Download
1 / 48
480 likes | 580 Views
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fiscal Year 2004 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP. Voluntary program for farmers and ranchers to treat identified soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on eligible land.
E N D
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Fiscal Year 2004Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP • Voluntary program for farmers and ranchers to treat identified soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on eligible land. • Promote agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals • Optimize environmental benefits
Program Development State Conservationist (STC) considers advice from the Kansas Technical Committee on: • Identifying state priority natural resource concerns • Establishing criteria to evaluate applications which address state priority natural resource concerns • Establishing limits on land management practices that are included in contracts • Identifying eligible conservation practices including cost-share rates and/or incentive payments for those practices • Other technical issues related to EQIP as requested by the STC
FY 2004 • Kansas priority natural resource concerns to be addressed with EQIP: • Air Quality – Objectionable Odors (Livestock Management) • Soil Erosion – Wind • Sedimentation of Federal Reservoirs • Grazing Lands Health – Productivity, Health & Vigor • Water Quality – Concentrated, Non-confined Animal Waste • Water Quality – Confined Animal Waste • Water Quality – Nutrients/Pesticides/Suspended Sediment • Water Quantity – Inefficient Water Use; Aquifer Overdraft
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers: • Air Quality – Objectionable Odors (Livestock Management) • Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) • Improving waste application • Treatment
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers: • Grazing Lands Health • Amount of rest provided • Treatment of invasive species • Location • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area • Drought impacted
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers: • Sedimentation of Federal Reservoirs • Location • Within HUC 11 Federal Reservoir drainage • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area • Treatment of resource concern
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers (continued): • Soil Erosion – Wind • Erodibility • Treatment • Location (within/outside at-risk species critical habitat)
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers (continued): • Water Quality – Concentrated, Non-confined Animal Waste • Winter feeding area • Location • Distance to receiving water body • Within/outside TMDL area for fecal coliform • Within/outside Sensitive Groundwater Area • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area • Feeding area will be moved outside the riparian zone
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers (continued): • Water Quality - Confined Animal Waste • Animal Feeding Operation • Location • Within/outside TMDL area for fecal coliform • Within/outside Sensitive Groundwater Area • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers (continued): • Water Quality – Nutrients/Pesticides/Suspended Sediment • Location • Within/outside TMDL area for Eutrophication, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients, and/or Pesticides • Within/outside Sensitive Groundwater Area • Distance to receiving water body • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area • Leaching potential • Potential Soil Loss • Treatment
FY 2004 • Ranking process in Kansas considers (continued): • Water Quantity • Conversion to non-irrigated • Conversion to less water intensive cropping system • Increasing irrigation efficiency • Location • Within/outside Kansas Water Office Groundwater Priority Decline Area • Within/outside at-risk species critical habitat area • Within/outside TMDL area for Eutrophication, Dissolve Oxygen, Nutrients and/or Pesticides • Within/outside Sensitive Groundwater Area
Eligible Practices • Eligible practices are those needed to treat the resource concern. All practices must meet NRCS standards and specifications. • Practices are considered ineligible if • No designated EQIP priority resource concern exists • Existing designated EQIP priority resource concern has been treated to quality criteria, OR • Participant has already adopted the practice.
Adopted Practices (Ineligible) • STRUCTURAL or VEGETATIVE conservation practices are considered adopted if: • Conservation practice was installed to NRCS standards and specifications, and is within the practice lifespan, OR • Conservation practice is addressing, to the extent expected or desired, the resource concern for which it was intended.
Adopted Practices (Ineligible) • RECURRING MANAGEMENT conservation practices are considered adopted if: • Conservation practice was previously implemented to the extent needed, in accordance with NRCS standards and specifications, OR • Participant who is or will operate the land has demonstrated sufficient knowledge to implement the conservation practice to treat the resource concern to NRCS standards and specifications, and has established the practice at other locations. • EXCEPTION: Waste utilization incentive to treat Air Quality or Water Quality
Incentive Payments • Incentive payments are financial assistance to encourage the participant to perform a land management practice that would otherwise not be initiated without the program assistance.
Incentive Payments • $25,000/contract limit on incentive payments • EXCEPTION: Water Quantity incentives that convert to non-irrigated • Waste Utilization • “Practice previously implemented at other locations” clause is WAIVED • Eligible ONLY on new land where the practice was NOT previously implemented
Cost-share Rates • 50% cost-share on most practices • 70 – 90 % cost-share for LRF/BF • 70% cost-share for drought impacted grazing land health resource concern
Locally Led Conservation • What is the Local Work Group (LWG)? • Provides advice to the District Conservationist (DC) on EQIP county allocation distribution between resource concerns • Assistant State Conservationist and DC will make funding decisions considering advice from the LWG
Locally Led Conservation • Local Work Groups are: • Convened by the Conservation District • Membership • Conservation District • NRCS • FSA • Extension • Tribes • Other federal, state, and local agencies
Locally Led Conservation • Federal Advisory Committee Act prohibits nongovernmental advice on Federal expenditures • Conservation District is encouraged to get public input
Application Process • Applications are accepted continuously • Application evaluation period(s) are used to accumulate applications for ranking • FY2004 Application Evaluation Period Cut-off date is March 12, 2004
Allocation Process • Allocations are made by resource concern • County allocations for FY2004: • Each of the following resource concerns will receive a county allocation. At least 50% of each allocation must be obligated to that resource concern • Grazing Lands Health • Soil Erosion – Wind • Water Quality – Nutrients/Pesticides/Sedimentation • Remaining 50% could be redistributed considering the advice of Local Work Group
Allocation Process • Area allocations for all other concerns • Air quality • Sedimentation of Federal Reservoirs • Water Quality and Animal Waste • Water Quantity
EQIP Process • Landowner/operator submits application • NRCS assists landowner/operator to develop a conservation plan • Applications are ranked using evaluation process • Funds are allocated to highest ranking applications and contracts written with those participants • Applicant may begin to implement conservation plan when funds are obligated. Funds become obligated when NRCS and applicant sign contract.
Conservation Planning Process • Identify Problems and Opportunities • Determine Objectives • Inventory Resources • Analyze Resource Data • Formulate Alternatives • Evaluate Alternatives • Make Decisions • Implement the Plan • Evaluate the Plan
Key Information • Length of contract • One year past last practice installed; not to exceed 10 years • Producer eligibility • Adjusted Gross Income • Land eligibility • To receive cost share on irrigation practices, land must be physically irrigated 2 out of 5 years • Contract limits/Adjusted Gross Income • $450,000 contract limit; $450,000 individual or entity limit
Key Information • Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) needs a Conservation Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) • Ground and Surface Water Conservation (GSWC) must have net water savings
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
