Since the creation of FPAC, reimbursement of RCPP agreements have been delayed for over a year. This has caused serious operations issues to the districts because we haven’t had the money to pay payroll, and other overhead bills. I am hoping with the new administration, a better system will be created. Because we can’t continue not getting paid.

Division of Conservation has not had any new contracts in the past 3 years, so I can't really speak to the challenges with this. It does take a month or more to be paid on our existing contracts after they are approved at the state level.

In South Carolina we have had issues in the transition but seem to be better now. I think most of our problems came from our state NRCS office with the transition. I do wish the state offices had more control and influences over agreements than they had. This is probably our biggest complaint in SC on FPAC. I would be fine with them overwise.

In Louisiana, the Office of Soil & Water Conservation has fairly adapted to the remote administration of several elements of NRCS contracts and payments. Most other NRCS contract planning, development and execution elements continue to be coordinated as much as possible with in-state NRCS partners as was done pre-FPAC. With only a couple of relatively minor FPAC-hiccups, our overall LA partnership experience continues to be productive and generally efficient. I largely echo the SC comment above.

In South Dakota, we have several NRCS agreements. To my knowledge, the turnaround times have been consistent with some of our other federal agreements. Occasionally, we are asked to resubmit a report that was submitted earlier or asked to provided additional paperwork neither of which has been much of a burden for us.

In Colorado we just finished up with a new 5 year agreement and discovered challenges with new staff's knowledge of the processes at the NRCS state office, as well as in dealing with FPAC. I would say the biggest pain point in the process was a lack of local knowledge within the FPAC that resulted in several reiterations of our agreement. The constant adjustments/edits, continual re-explanation at multiple levels and delayed implementation, created a delayed and inefficient process. The delay in award created a trickle down effect as our State program funding was required to bridge the 3 month gap between the expected award date and the actual implementation date of the grant award. In the end, our final new cooperative agreement utilized the originally submitted scope of work and deliverables, as well as included changes in the details and wording that were often convoluted. Again, stemming from a lack of local knowledge resulting in an inefficient process. With the extra work and time of our own staff, I can't imagine the financial implications to cost of time for staff at the Federal level with all the back and forth (due to no local knowledge).

The nearest FPAC center for Kansas and our Division of Conservation operations is in Kansas City, Missouri. I am definitely aware of this reorganization, but have had very little direct experience with any FPAC Business Centers (that I know of). My actual administrative contact on contracts and payments, etc. with NCRS is almost entirely through their state headquarters office in Salina. If any of our contribution agreements or CCGA grants and payments are being routed through a regional FPAC center like Kansas City, Missouri - I didn’t even know it – it does not seem to have affected quality or timeliness with DOC. With that being said, it is possible that NRCS and FSA contracts and direct payments to landowners may have been impacted recently - but to my awareness, there has not been any feedback or complaints provided to us about these related issues.

My understanding is that the FPAC centers are essentially a consolidation of FSA, NRCS and RMA (and more). I believe all of these agencies still maintain separate state headquarter offices in Salina, Manhattan and Topeka, Kansas.