided $100 million annually in direct RCPP
mandatory funding.
The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized RCPP with significant changes to
how RCPP is funded. Specifically, the contributions from ``covered
programs'' are eliminated as a funding source and ``covered program
contracts'' are replaced with RCPP contracts and programmatic
partnership agreements.
The 2018 Farm Bill repeals the seven percent reserved resources
from the covered programs, provides $300 million in annual mandatory
CCC funding, and establishes RCPP standalone contracts. Federal
transfers under the 2014 Farm Bill totaled slightly more than $1
billion for FY2014 through 2018, or $200 million on an annual basis.
The $300 million in mandatory annual funding increases RCPP funding by
approximately $100 million annually, taking into account the past
contribution of the ``covered programs'' for fiscal years 2014 through
2018.
The 2018 Farm Bill also changed the ``funding pool'' structure by
streamlining from three pools to two pools and providing 50 percent of
funds to a CCA pool and 50 percent of funds to a state and multi-state
pool. It also allows project renewals and creates new programmatic
authorities and expectations for the administration of agreements with
partners. In addition, application and renewal processes are simplified
to encourage participation by both producers and project partners. To
ensure that only the most successful of projects qualify for renewal on
a non-competitive basis, NRCS has identified in this rule that a
partner has met or exceeded the objectives of the original project in
order to be considered for renewal.
Estimates of costs, benefits, and transfers of RCPP on an annual
basis are reported in Table 1. Given a 3 percent discount rate, the
projected annualized real cost to producers of accessing RCPP is
$204,258 and the projected annualized real transfers are $289 million.
Conservation benefits from RCPP are difficult to quantify at a national
scale but have been described by studies at an individual project or
watershed or local scale as it relates the different types of
conservation practices implemented.
Table 1--RCPP Annual Estimated Costs, Benefits and Transfers a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Annual estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs \b\............................. $204,258.
Benefits.............................. Qualitative.
Transfers............................. $289,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are discounted at 3 percent to 2019 $ except for the
participant access cost, which is nominal.
\b\ Imputed cos[t] of applicant time to gain access to RCPP.
Most of this rule's impact consists of transfer payments from the
Federal Government to producers or to partners for the benefit of
producers. The conservation benefits of RCPP financial and technical
assistance funding delivered to date have been directly comparable to
that provided by covered programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP, etc.), and similar
benefits are expected from RCPP funding under the 2018 Farm Bill.
Additionally, conservation benefits of partner contributions and
collaboration in RCPP projects are expected to magnify the benefits of
RCPP funding over each project's life, offsetting initial delays in
obligation and implementation. NRCS will discuss methods to quantify
the incremental benefits obtained from RCPP with lead partners, but due
to the 5-year life of a typical RCPP project, only limited data are
available at this time to support this conclusion. Therefore, NRCS and
partners may use various mechanisms such as modeling to predict long-
term outcomes. Despite these data limitations, RCPP is expected to
positively affect natural resource concerns--through both the $300
million in funding provided annually by Congress and by the leverage of
partner contributions.
Clarity of the Regulation
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition
to the substantive comments NRCS received on the interim rule, NRCS
invited public comments on how to make the rule easier to understand.
NRCS has incorporated these recommendations for improvement where
appropriate. NRCS responses to public comment are described in more
detail above.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis
of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to
publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because no law requires that a proposed rule be published for this
rulemaking initiative.
Environmental Review
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a
manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NRCS
regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 650). The 2018 Farm
Bill requires minor changes to NRCS conservation programs, and there
are no changes to the basic structure of the programs. The analysis has
determined that there will not be a significant impact to the human
environment and as a result, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is
not required to be prepared (40 CFR1501.5 and 1501.6). While OMB has
designated this rule as ``economically significant'' under Executive
Order 12866, ``. . . economic or social effects are not intended by
themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact
statement'' (40 CFR 1502.16(b)), when not interrelated to natural or
physical environmental effects. The Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were available for review and
comment for 30 days from the date of publication of this interim rule
in the Federal Register. NRCS considered this input and determined that
there was not
[[Page 3743]]
any new information provided that was relevant to environmental
concerns or bore on the proposed action or its impacts that warranted
an environmental impact statement or revising the current available
RCPP EA and FONSI.
Executive Order 12372
Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs,'' requires consultation with State and local officials that
would be directly affected by proposed federal financial assistance.
The objectives of the Executive order are to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying
on State and local processes for State and local government
coordination and review of proposed federal financial assistance and
direct federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule
related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June
24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from
the scope of Executive Order 12372.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform.'' This rule will not preempt State or local laws,
regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought
regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal
provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted, consistent with 7
U.S.C. 6912(e).
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule do not have any
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as
required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore,
consultation with the States is not required.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires federal agencies
to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government
basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact
of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not
have significant Tribal implications that require Tribal consultations.
Moreover, OTR states that NRCS has adhered to the spirit and intent of
Executive Order 13175. Tribal consultation for this rule was included
in the two 2018 Farm Bill Tribal consultation held on May 1, 2019, at
the National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC, and on
June 26-28, 2019, in Sparks, NV. For the May 1, 2019, Tribal
consultation, the portion of the Tribal consultation relative to this
rule was conducted by Bill Northey, USDA Under Secretary for the Farm
Production and Conservation mission area, as part of the Title II
session. There were no specific comments from Tribes on the RCPP rule
during the Tribal consultation. If a tribe requests additional
consultation, NRCS will work with OTR to ensure that meaningful
consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications
identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by legislation.
Separate from Tribal consultation, communication and outreach
efforts are in place to assure that all producers, including Tribes (or
their members), are provided information about the regulation changes.
Specifically, NRCS obtains input through Tribal Conservation Advisory
Councils. A Tribal Conservation Advisory Council may be an existing
Tribal committee or department and may also constitute an association
of member Tribes organized to provide direct consultation to NRCS at
the State, regional, and national levels to provide input on NRCS
rules, policies, programs, and impacts on Tribes. Tribal Conservation
Advisory Councils provide a venue for agency leaders to gather input on
Tribal interests. Additionally, NRCS held discussions subsequent to the
interim rule publication with Indian Tribes and Tribal entities to
continue discussions about the 2018 Farm Bill conservation programs
implementation, obtain input about how to improve Tribal and Tribal
member access to NRCS conservation assistance, and make any appropriate
adjustments to the regulations that will foster such improved access.
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
104-4), requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal Governments or the
private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement,
including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with
federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal Governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This
rule contains no federal mandates, as defined under Title II of UMRA,
for State, local, and Tribal Governments or the private sector.
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA.
Federal Assistance Programs
The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Programs in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies:
10.932--Regional Conservation Partnership Program.
E-Government Act Compliance
NRCS and CCC are committed to complying with the E-Government Act,
to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies
to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1464
Agricultural operations, Conservation payments, Conservation
practices, Eligible activities, Environmental credits, Forestry
management, Natural resources, Resource concern, Soil and water
conservation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1464, which was
published at 85 FR 8131 on February 13, 2020, including the technical
correction published at 85 FR 15051 on March 17, 2020, is adopted as a
final rule with the following changes:
PART 1464--REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 1464 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3871 et seq.
[[Page 3744]]
0
2. In Sec. 1464.3, amend the definition of ``Priority resource
concern'' by revising paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1464.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Priority resource concern * * *
(1) Water quality improvement, including source water protection,
through measures such as reducing erosion, promoting sediment control,
or addressing nutrient management activities affecting large bodies of
water of regional, national, or international significance;
(2) Water quantity improvement, including protection or improvement
relating to:
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 1464.20 revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) as follows:
Sec. 1464.20 Proposal procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The scope of the proposed project, including one or more
conservation benefits that the project must achieve;
(2) A plan for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on progress
made toward achieving the project's conservation objectives;
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 1464.21 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(5), removing the word ``or'' and add the word
``and'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(7), removing the word ``or'';
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(8) as paragraph (b)(9);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (b)(8); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(4).
The additions read as follows.
Sec. 1464.21 Ranking consideration and proposal selection.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) To a significant extent involve--
(i) Historically underserved producers;
(ii) A community-based organization comprising, representing, or
exclusively working with historically underserved producers;
(iii) Developing an innovative conservation approach or technology
specifically targeting historically underserved producers' unique needs
and limitations; or
(iv) An 1890 or 1994 land grant institution (7 U.S.C. 3222 et
seq.), Hispanic-serving institution (20 U.S.C. 1101a), or other
minority-serving institution, such as an historically Black college or
university (20 U.S.C. 1061), a tribally controlled college or
university (25 U.S.C. 1801), or Asian American and Pacific Islander-
serving institution (20 U.S.C. 1059g); or
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Lands outside of a CCA are not eligible for consideration under
the CCA funding pool, even where such land may influence resource
concerns within the CCA.
0
5. Amend Sec. 1464.22 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(11) and (12) as paragraphs (d)(12) and
(13);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d)(11).
The addition reads as set forth below.
Sec. 1464.22 Partnership agreements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(11) Provide a detailed description of how the lead partner will
facilitate participation of historically underserved producers
(including through advance payment options, increased payment rates,
outreach activities, or other methods for increasing participation by
historically underserved producers) if the proposal received increased
ranking priority as described in Sec. 1464.21(b)(8);
* * * * *
Sec. 1464.25 [Amended]
0
6. In Sec. 1466.25 amend paragraph (b)(2) by removing the
parenthetical phrase ``(such as roads, dams, and irrigation
facilities)''.
0
7. In Sec. 1464.30, add paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1464.30 Application for program contracts and selecting
applications for funding.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Lands outside of a CCA are not eligible for applications in the
CCA, even where conservation efforts on such land may influence
resource concerns within the CCA.
Kevin Norton,
Acting Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Robert Stephenson,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2021-00300 Filed 1-12-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P