Federal Register comments. Are Federal managers and program partners including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results? Explanation: While program managers are held accountable, not all partners are. The contract data are continually reviewed by headquarters staff, and discrepancies are reported to management.
Action is taken to correct any deficiencies. Some of the agreements have not specified timeframes and the quality standards for deliverables. In some instances, this has caused delays in service for CRP offers. Evidence: "CREP annual reports. FSA individual performance plans.
Are funds Federal and partners' obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose? Explanation: As soon as a CRP contract is approved, funds are obligated. Annual rental payments are consistently outlayed the first workday after October 1st each year. Cost-share and other incentive payments are made once requirements are met and certifications completed, including a review of receipts. Requirements are in place to ensure payments are only made to eligible persons and on eligible land.
Producer files are reviewed prior to annual payment issuance to ensure conservation practices are maintained as required. COR reports are analyzed to determine weaknesses and corrective actions needed. Evidence: "FY and FY obligations and percent earned. Does the program have procedures e. New IT tools have substantially reduced the cost and time of processing CRP offers by incorporating rule based validations and eliminating manual entries.
Offer processing time for general CRP contracts is currently used to evaluate efficiency in program execution, and a similar measure for continuous signup is under development. FSA plans on achieving additional efficiencies by evaluating and monitoring partnership time required in the delivery of technical assistance. The COWM system determines the time required to perform identified elements of work, showing where efficiencies may be gained. Additional procedures include compliance checks and continual review of CRP data.
These CREP partnerships coordinate and leverage federal funds with state, tribal governments, or other non-federal fund sources, to address specific conservation and environmental objectives.
At the end of FY , there were 29 CREP agreements in place, each providing tailored opportunities for meeting specific environmental challenges. In June , FSA co-sponsored a national CRP conference where technical experts, stakeholders, researchers, and policy-makers met in a scientific forum to exchange ideas, discuss issues, and help define the future of the program. Because FSA's current process for identifying and measuring the risk of improper payments needs improvement, the risk assessments it performs may not accurately reflect the programs' susceptibility to improper payments.
Disbursement data are collected and reported in the financial statements of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Auditors have questioned the absence of obligations, but since the obligation occurs simultaneously with disbursement, it is not an issue.
Evidence: To support budget execution, the program division controls funds by monitoring program payments on a daily basis during the payment period, which begins in October each year when funding is authorized.
Then the program code is removed from the county office payment table and the program division performs a case-by-base authorization process to ensure funding limits are not exceeded.
Explanation: FSA addresses management deficiencies in several ways. Periodic national-level training is provided to FSA state offices which clarifies procedures and outlines changes to the program. Further guidance on procedure is issued in notices that are regularly sent to FSA state and field offices.
FSA County Operations Review assessments provide another internal control process for analyzing and addressing procedural errors. Within available resources, FSA conducts spot checks on contracts to ensure compliance. Also, in response to the President's Management Agenda, FSA has added interim performance indicators and implemented a research plan to develop additional performance indicators to better report CRP accomplishments.
An Interagency Consulting Group reengineered the program in the mid's in order to retool the program benefits. Also, OIG performed several audits which, when FSA addressed the reports' findings, strengthened program performance and reduced errors. CRP Notices. Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Explanation: The CRP improves soil quality, water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. In soil erosion reduced was million tons, protecting cropland and enhancing soil productivity.
CRP accounts for nearly 40 percent of the annual 1. In , CRP reduced nitrogen and phosphorus applications by , and , tons, respectively. Reduced soil erosion and fertilizer applications increases water quality. The CRP benefits wildlife.
United States Geological Survey documented significant increases in grassland bird populations on CRP lands versus cropland, including six that were considered in serious decline between and Explanation: FSA has developed new measures and targets. Compared to the measures previously used, the measures are more specific, use new data bases, and incorporate recent research. CRP met its target of 2. The Continuous CRP programs target vulnerable lands for highly effective conservation measures.
National Headquarters or Kansas City, as needed. Travel duration and timing will be determined with the individuals upon selection. Response Date: Apply to this detail by close of business April 9, , by submitting your resume including specific relevant experience not more than 2 pages , and a short cover letter stating your interest in this detail. Apply to this detail by close of business April 9, , by submitting your resume including specific relevant experience not more than 2 pages , and a short cover letter stating your interest in this detail.
This memorandum outlines the recent budget agreement for fiscal years and The two-year budget agreement allowed for finalization of the bill which runs through September The higher spending limits also allowed Congress to end sequestration cuts and add funding to certain programs.
In addition, the second portion of this document details recent Congressional meetings. Fiscal Year appropriations: On March 23, the Congress approved and President signed the fiscal year appropriations bill. This funding will continue support for various farm, conservation, and emergency loan programs, and will help American farmers and ranchers.
It will also ensure customer service through full staffing of local county Farm Service Agency offices, including additional funding for farm loan officers, and meet estimates of demand for farm loan programs. The final agreement provides an increase of 22,, The Committee does: 1 accept savings from FTE attrition; 2 provide funding for CCC audit readiness; 3 accept savings from federal and non-federal operating expenses; 4 direct farm program modernization savings to be used for other IT purposes proposed and as determined by the Secretary; and 5 accept IT operation maintenance and imaging savings.
However, saturated buffers were only allowed in new and re-enrolled CRP buffers. The Committee understands this has limited the ability of stakeholders to install saturated buffers into CRP without penalty. The Committee recommends FSA look into changing the CLEAR guidelines to allow the installation of saturated buffers in new, re-enrolled and existing CRP contracts to allow FSA cost-shared installation of saturated buffers, and to examine allowing for installation of saturated buffers through non- federal programs and initiatives without penalty to landowners.
The Committee encourages FSA to be flexible in meeting new challenges as it was during recent wildfire outbreaks when it allowed grazing on CRP lands. The Committee therefore encourages the Secretary to establish a Deputy Under Secretary for Conservation under the Farm Production and Conservation Mission Area to facilitate such coordination and ensure that each of the three agencies is supporting the conservation objectives of the producers that they serve.
Emergency Response. Producers may contact their local FSA county office for more information. To find your local FSA county office, visit farmers. Agricultural producers who participate or cooperate in an FSA program may be nominated for candidacy for the county office. Individuals may nominate themselves or others as a candidate. In addition, organizations representing underserved minority and women farmers or ranchers may nominate candidates. To become a nominee, eligible individuals must sign nomination form FSAA.
The form includes a statement that the nominee agrees to serve if elected. Nomination forms are filed in the FSA office that. All nomination forms for the election must be postmarked or received in the local FSA county office by August 2, , or next available business day.
Haying and grazing of CRP acres is authorized under certain conditions to improve the quality and performance of the CRP cover or to provide emergency relief to livestock producers due to certain natural disasters. There are two types of haying and grazing authorization: non-emergency and emergency.
In general, non-emergency haying may be utilized every three years and non-emergency grazing may be utilized every two years. Additional grazing may be available to new and beginning farmers. CRP participants requesting emergency or non-emergency haying and grazing must file a request with their county FSA office indicating the acres to be hayed or grazed before the activity begins.
Q Who is responsible for obtaining state permits for practices that require them? A It is the participant's responsibility to apply for, and obtain, all necessary permits. A permit brochure is being developed by Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to assist participants in understanding the process. Q Can a CP-5A, Windbreak, practice be established on the outside of a filter strip or riparian buffer?
Q Can a participant enroll to establish a filter strip or riparian buffer on a site where there is an established two-track or lane immediately adjacent to an eligible body of water? A Yes, as long as there is a documented resource concern to justify establishment of the filter strip or riparian buffer practice on the site. In some cases, such as with an existing two-track, lane, berm etc. The producer is responsible for maintaining the entire practice in accordance with the plan, including the ineligible acreage.
Failure to maintain the entire width of the practice may result in CRP payment reductions or termination.
0コメント