fsa ecp manual

In the event this cost share assistance is not spent within 60 calendar days of being issued, the participant will be required to refund the cost-share payment. In addition, there is no provision for a waiver of the above-described EFRP limits for financial assistance. This rule relates to benefits and thus falls within that exemption. Therefore, FSA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. As this rule is designated not significant, it is not subject to Executive Order 13771. In a general response to the requirements of Executive Order 13777, USDA created a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and USDA agencies were directed to remove barriers, reduce burdens, and provide better customer service both as part of the regulatory reform of existing regulations and as an ongoing approach. FSA reviewed this regulation and made changes to improve any provision that was determined to be outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act since FSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. This rule includes changes mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill and discretionary technical amendments that are administrative in nature.

• fsa ecp manual, fsa ecp manual, fsa ecp manual, fsa ecp manual pdf, fsa ecp manual download, fsa ecp manual 2017, fsa ecp manual 2016, usda fsa ecp manual, fsa ecp manual.

We’ve made big changes to make the eCFR easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the 'Help' button on the bottom right of each page!The Public Inspection page may alsoWhile every effort has been made to ensure thatUntil the ACFR grants it official status, the XMLCounts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day. These can be usefulOnly official editions of theUse the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format. This rule implements those changes to ECP and makes additional minor technical amendments to the ECP regulations. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is amending regulations to add wildfires as an eligible natural disaster, expand eligibility requirements, increase the maximum payment amount certain participants may receive, provide cost-share for fence repair and replacement, and provide certain cost-share payments more expeditiously than was previously authorized under ECP. In addition, this rule makes minor changes related to the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP). ECP provides cost-share assistance to farmers or ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters as determined by the Deputy Administrator. Section 2403 of the 2018 Farm Bill ( Pub. L. 115-334 ) made changes to the ECP provisions. For ECP, the 2018 Farm Bill amended the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 ( 16 U.S.C. 2201 ), by adding wildfires as an eligible natural disaster for which payments may be provided to eligible producers. The changes to the regulations include: The 2018 Farm Bill expands this maximum cost-share to include socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers, while in all cases limiting total payment for a single event to an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the agricultural value of the land.

Once you log in, Yahoo will verify you and send you back here where you'll be logged in! Any pending input will be lost. You can search Ask USDA for FAQs about FSA programs as well as other services and programs USDA offers our customers. AskFSA will cease to be available on September 21st, 2020, please update bookmarks to Ask USDA. Please use the previous link instead. Select a product Please use the previous link instead. Select a category Subject to availability of funds, locally-elected county committees are authorized to implement ECP for. For land to be eligible, the natural disaster must create. Select the Printer icon on the left side of the screen. Processes will be compliant with e-Gov and IT initiatives. Processes will be compliant with e-Gov and IT initiatives. This will be implemented as part of the automated system. Explanation: This measure is designed to address the average processing time it takes for emergency program benefits thus, improving program efficiency and reducing time and, therefore, the cost of providing the benefits. Data in days. Explanation: This measure is designed to show the percentage of land returned to the long-term projected acreage trend in each county within two years after a natural disaster. Natural disasters include wind and water erosion, floods, hurricanes, drought, tornados, fire, and other natural disasters. ECP treats agricultural land, which if left untreated would impair or endanger the land, materially affect the land's productive capacity, represent unusual damage that is not the type likely to recur frequently in the same area, and be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is required to return the land to productive agricultural use. To be eligible for the program, the conservation problem must not have existed prior to the disaster.

Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action and this rule serves as the environmental screening documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action. 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. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 are to be exhausted. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost Start Printed Page 32841 effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Owners or lessees principally engaged in the primary processing of raw wood products are excluded from this definition. Owners of land leased to lessees who would be excluded under the previous sentence are also excluded. End Amendment Part End Amendment Part End Amendment Part End Amendment Part.

When funds are determined to be no longer needed by producers in a county or parish, those unobligated or deobligated funds are returned to the FSA national office for re-allocation to other areas suffering the effects of natural disasters which are in need of ECP funds. This cycle continues until funds are entirely depleted at the national level. Once funds are depleted, FSA ceases to allocate additional funding and must wait for a supplemental appropriation or until de-obligated or unobligated funds are returned to the national level. The program has also been unable to develop strategic goals and performance measures to track its progress in improving its service delivery. ECP also lacks a mechanism to effectively prioritize its limited disaster recovery funding to farmers most in need of financial assistance.However, FSA does take steps to ensure funding is directed only to land that has been damaged by the disaster. After a natural disaster has occurred, the county FSA office or offices will survey the damage to farmland, determine which rehabilitative practices are needed to restore the farmland, and estimate the ECP funding that is needed. When ECP funds are available and a natural disaster occurs, the county office will assess the damage to ensure that the damage is of such magnitude that it would be too costly for an agricultural producer to rehabilitate without Federal assistance, that the damage resulting from the natural disaster is unusual in character that would not recur frequently in the same area, and that it has materially affected the productive capability of the farmland. Upon meeting these requirements, the county office sends a request to the State office detailing the description of the disaster. Only those practices identified by the county committee to rehabilitate the farmland are available to producers for implementation.

ECP is the primary Federal emergency conservation program available to farmers to remove debris from crop fields, haul water to livestock, and restore conservation structures, such as dams, ponds, diversions, and terrace systems. Other Federal emergency programs cover damage on other types of land or buildings.The purpose of EWP is to help groups of people with a common problem; it is not an individual assistance program. Additionally, EWP must have a local project sponsor for the program, such as a State, city, or local soil conservation district, for funds to be administered in the event of a natural disaster. EWP provides funding to project sponsors for such work as clearing debris from clogged waterways, restoring vegetation, and stabilizing river banks, whereas ECP focuses on agricultural land.Because the program does not have a predictable, regular funding source, implementation may be delayed, which could exacerbate the conservation problems caused by natural disaster. At the local level, the county FSA committee determines whether to declare the availability of ECP (except for drought that is determined by the national office), requests funding, determines which producers are eligible for ECP funding, and how much land has been affected by a natural disaster. The county committee develops a preliminary estimate of the amount of funds needed to rehabilitate the farmland damaged by a natural disaster. The State FSA office reviews the request, further fine-tunes estimated funding levels, and forwards the request to the national FSA office which reviews the requests for funding and usually provides the State anywhere between 50 to 90 percent of the requested funding, depending upon allocations and obligation trends for past disasters of the same type and magnitude. Despite the complications of irregular funding for emergency purposes, State and county FSA offices judiciously manage the program.

NRCS is paid, up to ten percent of the ECP allocation, by FSA to provide technical assistance for individual producers whose farmland has suffered damage by natural disaster and who have been approved for ECP funding to rehabilitate the damaged farmland. Although NRCS has the technical assistance responsibility for only one practice, restoring structures and other installations, FSA at the State level may enter into a reimbursable agreement with NRCS for technical assistance for other practices, such as wells, drought assistance, or removing silt from water impoundment structures. When FSA contracts for these services, NRCS agrees to support the overall goals of the ECP. Further, for NRCS to receive reimbursement for its technical assistance services, NRCS must measure and report its performance to FSA. The USDA Forest Service (FS) and State governments' State forestry officials will be technical assistance providers for ECP's forestry practice for the 2005 hurricanes. FS and State foresters support the goals of ECP.In March 2003, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was completed for ECP. The PEIS was conducted by the Mangi Environmental Group, with assistance from FSA staff, in accordance with the regulations 40 CFR 1502.10. The PEIS proposed changes to ECP that would make the program easier to administer and prevent potential abuse. ECP's internal guidance was revised, incorporated recommended changes, and was issued on March 30, 2004. In addition, FSA will be conducting a program review meeting with FSA partners, both USDA, non-USDA, and non-governmental entities, similar in nature to one that was conducted for the Agricultural Conservation Program. A national conservation review group, made up of all FSA partners, will meet to evaluate program implementation and effectiveness and recommend program changes. Additionally, the USDA, Office of Inspector General (OIG) has conducted audits of the FSA conservation programs.

These audits evaluated actions taken by FSA to assess the program's susceptibility to improper payments and internal controls. The OIG found that FSA made a good faith effort to adhere to and comply with Office of the Chief Financial Officer guidance. In addition, OIG has conducted other general audits of ECP with no findings of major program liabilities, although examples of improper payments and fraud and abuse of the program were at times found. FSA has responded to findings by taking action and clarifying procedure, either by issuing notices or making the necessary updates in the ECP handbook. ECP delivery is periodically reviewed in county offices by a County Operations Reviewer (COR), who reports directly to the State Executive Director and submits final findings directly to the county, State, and national offices, under County Office Operations Review Program (CORP) procedures issued by the national office. If significant discrepancies are found, a national ECP target CORP review, focusing on a particular issue or set of issues, may be requested by either State or national level program managers. The objectives of these audits are to ascertain whether FSA has established adequate internal controls to ensure the financial integrity of the program and if those controls are adhered to by FSA employees. They do not consider the effectiveness or the relevancy of the program. The reports are distributed to the State and national levels and are subsequently used for trend analysis in an annual CORP report. Funding requests and performance are not linked under the current program since funding is dependant on supplemental budget requests made after a disaster. ECP has not been included in a President's annual budget since 1997. The program has run on supplemental appropriations since that time. Generally, ECP funds are appropriated with no end date, so that if funds are not earned in one disaster, they continue to be available until the next disaster.

These practices include such measures as removing debris from farmland, fencing, repairing or restoring conservation measures such as waterways or ponds, and drilling wells for emergency water for livestock. The result is that FSA provides needed ECP dollars to rehabilitate farmland only in counties, or parts of counties, where disasters have occurred. After a natural disaster, FSA issues press releases, holds public meetings, and gets the word out to the local community informing intended beneficiaries of the availability of ECP. An ECP signup period is held for a period of at least 30 days. If not enough funds are received for eligible applications, the county FSA office may request additional ECP funding. Any requests received at the national office for additional funding are allocated for the full request, depending upon funding availability. At least 90 percent of an ECP allocation to a State is paid directly to an eligible agricultural producer. The remaining allocation, up to 10 percent, is paid to USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide technical assistance to producers to implement ECP recovery practices on the ground. For ECP practices in which FSA is the technical assistance provider, 100 percent of the funds are paid directly to producers. NRCS is the technical assistance provider for one practice, restoring structures and other installations, although FSA may enter into a reimbursable agreement with NRCS at the State level for other practices such as wells, drought assistance, and removing silt from water impoundment structures. A primary example of this targeting would be ECP funds appropriated for 2005 hurricane damage. FSA established a new policy prioritizing practices by tree planting species with the higher environmental benefits getting the higher priority for funding. This targeting of resources addresses the program purpose directly and reaches intended beneficiaries.

The measure identifies the percent of ECP counties that are returned to the long-term projected acreage trend in each county within a two-year period. Using National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data, an acreage trend is estimated for planted program crop acreage for each county that has received ECP funding for a specific fiscal year. This trend analysis is used to model what the expected county acreage would be in the year of the disaster and each of the two years following the disaster if the disaster had not occurred. A comparison between actual acreage in each of those years with predicted acreage from the trend analysis model allows us to see how closely acreage in the county is tracking with the overall trend line. The underlying assumption is that ECP will help restore land back to the long-term acreage trend in each county. We would expect a drop in acreage during the year of the disaster, but over time the ratio of actual to predicted acreage should approach one. FSA is working diligently to develop at least one more annual goal. The annual efficiency measure is to reduce the response time from the date of no-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office. The measure is discrete, quantifiable and measurable. The targets, derived from the baseline of 41.13 days, are: FY 2005 41.13; FY 2006, 40.88; FY 2007 40.63; FY 2008 40.38; FY 2009 40.13; and FY 2010, 39.88. Baseline data included FY 2003 and 2004. The actuals are FY 2003 42.21 days; FY 2004 96.39 days, and FY 2005 40.05 days. ECP must develop at least one more acceptable additional annual measure to receive credit for this question. The measure does have a baseline and targets. For example, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a technical provider for ECP.

Having funding available when a disaster occurs greatly increases the speed that assistance is available for an agricultural producer affected by the disaster. If funds have to be requested from Congress, then the request and waiting for funding slows down the program's ability to respond to the agricultural producer's plight. FSA conducted extensive strategic planning exercises from which clear mission, vision, and goals were developed. In-house personnel have conducted headquarters and field communications, strategy sessions, and planning meetings throughout each year.The information collected by ECP does not consider the performance of NRCS, FSA's primary partner in the program. FSA does collect statistics to monitor ECP performance and the financial aspects of the program in addition to highlighting the effectiveness of ECP practices on the land. A primary example is the use of National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data to demonstrate program performance as outlined in the response to question 2.1. Information obtained from NRCS, one of FSA's partners in the program for certain practices, verifies the extent of use of different practices, and that the practice has been performed to technical standards and specifications. FSA collects contract information, on all ECP contracts, including the types of conservation practice installed, acreage affected, location of the land, and other characteristics of the land. FSA's technical assistance provider, NRCS, also plays a role in collecting data for program management by reporting practice implementation extents and acres served or affected. By reviewing funding availability, either unobligated or deobligated, program managers can return funds that are unneeded in one area in order that those funds may be allocated in areas affected by other natural disasters. County FSA committees review reports at their monthly meetings to view progress of practice implementation.

If practices are not being timely installed, then producers are notified and approvals cancelled to ensure funds are being used timely for the purpose in which they are intended. State FSA offices review funding levels and practice implementation on a regular basis, providing oversight for ECP implementation in county FSA offices. The national FSA office reviews funding levels and practice implementation on a regular basis as well. At all levels, if discrepancies are noted, follow up action is quickly initiated.FSA reimburses NRCS up to 10 percent of its ECP allocation for continuing assistance in technical matters. To receive payment, individual memoranda of understanding are established on the state level between these partners. Some of the agreements have no specified timeframes and quality standards for deliverables. There are no contract deliverables for quality assurance with NRCS. Federal employee performance elements are directly related to the FSA Draft Strategic Plan. In addition, USDA identifies program and objective accomplishment targets in individual performance plans for employees who help deliver the program. Other USDA partners similarly are held accountable. FSA reimburses NRCS up to ten percent of its ECP allocation for continuing assistance in technical matters related to certain practices for which NRCS has technical assistance responsibility. To receive payment, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is established in each State between these partners. For practices where NRCS performed the technical assistance, NRCS must provide verification that the technical standards and specifications for each ECP participant have been met prior to receiving reimbursement from FSA. There are no contract deliverables for quality assurance with NRCS, but if assistance is not provided per technical standards and specifications, NRCS is not paid.

The USDA Forest Service (FS) and State government foresters will also be providers of technical services for ECP forest practices and FS (acting for itself and State foresters) and FSA are currently developing a national MOU that will hold FS accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results on a contract-by-contract basis. Contract funding data is continually reviewed by headquarters staff and discrepancies are reported to management. Action is taken to correct any deficiencies.The report stated that FSA had not collected and analyzed sufficient information to determine the extent of improper payments in its programs. The agency's Financial Management Division did not consider the results of compliance reviews, audits, and the FSA County Operations Review Program when determining the programs' risk for improper payments. While there were no ECP specific findings contained in the audit, it was one of 19 programs reviewed. FSA has revised its procedure for risk assessment for improper payments, which includes external and internal oversight reviews that should further reduce any risk of ECP improper payments. In recent years ECP has not demonstrated that it obligates emergency recovery funding in a timely manner consistent with the overall program plan; from year to year, the program typically carries high unobligated balances relative to its appropriations. ECP funding is spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported. ECP does have procedures for reporting actual expenditures. The county FSA office, when requesting funds, surveys damage to farmland caused by the natural disaster to determine which practices under ECP are high priority and needed in the affected disaster area. Only those practices are then available to producers for implementation. The result is that FSA provides needed ECP dollars to counties (or parts of counties) where disasters have occurred. An ECP signup period is held for a period of at least 30 days.

If not enough funds are received for eligible applications, the county FSA office will request additional ECP funding. A request received at the national office for additional funding is allocated at the fullest extent possible, depending upon funding availability. County FSA committees review reports at their monthly meetings to review progress of practice implementation. If practices are not being timely installed, then producers are notified and applications cancelled in order to ensure funds are being used in a timely manner for the purpose for which they were intended. ECP funds are available until expended. ECP does establish schedules for obligations with their primary partner, NRCS. ECP is in the process of establishing schedules with Forest Service as the result of the latest supplemental that includes coverage for trees.The measure is to reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office from 40.05 days to 39.88 days. The program will either have to develop a new, more ambitious measure that captures a greater span of the program or develop additional measures. ECP has established some limited procedures for reviewing ECP costs, but the agency has not provided adequate evidence that demonstrates how these processes achieve or improve the program's cost effectiveness. County FSA committees are tasked with setting up payment rates for practice components within national parameters for program implementation to ensure fiscal integrity and fairness to all program producers. FSA District Directors review the county committees' program implementation to further ensure program integrity. FSA also tracks the time it takes county office staff to process ECP contracts. FSA intends to convene a task force beginning in August 2006 to review ECP policy and procedures to update and streamline ECP operations to a Web-based platform.

By moving to Web-based applications, the Agency will be in a better position to monitor and query program data to research and increase program efficiencies. This progress will be accelerated as funds are made available. In addition, FSA is moving into integrated Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) technology and processes to enhance business performance, which, in turn, increase efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. This task force will be made up of FSA personnel and other partner agency members. ECP program managers conducted a certified training course the week of May 22, 2006, for States affected by 2005 hurricanes. FSA conducted this training for FSA State office and certain county office employees, as well as NRCS and FS participants in conjunction with NRCS and FS employees and State government forestry employees. FSA State office employees will, in turn, train their county FSA office employees. In addition, an ECP notice was issued to States addressing findings from the FY 2005 County Operations Review Program Report that was issued in February 2006. County Operations Reviews regularly review ECP program implementation. County FSA committees are tasked with setting up payment rates for practice components within national parameters for program implementation to ensure fiscal integrity and fairness to all program producers. FSA District Directors review the county committees' program implementation to further ensure program integrity. FSA also tracks the time it takes county office staff to process ECP contracts.FSA conducted this training for FSA State and certain county office employees, NRCS and FS employees, and State government forestry employees. The training included presentation by FSA's Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP). FSA ECP and EFCRP managers coordinated the programs at the national level to be able to assist as many producers affected by the 2005 hurricanes as possible.