1 / 15

Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding Pools

Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding Pools. Leo Preston, Lower Willamette Basin Kevin Conroy, High Desert Basin. County-Level Funding Pools. Concept presented to OTAC in November, 2009 Local work group meetings held throughout summer Funding pools due August 31.

eshe
Download Presentation

Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding Pools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding Pools Leo Preston, Lower Willamette Basin Kevin Conroy, High Desert Basin

  2. County-Level Funding Pools • Concept presented to OTAC in November, 2009 • Local work group meetings held throughout summer • Funding pools due August 31

  3. Funding Pool Criteria • Focused on the primary resource problem and the one or two contributing resource concerns • The primary resource problem is area-wide, identifying cumulative off-site effects • Scope and extend of the problem defined in a concise statement (acres, percent, temperature, etc.)

  4. Solution • Scope and extent of the area needing treatment to resolve the problem to the desired condition. • Identified suite of practices needed to meet quality criteria for the identified resource problem.

  5. Outcome • Specific – Concise statement, clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of natural resources. • Measurable – Defined in terms of percentages, improvements in rating indexes, etc. The method of documenting outcomes is specified. • Attainable – Estimated participation rates and funding levels are reasonable given recent allocations and participation rates. • Relevant – The outcome corresponds to the to the identified resource problem. • Time Bound – The identified resource problem can be resolved to quality criteria in 3-5 years.

  6. HDB- Harney-Grazed Range – Invasive Plant Species • Problem Deterioration in range health resulting from Medusahead infestations. Lack of awareness and limited/haphazard treatment on private lands. • Solution Engage a significant portion (25%)of the private land operators including key community members in a process designed to demonstrate the key principles of Integrated Pest Management for the management and control of Medusahead. • Outcome Prevent further spread of Medusahead.

  7. Stayton Sublimity GWMA

  8. Stayton Sublimity GWMA • Problem - Ground Water recharge not keeping up with draw down – 27,000 acres irrigated (7000 acres already treated) - Municipal and Rural wells going dry - GWMA from Restricted to Critical - Irrigation Water cut off from high value crops if area is designated critical

  9. Stayton Sublimity GWMA • Solution - In five years treat 10,000 acres with more efficient irrigation systems and management - 35- 50% average reduction in water usage - Installation of low pressure system shows immediate impact on rural well water availability

  10. Stayton Sublimity GWMA • Outcome - Draw down does not exceed recharge - Municipal and rural wells don’t go dry - GWMA does not go from restricted to critical - High value crops can continue to support the local economy

  11. Statewide Resource Concerns • NEW PROCESS: OTAC needs to recommend Statewide Resource Concerns to the state conservationist for FY11 • County-level funding pools will be categorized under statewide resource concerns along as a part of new national budget process • Basins will be authorized to use up to a percentage of EQIP funds for on-farm projects tied to top resource concerns identified by OTAC and selected by the basin

  12. Example of a Potential Basin Pool • John Day/Umatilla – CRP Transition • Soil Erosion • Maintain Permanent Cover • Treat ~8.6 k Acres / year • Save 17k Tons of Soil

  13. Proposed Process • NRCS will analyze submitted funding pools by September 15 • NRCS will provide analysis to OTAC subcommittee for development of statewide concerns • NRCS will distribute resource concern list to full OTAC electronically for concurrence prior to October 1. • In addition to their locally identified funding pools, Basin Team Leaders will have the option of developing basin-wide funding pools that correlate with the top 3-4 resource concerns recommended by OTAC.

  14. Proposed Process • NRCS will complete an initial analysis of the resource concerns identified in the state funding pools by September 15. • NRCS will present these findings to a sub-committee of OTAC to use in the development of a recommendation for state-wide resource concerns

  15. Discussion • Questions? • Approval of process to provide state resource concern recommendations

More Related