eqip lwg sep 2007 linkedin

Coconino Natural Resource Coconino Natural Resource Conservation DistrictConservation District

The EQIP/WHIP Local Working Group

Wednesday, 19 September 2007Willow Bend Environmental Education Center

Flagstaff, Arizona

Coconino Natural Resource Conservation DistrictCoconino Natural Resource Conservation District

Convened pursuant to Title 440 Conservation Programs Manual, Part 501.02, The USDA Local Work Group. IAW FACA, only government or tribal agency representatives are officially members. But public input is welcomed and encouraged and any input will be forwarded.

Welcome!

• Please sign in• Please check our roster for accuracy• Restroom• Please ask questions


Agenda:

A. Welcome and IntroductionsB. Brief review of the Environmental Quality Improvement and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Programs (EQIP and WHIP)C. Brief review authority, purpose, and goals of the Local Working Group (LWG)D. Proposed ranking period (s)E. Prioritized list of resource concerns by watershedF. Recommended list of eligible conservation practicesG. Recommendations on application ranking criteriaH. Recommended payment schedule for conservation practicesI. Recommendations on invasive speciesJ. Recommendations on new/innovative LWG proposalsK. Recommendations on treatment level for priority resource concernsL. Recommendations on producer questionnaire for planning

M. Summation and Close


Your hosts:

Mike Macauley, President, AACD and Chair, CNRCDGary Parrott, Acting District Conservationist, NRCSJeanne LaSorte, Range Management Specialist, NRCSScott Harger, Program Manager, Technical Services, CNRCDChris Newell, Director, Willow Bend EEC

And the Board of Directors of CNRCD


Environmental Quality Improvement Program(EQIP)

• Authorized in 1997, reauthorized 2002 Farm Bills

• Cost Share assistance to agricultural producers

• To promote ag production and environmental quality as compatible goals

• Optimize environmental benefits

• Help farmers and ranchers meet…environmental requirements


Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program(WHIP)

• Authorized in 1996, reauthorized 2002 Farm Bills

• Voluntary cost share assistance to landowners and others

• To encourage creation of high quality wildlife habitats that support wildlifepopulations of National, State, Tribal, and local significance

• Technical and financial assistance to develop upland, wetland, riparian,and aquatic habitat areas


Magnitude of EQIP in CNRCD

• Since 1996 Inception thru 2007• 35 Contracts ( 3 Cancelled)• Affecting 1,093,340 acres• $2,319,266.79 Federal Obligation• $ Matched by Ranchers


Magnitude of WHIP in CNRCD

• Since 1996 Inception thru 2007• 10 Contracts• Affecting 24,789 acres• $ 545,835.69 Federal Obligation (75% of total)


Environmental Quality Improvement Program(EQIP)

Coconino LWGBig Sandy LWG Verde LWG

State Tech Committee

StateConservationist

Nat’l NRCSNational Priorities Allocation of Funds

Triangle LWGChino Winds LWG

Local concerns, Priorities Recommended rates and shares


EQIP National Priorities

• Reduction of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or excess salinity in impaired watersheds, consistent with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) where available, as well as reduction of groundwater contamination and conservation of ground and surface water resources;

• Reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards;

• Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land; and

• Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation


EQIP National Measures

• Increase overall benefits, for example by - addressing multiple resource concerns, - ensuring more durable environmental benefits, - limiting adverse ancillary impacts.

• Encourage innovation.

• Comply with the statutory mandate to target nationally, 75% of available financial assistance to livestock-related conservation practices.

• Employ appropriate tools to more comprehensively serve EQIP purposes, such as Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and Integrated Pest Management Plans.

“These measures include identifying and implementing conservation practices that :”


EQIP National Concerns and Measures

Additional Definitions:

Structural practice means a conservation practice, including vegetative practices, that involves establishing, constructing, or installing a site-specific measure to conserve, protect from degradation, or improve soil, water, air, or related natural resources in the most cost-effective manner.

Related natural resources means natural resources that are associated with soil and water, including air, plants, and animals and the land or water on which they may occur, including grazing land, wetland, forestland, and wildlife habitat.


WHIP National Priorities

• Implement parts of the eligible participant’s conservation plan that create, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat. This will make up the Wildlife Habitat Development Plan (WHDP)

• Enter into agreements to provide financial assistance in the form of cost-share payments to enhance habitat or eligible land for:

• Upland wildlife• Wetland wildlife• Threatened or endangered species• Fisheries• Other types of wildlife

• Provide program participants with technical assistance and education materials regarding wildlife habitat needs

• Foster a positive public attitude toward wildlife, wildlife habitat, and land stewardship


EQIPState Concerns

• Incorporated intoArizona Resource Concerns & Quality Criteria Assessment (Handout)

• Part of UDSA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, Section III (Feb 2006)

•Available on-line at TechReg.

• Arizona Concerns: 9 Categories, 71 identified types

• Soil Erosion• Soil Condition• Water Quantity• Water Quality

•Air Quality•Plants not Adapted or Suited•Plant Condition•Fish and Wildlife•Domestic Animals


WHIPState Concerns

• Incorporated intoArizona State WHIP Plan 2004-2007•Available on-line at www.az.nrcs.usda.gov

1. Assist Landowners in improving priority wildlife habitatA. Riparian and wetlandsB. Wildlife waterC. Endangered, threatened, and species of concernD. Native grasslandsE. Bat HabitatF. Big gameG. Migratory bird habitat

2. Partnerships3. Landscape scale wildlife habitat treatment4. At-risk species (essential habitat projects)5. Drought-affected Wildlife

http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/


D. Section 1 Proposed ranking period (s) E. Section 2 Prioritized list of resource concerns by watershed F. Section 3 Recommended list of eligible conservation practices G. Section 4 Recommendations on application ranking criteria H. Section 5 Recommended payment schedule for conservation practices I. Section 6 Recommendations on invasive species J. Section 7 Recommendations on new/innovative LWG proposals K. Section 8 Recommendations on treatment level for priority resource concerns L. Section 9 Recommendations on producer questionnaire for planning

M. Summation and Close


• Producers may apply for any program at any time, for their convenience.

• Conservation plans ready for ranking by the end of each ranking period will be considered for financial assistance.

• NRCS is asking Local Work Groups to comment on the following timelines for the 2008 program.

Section 1 Arizona Proposed Ranking Period (s)


October 26, 2007 - First Ranking Period Ends. For EQIP applications to be considered complete, all applicable forms and information, required for applicant eligibility determinations, must be submitted by close of business on the date the ranking periods end.February 8, 2008 - Conservation plans ready for ranking put in ProtractsFebruary 22, 2008 - NRCS State Office approves applications for fundingMarch 7, 2008 - Assistant State Conservationists for Field Operations (ASTCFOs) complete review of approved applications over $150,000 and forwards to State Office for Regional Approval. March 14, 2008 - Assistant State Conservationist for Field Operations completes signing of approved contracts.January 11, 2008 - Second ranking period ends. March 28, 2008 - Conservation plans ready for ranking put in protracts April 4, 2008 - NRCS State Office approves applications for fundingApril 25, 2008 - Assistant State Conservationists for Field Operations (ASTCFOs) complete review of approved applications over $150,000 and forwards to State Office for Regional Approval. May 9, 2008 - Assistant State Conservationist for Field Operations completes signing of approved contracts

Section 1 Arizona Proposed Ranking Period (s)


Section 2 Arizona Priority Resource Concerns

• District Watershed Map

• Table of Resource Concerns by Land Use

• Complete List of AZ Resource Concerns for reference

• LWG Report: 2007 Funding Allocations by Practices

HANDOUTS


Background:• Financial assistance is available to implement the portions of a conservation plan that are addressing one or more Arizona priority resource concerns to achieve quality criteria. •What Is Needed:• From each local work group, NRCS needs a prioritized list of resource concerns by land use for each 8 digit watershed area within the Conservation District. Priority resource concerns are those being recommended for NRCS financial assistance in that watershed. The resource concerns must be from those on the NRCS resource concerns list. • For each land use, number the resource concerns in priority order for the watershed. Only number priority resource concerns that exist in the watershed that are being recommended for financial assistance. Do not prioritize resource concerns for a land use unless it exists in the watershed.


Coconino Natural Resource Conservation District



Resource Concerns ID’d on Active EQIP Contracts in CNRCD

Plant Health, Vigor______________23Inadequate Stock Water__________21Sheet & Rill Erosion _____________20Gullying_______________________17Hydrologic Cycle________________14Reduced Storage-Sedimentation____13Roadbank Cutting_______________12Turbidity_______________________12Soil Depletion____________________5Wind Erosion_____________________1Noxious & Invasives_______________1



Common Practices Resource Concerns TreatedWater Developments Soil Erosion

TurbidityRunoff Plant ConditionWater Quantity Noxious & Invasive PlantsSedimentation Inadequate Stock Water

Fences, Pastures, & Water Lots Soil Erosion TurbidityRunoff Plant ConditionSedimentation Noxious & Invasive Plants

Brush Management Soil Erosion TurbidityRunoff Plant ConditionSedimentation

Prescribed Grazing Soil Erosion TurbiditySoil Conditions & Plant Condition Organic Matter Noxious & Sedimentation Invasive PlantsHydrologic Cycle Inadequate Quality/Quantity Runoff of Forage

Range Planting Soil Erosion RunoffSedimentation TurbidityHydrologic Cycle Plant ConditionInadequate Quality/Quantity of Forage



Conservation District(s) Watershed Priority Resource Concerns recommended for financial assistance in 2008

Land Uses Prioritize the Resource Concerns by Land Use, by numbering them in order from

highest to lowest 1, 2, 3, etc, 1 being the highest priority. (shaded areas are where the resource concern is not applicable)

Priority Resource Concerns Crop Forest Grazed Forest Range Hayland Pasture Wildlife CAFO Soil Erosion Sheet and Rill Wind Classic Gully Streambank Irrigation Induced

Road, Roadsides & Construction Areas

Soil Condition Organic Matter Depletion Rangeland Site Stability Water Quantity Rangeland Hydrologic Cycle

Excessive Runoff, Flooding, or Ponding

Inefficient Water Use on Irrigated Land

Aquifer Overdraft Water Quality

Nutrients/Organics in Groundwater

Pesticides in Surface Water

Nutrients/Organics in Surface Water

Sediment/Turbidity in Surface Water

Air Quality Particulate Matter (PM 10) Plant Condition Productivity, Health and Vigor

ESA Plant Species Listed or Proposed

Declining Species, Species of Concern

Noxious and Invasive Plants Fish and Wildlife Inadequate Food Inadequate Cover/Shelter Inadequate Water Habitat Fragmentation

ESA Listed or Proposed for Listing

Declining Species, Species of Concern

Domestic Animals Inadequate Stock Water Other Priority Resource Concerns Cropland Forest Grazed Forest Grazed Range Hayland Pasture Wildlife CAFO

Conservation District (s) Watershed Priority Resource Concerns recommended for financial assistance in 2008 Land Uses

Prioritize the Resource Concerns by Land Use, by numbering them in order from highest to lowest 1, 2, 3, etc, 1 being the highest prior



Section 3 Practices Recommended for Financial Assistance

Background:NRCS is asking the Local Work Group to recommend the conservation practices that should be eligible for financial assistance to address each of the priority resource concerns.

The practice(s) eligible for financial assistance must:

• Be used to address a priority resource concern to quality criteria• Be recommended and approved for financial assistance in Arizona• If more than one practice is needed to address the resource concern to quality criteria, applicant must apply all needed practices in the contract in order to be eligible. • Facilitating practices may not receive financial assistance on their own.


• NRCS is asking the Local Work Group to recommend the conservation practices that should be eligible for financial assistance to address each of the priority resource concerns.


• It will be up to the planner and the land user to determine which of those practices would be needed for each applicant.

• Do not spend a significant amount of time on the ranking score, but note those that do not appear reasonable


EQIP/WHIPConservation PracticesApproved for Arizona

• 276 Practices or variations for EQIP.• 226 Practices or variations for WHIP.

• No practices pre-identified for deletion.

• three new EQIP practices pre-identified for recommended addition, same as 2006



Conservation District(s): Check the practices that are recommended for financial assistance to address each resource concern. Other priority resource concerns and practices may be recommended by the Local Work Group. Soil Erosion - Sheet and Rill Practice Effect ___Conservation Cover (ac) 5 ___Conservation Crop Rotation (ac) 5 ___Contour Buffer Strips (AC.) 5 ___Contour Farming (Ac.) 5 ___Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (Ac.) 5 ___Cover Crop (ac) 5 ___Critical Area Planting (ac) 5 ___Heavy Use Area Protection (Ac.) 5 ___Pasture & Hay Planting (ac) 5 ___Prescribed Grazing (ac) 5 ___Range Planting (ac) 5 ___Residue Management, No Till/Strip Till (ac) 5 ___Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till (Ac.) 5 ___Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till/Strip Till (Ac.) 5 ___Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till (Ac.) 5 ___Use Exclusion (ac) 5 ___Alley Cropping (ac) 4 ___Tree/Shrub Establishment (ac) 4 ___Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (ft) 4 ___Anionic Polycrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control (Ac.) 3 ___Brush Management (ac) 3 ___Residue Management, Seasonal (ac) 3 ___Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (ac) 3 ___Drainage Water Management (ac) 2 ___Pest Management (ac.) 2 ___Prescribed Burning (ac) 2 ___Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats (ac) 2 ___Riparian Forest Buffer (ac) 2 ___Riparian Herbaceous Cover (ac) 2 Facilitating Practices ___Access Road (ft) 1 ___Animal Trails and Walkways (ft) 1 ___Channel Stabilization (ft) 1 ___Diversion (ft) 1 ___Fence (ft) 1 ___Field Border (Ft.) 1 ___Firebreak (Ft.) 1 ___Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (Ac.) 1 ___Irrigation Land Leveling (ac) 1 ___Pipeline (ft) 1 ___Pond (no) 1 ___Pumping Plant (no) 1 ___Spring Development (no) 1 ___Tree/Shrub Pruning (ac) 1 ___Waste Utilization (ac) 1 ___Water Harvesting Catchment (no) 1 ___Watering Facility (no) 1 ___Waterspreading (ac) 1 ___Water Well (no) 1 Other Practices Soil Erosion - Wind Practice Effect ___Alley Cropping (ac) 5 ___Anionic Polycrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control (Ac.) 5 ___Conservation Cover (ac) 5 ___Conservation Crop Rotation (ac) 5 ___Contour Buffer Strips (AC.) 5 ___Contour Farming (Ac.) 5 ___Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (Ac.) 5 ___Cover Crop (ac) 5 ___Critical Area Planting (ac) 5

Check the practices that are recommended for financial assistance to address each resource concern.

Other priority resource concerns and practices may be recommended by the Local Work Group. - Sheet



All those listed, plus:

1. Buried Float Valves(no photo)

2. Covers for steel tanks



3. Tire troughs



Section 4 Ranking Criteria

Background:

Applications for financial assistance programs are ranked based on the resource concerns being addressed and level of environmental benefits that will be achieved.

Applications are funded in the order they are ranked until funds are expended.



Applicants receive points in the ranking system from several criteria:

• The Conservation Practice Physical Effects score the effectiveness of the practices being applied in addressing the resource concern.• The national questions provide additional points if the applicant is addressing national program priorities (100 total points)• The state questions provide additional points if the applicant is addressing state identified program priorities. (100 total points) These priorities are recommended by the State Technical Committee. Local Work Groups may provide recommendations.• The local questions provide additional points for addressing local priorities, and separate multiple applicants who are addressing the same resource concern. (300 total points)



Issue Questions Responses 1. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in considerable reductions of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with TMDL's where available as well as the reduction of groundwater contamination or point source such as contamination from confined animal feeding operations?

Yes o or No o

2. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in the conservation of a considerable amount of ground or surface water resources?

Yes o or No o

3. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

Yes o or No o

4. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land?

Yes o or No o

5. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable increase in the promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation?

Yes o or No o

Program: Ranking Date: Application Number: Ranking Tool: Applicant: Final Ranking Score: Address:

Planner: Telephone: Farm Location:

Program:Ranking Date:Application Number:Ranking Tool: Applicant:Final Ranking Score:Address:Planner:Telephone:Farm Location:



Local Work Groups are being asked to recommend local questions that will help identify the applicants who are providing the most environmental benefit.

Separating these applicants from each other can only be done by using local ranking questions that identify the amount of the benefit

NRCS will combine the best ideas from the local work groups in an allocation area, and select a final set of local questions for each land use and priority resource concern.


EQIP Local Ranking Questions Identify those that the local work group recommends using, or provide a different recommendation for questions that will separate program applicants who are addressing the same resource concern based on the environmental benefit they will offer. Soil Erosion – Sheet & Rill - for Cropland, Hayland, Pasture Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in the reduction of erosion to meet the designated tolerable soil loss (T), using RUSLE2 program, by: >1.5 ton per acre 1.0 to 1.5 ton per acre 0.5 to 0.9 ton per acre < 0.5 ton per acre Soil Erosion – Wind - for Cropland, Hayland, Pasture Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in the reduction of erosion to meet the designated tolerable soil loss (T), using approved wind erosion prediction program, by: >1.5 ton per acre 1.0 to 1.5 ton per acre 0.5 to 0.9 ton per acre < 0.5 ton per acre Soil Erosion – Classic Gully - for All Land Uses Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in the direct treatment to stabilize the headcut and address watershed concerns above the gully, that are under the control of the land user on: >50% of identified gullies 25 to 50% of the identified gullies < 25% of the identified gullies Soil Erosion – Streambank - for All Land Uses Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in the direct treatment to stabilize the streambank and address watershed concerns above the gully, that are under the control of the land user on: >50% of eroding streambank length in the contracted land units 25 to 50% of the eroding streambank length in the contracted land units < 25% of the identified eroding length in the contracted land units Soil Erosion – Irrigation Induced - for Cropland, Hayland, Pasture Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in the reduction of erosion by: >1.5 ton per acre 1.0 to 1.5 ton per acre 0.5 to 0.9 ton per acre < 0.5 ton per acre Soil Erosion – Road, Roadsides and Construction Areas - for All Land Uses Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in water flow and soil movement controlled, contained or safely conveyed during and after construction of roads on: >1.5 ton per acre 1.0 to 1.5 ton per acre 0.5 to 0.9 ton per acre < 0.5 ton per acre


LOCAL

EQIP Local Ranking Questions Identify those that the local work group recommends using, or provide a different recommendation for questions that will separate program applicants who are addressing the same resource concern based on the environmental benef


Plant Condition -Noxious and Invasive Plants - for All Land Uses (except rangeland)Will the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in control of target species that have been identified to occur in your management unit>20 acres of infestation10 to 20 acres of infestation<10 acres of infestation

Plant Condition -Noxious and Invasive Plants - for RangelandWill the treatment you intend to implement using financial assistance result in control of target species that have been identified to occur in your management unit>200 acres of infestation101 to 200 acres of infestation50 to 100 acres of infestation<50 acres of infestation




Recommend all as presented except:Plant Condition -Noxious and Invasive Plants - for Rangeland

• For this, the criteria should be identical as for all other land uses.• The point of the program is to incentivize• As is, discourages Category I, Category II infestations on rangelands• As is, rangelands become bad neighbor weed sources

• In fact, local questions probably should characterize infestations by category


Potential Ranking Systems:USFS, SWEPIC, BLM, etc.

SWEPIC (Southwest Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse) provides the APRS (Alien Plant Ranking System) at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/aprs/index.htm .

Another system is the NatureServe I-Rank (Invasiveness Ranking) Assessments, at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=species .

The last example for the Technical Committee to consider is the USFS Region 3 Weed Ranking system



Any species listed with ‘Eradicate’ in the objective column is considered a Class A invasive weed species.Any species listed with ‘Contain/Control’ in the objective column is considered a Class B invasive weed species.Any species listed with Contain’ in the objective column is considered a Class C invasive weed species.Region 3 Invasive Weed Classification System. The Region 3 invasive weed classification system provides a systematic approach for assigning management emphasis priorities. The invasive weed classes may be further subdivided to meet regional, National Forest, or local needs.

1. Class A - Those invasive weeds that are non-native (exotic) to the state and are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the State and pose a serious threat to agricultural crop, rangelands, plants listed an endangered, threatened or sensitive, and other natural and economic resources in the ecosystem. Class A plants receive highest priority. Management emphasis is complete eradication.

2. Class B - Those invasive weeds that are non-native (exotic) species that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state but are common in other regions of the state. Class B plants receive second highest priority. Management emphasis is to contain the spread, decrease population ' size, and eventually eliminate the infestation when cost effective technology is available.

3. Class -C - Consists of any other invasive weeds (exotic or native) . This classification receives the lowest priority. Management emphasis is to contain spread to present population size or decrease population.



Section 5 Conservation Practice Payment Schedules

Background:• NRCS is moving from a cost share approach to an incentive payment approach for all financial assistance programs.• Instead of offering to pay a percentage of the cost of installing a conservation practice, NRCS will simply pay a flat incentive payment per unit of the practice. • NRCS is moving toward a single payment for each conservation practice. • Arizona is proposing use of a State wide cost list for fiscal year 2008.• If your documented local costs differ than the proposed list, please provide two to three different real cost of installation to support your change of cost. If there is a significant difference of cost received from the Local Working Group for the same practices, we will use different allocation areas.



• Local work group recommendations on the typical conservation practice scenarios shown in the payment schedule• Recommendations on statewide practice costs • Two or three local actual practice costs if higher or lower than statewide cost

• Review payment schedule for wildlife habitat development practices under WHIP

The LWG is asked to provide the following:


Cost Share and Incentive PaymentsCost Share Ratios

Program Max Share

Current Share

Incentive Payment

Recurring Payment

Max Beginning Rancher

Max Limited Resource

EQIP 75% 50% Flat Rates

N/A 90% 90%

WHIP 75% 75% N/A N/A N/A N/A

WHIP Essential Habitat

100% 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A




Code Practice Name Component Unit Unit cost Local Cost

Local Cost

Local Cost

328 Conservation Crop Rotation Improve soil condition and/or pest management (cap $5,000/Yr)

Ac. 10.00

329 Residue Management No-till & Strip Till ($10000 cap/yr each contract) Ac. 14.00 344 Residue Management Seasonal ($10000 cap/yr each contract) Ea. 6.00 345 Residue Management Mulch Till ($10000 cap/yr each contract) Ac. 8.50 346 Residue Management Ridge Till ($10000 cap/yr each contract) Ac. 8.50 370 Atmospheric Resources Quality

Management Dirt Road Dust Control Ft. 0.75

370 Atmospheric Resources Quality Management

Feedlot and Dairy Dust Control (cap $5,000/yr) Ac. 40.00

370 Atmospheric Resources Quality Management

Tillage and Harvest Dust Control (cap $5,000/yr) Ac. 6.00

399 Fishpond Management 0-10 acre pond surface ea 60 399 Fishpond Management Aeration System ea 500 399 Fishpond Management First year Fertilization ea 100 449 Irrigation Water Management IWM + record keeping on existing system ea. $500 449 Irrigation Water Management IWM + record keeping on same system ($5000 cap) ac. $8 449 Irrigation Water Management IWM + record keeping on new system ($8000 cap) ac. $12 472 Use Exclusion Use Exclusion Ac. 2000.00 528 Prescribed Grazing Range, Forest, Irrig. Pasture: Record keeping for

existing prescribed grazing plan that meets practice standards.

Ea. 500.00

528 Prescribed Grazing Range and Forest: New prescribed grazing plan, livestock recordkeeping - $5,000 cap per contract

Ac. 1.00

528 Prescribed Grazing Irrigated Pasture: New prescribed grazing plan, livestock record keeping - $5,000 cap per contract

Ac. 12.00

528 Prescribed Grazing Range and Forest: New prescribed grazing plan, livestock record keeping, precipitation and vegetation monitoring - $15,000 cap per contract

Ac. 2.00

528 Prescribed Grazing Range and Forest: Entire year rest for range planting or seeding, $5000 cap per contract

Ac. 2.00

528 Prescribed Grazing Range and Forest: Growing season deferment for prescribed burning, brush management, other treatment, $2000 cap per contract

Ac. 1.50

590 Nutrient Management Nutrient Management and record keeping, annual soil or petiole tests

Ac. 10.00

590 Nutrient Management Nutrient Management and record keeping, exising system, all fields

Ea. 500.00

590 Nutrient Management Nutrient Management and record keeping, soil tests at least every 3 years

Ac. 6.00

595 Pest Management Noxious Weed Control, State Listed ac. $85.00 595 Pest Management Mechanical - Tillage, Hand pull/Spot Spray ac. $15.00 595 Pest Management Biological-Applied, Includes Collecting and Releasing ac. $250.00 595 Pest Management Culturual - Cover Crop, Crop Rotation ac. $5.00 595 Pest Management Chemical - Aerial Application ac. $55.00 595 Pest Management Chemial - Ground Application ac. $40.00 643 Restoration and Management of

Declining Habitats Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats ac 0

643 Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats

Light Disking ac 20

644 Wetland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Waterfowl nesting structures Ea. 150.00 645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Food requirements of wildlife, Level

A=<200 ac. pay $300.00/ac. Ac. $300.00

645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Food requirements of wildlife, Level B=>201 ac. Pay $50.00/ac.

Ac. $50.00

645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Water requirements of wildlife,Level A=<200 ac. pay $300.00/ac.

Ac. $300.00

645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Water requirements of wildlife, Level B=>201 ac. Pay $50.00/ac.

Ac. $50.00

645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Adequate Shelter and /or Space for wildlife,Level A=<200 ac. pay $300.00/ac.

Ac. $300.00

645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt. Provide for Adequate Shelter and /or Space for wildlife, Level B=>201 ac. Pay $50.00/ac.

Ac. $50.00

646 Shallow Water Management for Wildlife

Shallow Water Management for Wildlife ac 0


Wetland species seed & seeding ac 130

Code Practice Name Component Unit Unit cost Local Cost

Local Cost

Local Cost


Dike cu.yd.

3.00

CodePractice NameComponentUnitUnit costLocal Cost Local CostLocal Cost 328Conservation Crop RotationImprove soil condition and/or pest management (cap $5,000/Yr)Ac.10.00329Residue ManagementNo-till & Strip Till ($10000 cap/yr each con



Almost impossible to respond:

• No explanation of the basis for recommended incentive payments• No mechanism for maintaining level of incentive

• Some incentive levels appear far from attractive – for example, seeding


Section 6 Arizona Invasive Species List

If “Plant Condition – Noxious and Invasive Plants” is identified as a Priority Resource Concern, then a list of the plant species that can be treated must be approved.

Arizona has an official list of noxious weeds that is maintained by the Arizona Department of Agriculture. This will be the approved list of “noxious” plants that can be treated with NRCS financial assistance.


NRCS is asking the Local Work Groups to recommend a list of “invasive” plants.

• Invasive plants are other plants that are not on the Arizona Noxious Weeds list.

• The “invasive” plants should be species that have increased on the landscape, and need to be controlled to restore wildlife habitat, restore the balance of species on ecological sites to restore sustainable range health and condition, or reduce soil erosion and sediment in streams and lakes.

• They can be native or introduced species. There should be some realistic economic feasibility that the species can be adequately controlled if financial assistance is provided.



The NRCS conservation practices that would be used to control these species would be Pest Management for herbaceous species and Brush Management for woody species.

NRCS would also like recommendations on successful treatment methods for the noxious and invasive species in the area. For each target species, NRCS must develop approved treatment methods in the conservation practice standards. If a successful treatment method is not known, the species will not be approved for financial assistance. Actual treatment cost information for these species is also requested.



Proposed List of Invasive Species Eligible for Financial Assistance *N =Native, I =Introduced, CSP= Arizona Conservation Security Program List , Task Force = Govenor's Task Force List Check species recommended for control using financial assistance. Common Name(s) Scientific Name Status SYMBOL US Nativity ___Catclaw Acacia greggii CSP list ACGR N ___Pigweed Amaranthus spp. CSP list AMARA N ___Onionweed Asphodelus fistulosus Task Force list ASFI2 I ___Desert Broom Baccharis sarothroides CSP list BASA2 N ___Musk/ Nodding thistle Carduus nutans Task Force list CANU4 I ___Malta starthistle Centaurea melitensis Task Force list CEME2 I ___Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Task Force list CIVU I ___Yellow & Purple nutsedge Cyperus escalentus / C. rotundus CSP list CYES / CYRO I ___Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Task Force list ELAN I ___Rubber Rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa CSP list ERNA10 N ___Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae CSP list GUSA2 N ___Burroweed Isocoma tenuisecta CSP list ISTE2 N ___Juniper Juniperus spp CSP list JUNIP N ___Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Task Force list LELA2 I ___Cheeseweed / Malva Malva parviflora CSP list MAPA5 I ___Wait-A-Bit Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera CSP list MIACB N ___Fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum Task Force list PESE3 I ___Mesquite Prosopis spp. CSP list PROSO N ___Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis SAAE I ___Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium CSP list SOEL N ___Johnson grass Sorghum halepense Task Force List/CSP list SOHA I ___Tamarisk/salt cedar Tamarisx spp. Task Force /CSP list TAMAR2 I ___Spiny cocklebur Xanthium spinosum CSP list XASP2 I ___Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium CSP list XAST N


Proposed List of Invasive Species Eligible for Financial Assistance *N =Native, I =Introduced, CSP= Arizona Conservation Security Program List , Task Force = Govenor's Task Force List Check species recommended for control using financial assistance.



• Proposal is a step backward in weed control

• Accept the AZ, adjacent states lists, and federal noxious weed lists to qualify for financial assistance

• Accept the Governor’s Council list, but add the AZ- WIP for future recommended additions

• Including native increasers with invasive species could be highly detrimental to weed control efforts:

• Redirects funds into brush management and cultivation• No science based control standards for natives• No cooperation on control of natives

• Suggesting methods and estimating local costs will take time


Section 7 New / Innovative Local Work Group Proposals

NRCS has received several complaints that Local Work Group proposals are not getting to the NRCS State Office, and/or there has been no response to the recommendations.

In order to provide a better process, and ensure a response is provided back to those making proposals, NRCS in Arizona is proposing the following proposal process.

Coconino Natural Resource Conservation DistrictCoconino Natural Resource Conservation DistrictSection 7 New / Innovative Local Work Group Proposals

Proposed Process:1. Send all proposals directly to the Assistant State Conservationist for Financial

Assistance Programs or State Resource Conservationist (Eric Banks or Steve Barker)

2. The NRCS State Office Financial Assistance Programs staff, and State Resource Conservationist staff will review the proposal to determine if it meets program intent and policy requirements, and is technically sound.

3. A letter will be sent back to the proposal group or individual to let them know about the NRCS technical review of the proposal. This may include recommended changes that would need to be made for the proposal to move forward.

4. If the proposal has technical approval, it would be given to the appropriate program subcommittee (EQIP, CSP etc) for consideration. The program subcommittee would recommend or not recommend consideration by the State Technical Committee

5. If the proposal is recommended by the Subcommittee, the proposal group or individual would be asked to present their proposal at the next State Technical Committee meeting.

6. The State Technical Committee would recommend or not recommend approval to the State Conservationist after the presentation and discussion.

7. State Conservationist makes final decision, and notifies proposal group or individual, and State Technical Committee.



• Having process is a step forward for proposals

• It doesn’t seem to regard LWG’s as a source of proposals

• Proposals should go to one point of contact

• Process should have response time limits

• Has a staff approval/disapproval step prior to subcommitteeconsideration, which appears to violate federal law


Section 7 New / Innovative Local Work Group ProposalsNRCS Interim Conservation Practice Standards Process for developing, reviewing, and approving Interim standards are prepared by the States to address natural resource concerns for which there is no existing standard, or to use new technology where existing standards cannot be revised to include this new technology. An interim standard can also be used to field test new technologies. It is intended that an interim standard will lead to national standards or that the tested technology will be incorporated into an existing conservation practice standard. Interim Conservation Practice Standards are issued for a period not to exceed 3 years. The following method is to be used to develop interim standards (see 450 GM 401.17): Step 1—The State discipline specialist is responsible for developing interim standards based on requests from the State university, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), a landowner, an industry representative, employees at the field office, or other such sources. The format used for National Conservation Practice Standards shall be used for State interim standards. Step 2—The State discipline specialist submits a copy of the proposed interim conservation practice standard to the Chair of the National Conservation Practice Standards Subcommittee (NCPSS) and requests a practice code number. National level review consists of referring this interim standard to the appropriate national discipline leader who will assure that the request cannot be addressed through an existing practice standard. If possible, any new technology should be inserted into an existing national standard through the variance process. If the request cannot be addressed through an existing practice standard, a national practice code number is assigned to the interim standard. Step 3—Once the practice code number is received, the State Conservationist will approve the interim standard with concurrence from the State Technical Guide Committee. Step 4—The State discipline specialist conducts an annual evaluation of the interim practice standard. If the interim standard is in use for the 3-year period, an evaluation report is completed with specific disposition recommendations. If the interim standard is recommended as a national conservation practice standard, the State interim standard may be used until the national standard is issued. If there is no evaluation report or the interim technology is found unacceptable or unneeded as a national standard, the interim standard is removed from the FOTG.

NRCS Interim Conservation Practice Standards Process for developing, reviewing, and approving Interim standards are prepared by the States to address natural resource concerns for which there is no existing standard, or to use new technology where existi



This process does not show any opportunity for input from LWG’s or Districts


Section 8 Resource Concern Treatment Levels

• NRCS is asking for recommendations on the minimum amount of environmental benefit that an applicant should achieve for each priority resource concern in order to receive financial assistance.

• Local Work Groups may add additional priority resource concerns from the NRCS resource list



Priority Resource Concern

Description of Concern

Arizona Quality Criteria NRCS Recommended Minimum Environmental

Benefit for Financial Assistance

Local Work Group Recommendation

Soil-Erosion – Sheet and Rill

Detachment and transport of soil particles caused by rainfall splash and runoff degrade soil quality.

Land use and management does not cause accelerated sheet and rill erosions. Sheet and rill erosion on cultivated land does not exceed the established tolerance “T” for the soil.

Existing soil erosion exceeds soil loss tolerance “T”. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will achieve quality criteria. Soil erosion must be reduced by at least 0.5 ton per acre

Soil Erosion - Wind

Detachment and transport of soil particles caused by wind degrade soil quality and/or damage plants.

Land use and management does not cause accelerated wind erosion. Wind erosion on cultivated land does not exceed the established soil tolerance “T” for the soil.

Existing soil erosion exceeds soil loss tolerance “T”. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will achieve quality criteria. Soil erosion must be reduced by at least 0.5 ton per acre

Soil Erosion –Classic Gully

Deep, permanent channels caused by convergence of surface runoff degrade soil quality. They enlarge progressively by head cutting and lateral widening.

Land use and management does not cause or accelerate gully erosion. Gullies are not present, or where they were previously created, channel bottom, head cuts, and sidewalls are stabilized.

Clear evidence of active headcutting. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will provide both direct treatment to stop the headcut, and addresses any watershed concerns above the gully that are within the control of the land user.

Soil Erosion – Streambank

Accelerated loss of streambank soils restricts land and water use management.

Land use and management does not cause or accelerate streambank erosion. Streambanks are stable and not subject to erosion that exceeds natural geomorphic rates under normal flow conditions. Streambank erosion does not limit the intended use of the land.

Streambank is actively eroding. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will provide both direct treatment to protect the streambank from erosion, and addresses any upstream watershed concerns that are within the control of the land user.

Soil Erosion – Irrigation Induced.

Improper irrigation water application and equipment are causing soil erosion that degrades soil quality.

Land use and management does not create or accelerate irrigation induced erosion. Conveyance and application of irrigation water does not cause or accelerate soil erosion in fields or conveyances. Irrigation induced erosion on cultivated land areas does not exceed the Soil Loss Tolerance “T”/

Irrigation induced erosion currently exceeds the soil loss tolerance “T”. Irrigation erosion can not be adequately controlled with management and/or application flow adjustments alone. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will achieve quality criteria. Soil erosion must be reduced by at least 0.5 ton per acre

Soil Erosion – Road, Roadsides and Construction Areas

Soil loss occurs on areas left unprotected during or after road building and/or constructions activities.

Roads and construction sites do not cause accelerated erosion that reduces the long term sustainability of the soil resource or limit the intended uses of land. Water flow and soil movement is controlled, contained or safely conveyed during and after the road building and construction activities.

Active erosion from concentrated water flow on roads or construction areas is causing significant safety concerns on roads and/or identifiable water quality concerns. Treatment implemented with financial assistance will meet quality criteria.

Soil Condition – Organic Matter Depletion

Soil organic matter has lowered or will diminish to a level that degrades soil quality.

Land use and management does not cause soil organic matter problems. Soil organic matter amounts do not limit normal infiltration, soil biotic activity, nutrient cycling or plant growth expected on the site. On cultivated land, a positive soil condition rating index, and a minimum of 1 ton per year of residue or manure returned to the soil each year.

Soil condition index does not meet quality criteria. Treatment implemented with financial assistance achieves quality criteria. Soil condition index is increased by at least 0.2

Priority Resource ConcernDescription of ConcernArizona Quality CriteriaNRCS Recommended Minimum Environmental Benefit for Financial AssistanceLocal Work Group RecommendationSoil-Erosion – Sheet and RillDetachment and transport of soil particles cau



• Suggestions for particulates, noxious plants

• Further suggestions require additional review


Section 9 Arizona Planning Workbook

NRCS is considering providing all program applicants with a conservation planning workbook to fill out as the first step in developing the conservation plan.

The workbook would provide a consistent way for NRCS to collect the basic information about the operation, and develop initial designs for the planned conservation practices.

The workbook would also help NRCS planners understand the operation better when they conduct their resource inventory.



NRCS is asking for input on what is needed in the planning workbooks.

• Recommendations on requiring land users complete a workbook as part of the conservation plan requirement for any financial assistance program.

• A review of the Arizona planning workbooks, for recommended comments or suggestions.

• Input on what is needed in the management inventory workbooks

• Suggestions on other ways producers could provide this information if it is already being put together for another agency (examples: actual livestock use information on grazing permits, groundwater pumping reports being provided to ADWR, etc).



• Sounds interesting• Not unlike Conservation Security Program Workbook?• Mandatory/Optional Components?

• No sample provided, so LWG cannot evaluate


Summary of proceedings and recommendations as required:

• Recommendations will be consolidated into a response package, along with minutes, sign-in sheets, and presentation

• Package will go to the District Conservationist to forward to the Technical Committee

• Next Tech Committee meeting is scheduled 10 October.


Thank you for Coming!

We know your time is valuable


eqip lwg sep 2007 linkedin

Documents