NRCS State Technical Committee Roles and Responsibilities

1. NRCS State Technical Committee Roles and Responsibilities Wisconsin

2. State Technical Committee • Established in Food Security Act of 1985 • Required in each state • To assist in implementing conservation provisions of the Farm Bill

3. USDA Conservation Program Delivery Process • State Conservationist will convene the State Technical Committee (STC) • STC will review local funding requests and make recommendations on selection and ranking • State Conservationist, with advice from STC, allocates funds based on local and state needs, and regional and national strategic plans

4. Role of STC …advisory in nature, and such committees shall have no implementation or enforcement authority. However, the Secretary shall give strong consideration to the recommendations of such committees…..

5. Roles and Responsibilitiesin Major Programs

6. Environmental Quality Incentives Program • Recommendations on: • Ranking criteria for applications • Costshare and incentive payment limits • Eligible conservation practices

7. Environmental Quality Incentives Program • Recommendations on: • Dates for signup/ranking • Criteria for CAFO definition • Evaluate requests for new conservation practices

8. Conservation Reserve Program • Recommend weed and pest control methods • Assist in designating priority areas • Advise on ranking process • Advise on emergency haying and grazing

9. Advisory Role in Other Programs • Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program • Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program • Forestry Incentives Program • HEL Compliance • Wetland Conservation

10. Membership

11. The State Conservationist • Chairs the Committee • Ensures equal representation of all interests • Gives serious consideration to the Committee’s advice

12. STC Membership • Each agency, group or entity may have one representative member • Diversity of interests and demographics encouraged • Subcommittees may be formed for specific issues • Public attendance is permitted

13. Membership • USDA Agencies (required): • FSA and FSA Committee • Forest Service • Cooperative Extension • Rural Development • Other federal agencies • EPA, Corps of Engineers, BIA • American Indian Tribes

14. State Agencies or Groups • State water resources agency (DNR) • State agriculture dept (DATCP) • State association of Conservation Districts (WLWCA) • State forestry agency/state forester • Others with expertise in soil, water, wetlands, wildlife, as appropriate

15. Private and Non-Profit Interests • Ag producers with demonstrable conservation expertise • Nonprofit organizations with demonstrable conservation expertise and ag experience • Persons knowledgeable about conservation impacts • Agribusiness • Non-industrial forest land owners

16. Wisconsin Resource Priorities and Trends

17. Resource Concerns • National • State • Water quality identified as major Wisconsin priority

18. Trends in Financial Assistanceby Program, FY02-08

19. Total Financial Assistance All Programs, FY2002-2008

20. EQIP Allocations

21. Background • Initially, mainly lower-cost, management practices offered in EQIP • 2003 – increased funding allowed animal waste and other practices to be added • Statewide signup for animal waste to ensure farmers in all counties have access • 2006 Solid/Liquid Separation Facilities and waste treatment facilities added

22. Initial Allocations • Tribal - $440,000 ($40,000/tribe) • Unused funds redistributed • CNMP - $2 million • Funding set aside to achieve nationally-set goal for WI

23. Initial Allocations • Local Work Groups • Base allocation to each county - $20,000 • Remainder allocated based on resources • Livestock • Highly Erodible Land • Cropland

24. Initial Allocations • Animal Waste • Allocation varies from 25%-33% of total EQIP funds in State

25. Change is inevitable

26. As the year goes by…. • Funds shifted among LWGs • some have more than they need • others need more than they have • Tribal funds often returned and redistributed • New funds arrive later in year from other states

27. Considerations for Redistribution • Can counties handle more workload? • Is technical assistance/staff available? • Is there enough time for LWG contracting? • Can we more efficiently use the funds through a few large contracts?

28. EQIP Allocations 2008

29. EQIPGeographic Dispersal - Contracts by County

30. Trends in EQIP Funding and # Contracts

31. EQIP Funding for Grazing Practices Includes practices typically associated with grazing plans (Fence, Managed Grazing, Pasture and Hayland Planting, Livestock Trails and Walkways, Well, Pipeline, Watering Facility -Tank and Trough). **Does not include FY09 funds, only practices planned for 2009 from previous year contracts

32. EQIP Funding for Grazing* Contracted, by year YearFunds Obligated 2006 $483,059 2007 $744,392 2008 $1,491,328 2009 ** $429,531 *Includes practices typically associated with grazing plans (Fence, Managed Grazing, Pasture and Hayland Planting, Livestock Trails and Walkways, Well, Pipeline, Watering Facility -Tank and Trough). **Does not include FY09 funds, only practices planned for 2009 from previous year contracts

33. EQIP Applications Not Contracted • 474 total applications that did not result in contracts in FY08 • 12 of those involved grazing ($103,000) • 11 withdrew or declined contract • 1 sold property • No grazing applications remained unfunded or in backlog

34. Wisconsin EQIP Allocation Comparison FY06-08 * EQIP mandates that 60% of program funding go towards livestock operations.

35. Major EQIP-eligible Land Uses and Funding*

36. EQIP 2009 National EQIP priorities include: specialty crops, organic farming or transition to organic farming, precision farming, green energy and pollinators.