  |
 |
 |
 |
Kansas Home
About Us
News
Programs
Technical Resources
Partnerships
Contact Us
|
   |
|
|
Kansas Technical Committee Minutes - June 2009
Kansas Technical Committee (KTC) On June 26, 2009, Eric B. Banks, State Conservationist (STC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) gave the welcome and opening remarks. Introductions were made. Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)The Kansas Technical Committee (KTC) met to discuss and provide recommendations to the STC on the Kansas NRCS Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 GRP. Paul J. Gallagher, GRP Coordinator, led the discussion, which focused on two aspects of the program:
Background: On April 22, 2009, the GRP subcommittee of the KTC met to review and discuss the FY 2009 program, including ranking criteria and GARC methodology. As a basis for discussion, the subcommittee was provided the FY 2005 ranking criteria, information concerning changes brought about by the 2008 Farm Bill, current FY 2009 funding and funds status, and expected timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program. The subcommittee recommendation to the KTC was:
On May 28, 2009, Kansas NRCS developed draft GARCs and these were distributed via e-mail to the subcommittee for review, comment, and recommendation for the KTC. The NRCS did not receive any comments. Paul Gallagher gave a PowerPoint presentation consisting of four parts: 1) a program review, 2) Kansas GRP FY 2003 – 2006 program, 3) program changes brought about by the 2008 Farm Bill, and 4) the Kansas FY 2009 program, including recommendations made by the GRP subcommittee of the KTC. The following handouts were provided: Following documents require Adobe Reader.
KTC Recommendations - GRP Ranking CriteriaWind Energy MapKTC Recommendation: Expand the map to include all 'developable' areas. Specifically, the map should include the Red Hills and more of the Flint Hills. Background Discussion: Current FY 2009 map, which is based on Class 4-6 winds, does not include some area already designated for wind farms. It was noted that the current map was provided by the subcommittee. A suggestion would be to use another map, available recently by the state that would include all developable area. Or, use existing map, but include lower class winds (class 3) and drop cropland from the map. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations. In addition, coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. Furthermore, continued discussion is needed to ensure ranking criteria directs limited GRP finding to eligible grasslands facing the greatest threat of conversion. This issue will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. Hay MeadowsKTC Recommendation: Hay meadows should be given extra ranking points. Background Discussion: Right now, hay meadows appear penalized on the ranking because they are not in the Flint Hills or adjacent to a protected area. Kansas Biological Survey may be a good source of information in terms of identifying, or targeting areas, hay meadows. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations. In addition, coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. This will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. Grassland Area of ConcernKTC Recommendation: Increase points (25) given for parcels in the grassland region of concern to be on par with wind energy points (60). STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations, and coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. However, this will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. Urban/Commercial Development AreaKTC Recommendation: Eliminate Urban/Commercial Development Area question from ranking sheet. Background Discussion: Currently, 50 points area awarded to parcels outside this area (defined on the map "Urban/Commercial Development Area"). In earlier sign-ups, when appraisals were used to determine easement values, the purpose of this map was to avoid "high priced" land near cities, which was guidance provided by the NRCS chief in 2004. The use of GARCs should take care of this concern now. Continued use of this map will only serve to prevent applicants in this area from enrolling in easements. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations, and coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. However, this will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. Cooperative EntityKTC Recommendation: Give ranking preference to applications from cooperative entities. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations, and, coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. However, this will be revisited for the FY 2010 program, when it is expected that additional guidance on cooperative entities from the NRCS national office will be available. Expiring CRP AcreageKTC Recommendation: Delineate prime habitat areas for prairie chicken (lesser) and give extra points to expiring CRP contracts. Background Discussion: In some parts of the state, the greatest threat to prairie chicken habitat is the expiring CRP going back into crops. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. It should be noted that the NRCS did not heed the subcommittee's advice, and placed a preference for expiring CRP contracts. In light of the KTC recommendation, this issue will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. Landowner OfferKTC Recommendation: Landowners that make easement offers less than the NRCS determined offer should be awarded extra points. If no extra points are awarded, landowners are told that they will not receive a preference on the ranking sheet for making a lower offer. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The FY 2009 criteria is consistent with subcommittee recommendations, and, coupled with the tight timeframes associated with the FY 2009 program, such revisions would not be warranted at this point. However, this will be revisited for the FY 2010 program. KTC Recommendations - GRP GARCsGARC RegionsKTC Recommendation: Split eastern Kansas into northeast and southeast, so that higher priced Kansas City area counties do not distort rural, southeast Kansas GARCs. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. The current eastern GARC value calculation accounts for the disparity between high priced land near Kansas City and the more rural areas. The current GARC value for the eastern Kansas is a fair and reasonable value for a typical GRP parcel. KTC Recommendation: Move Central GARC region's western line one tier of counties to the west. Background Discussion: Some of the land in those counties have high ecological and economic values. A suggestion was made that if we are going to move the line, move it now, rather than next year. Landowners who lock in $100/acre this year will be upset if the GARC is bumped to $250/acre next year. STC Decision: The STC did not concur with this recommendation. Doing this would reduce the central region GARC by $40/acre to $210/acre, which would widen the disparity between the Central and Flint Hills values. (Note the KTC concern below regarding Flint Hills and Central GARCs.) Furthermore, the NRCS believes that a fair and reasonable price for a typical GRP parcel in the central GARC is currently estimated correctly. Other Items Discussed (no recommendations made)Grazing Management Plan: Incorrect information was given out at this June 26 meeting concerning who develops the grazing management plan for cooperative entity held easements. It was stated the cooperative entity develops the plan. That was incorrect. The NRCS develops the plan, but the cooperative entity enforces the plan. Grazing Management Plan: Concern was that the plan for hay meadows – where haying is predominate practice, would not adequately address haying. Response: The NRCS will ensure the grazing management plan, or conservation plan, will adequately address hay meadows. GARCs/Market Analysis: It was suggested that the NRCS only use appraisals for determining easement values. Response: The law requires that the easement value be the lowest of appraisal/market analysis, GARCs, or landowner offer. GARC: A concern was raised regarding the $60/acre price spread between Flint Hills regions and the central Kansas regions. Sixty dollars/acre was thought to be too steep. Other NRCS Conservation Program: Concern was raised that landowners that enroll in GRP easements will not be able to use other NRCS conservation programs to address future resource concerns. Expiring CRP average: Can the Farm Service Agency (FSA) provide a list of expiring CRP acreage? Response: A request should be made to FSA state office. GRP Subcommittee: A KTC member indicated he is on the GRP subcommittee but has not received any information regarding meetings. Response: This KTC member is on the subcommittee, and was notified of subcommittee’s April 22, 2009, meeting by hard copy letter, as well as provided subcommittee information via e-mail. This KTC member will provide the NRCS a corrected mailing and e-mail address. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)Carla Wikoff, FSA, Manhattan, Kansas, presented the following information on the CRP subcommittee's recommendations for the KTC's recommendations. 1. Background: The CP38E, State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), practice was initiated from a proposal created with conservation partner recommendations in early 2008. As this program progresses, we find that minor changes would help this program be producer friendly and still achieve the desired benefits. Current Policy: Eligible Size – Maximum acreage enrollment is five acres for fields less than 25 acres in size, or 20 percent of a field for fields 25 acres or greater, with a maximum acreage of 80 acres per field. Fields equal to or less than five acres may be enrolled in their entirety. Center-pivot corners are considered part of the irrigated field and are eligible in their entirety, except for full section pivots limited by the 80 acres per field rule. Infeasible to farm provisions does not apply. Enrolled acreage must average between 30 and 200 feet in width, although strips may be narrower or wider in places to accommodate special concerns or better accommodate the farming operation (eliminating point rows, for example). The shape of enrolled acres is not limited to strips. Multiple CP38E strips or patches will be allowed in a field. Strips or patches must be separated by a minimum of 30 feet (FSA Handbook 2-CRP, Exhibit 9, Kansas page 233). Eligible Location: CP38E acres may not be established immediately adjacent to native perennial grass enrolled in CRP under the same ownership unit, with the exception of waterways, where the CP38E strip would essentially widen the other continuous practice strip. CP38E acres may intersect (not parallel) with any continuous or general CRP (FSA Handbook 2-CRP, Exhibit 9, Kansas page 232). Recommendation from Subcommittee
KTC Recommendation: Overall support from KTC members was to recommend the following changes for consideration by the Kansas State FSA Committee:
If recommended by the Kansas State FSA Committee, the changes will be submitted to the National FSA Office for approval. 2. Background: Light disking is intended to increase plant diversity and temporarily reduce grass vigor of perennial grass to improve the CRP habitat for wildlife. This management practice was developed starting from a task force proposal and KTC recommendations. The concern here is 33 percent becomes burdensome for participants disking buffers as narrow as 30 foot or 33 percent of each center-pivot corner. It is also a concern that light disking cannot be utilized as a management tool on an entire field due to the need to wait until grass establishment – especially in western Kansas where they may not be able to start light disking until the 5th or 6th year and do not have three years to complete the required management practice. Current Policy: Light disking shall not be performed on more than 33 percent of a field in any one year (2-CRP, Kansas Exhibit 5, page 4). Recommendation from Subcommittee
KTC Recommendation: Overall support by the KTC was in concurrence with the following subcommittee recommendations:
The recommendation will be forwarded to the Kansas State FSA Committee for approval. 3. Background: The primary purpose of this practice is to provide food and cover for quail and upland birds in cropland areas. This practice, a buffer, is to be applied around the field edges (like a picture frame) of eligible cropland that is suitably located and adaptable to the establishment of wildlife habitat primarily for quail and upland bird species. When the entire picture frame is not offered, current policy requires participant to apply the practice where water enters or leaves the field, addressing water quality. This recommendation would require addressing wind erosion in those areas of the state where wind erosion is the primary concern over water erosion. Current Policy: Buffers will be established to the extent needed to support the targeted species, general resource needs, and participant objectives, but generally should be located around the perimeter of the field, or at a minimum in areas where runoff enters or leaves the field. (2-CRP, Exhibit 9, Paragraph E, page 164). Recommendation from Subcommittee
KTC Recommendation: Overall support by the KTC concurred with the subcommittee recommendation to forward the following recommendation to the Kansas State FSA Committee:
4. Background: Windbreak/Shelterbelt Management and Forest Stand Improvement are two relatively new management practices added to provide greater management flexibility for tree planting practices. The NRCS Practice Standard and Specifications No. 650, Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation, permits application of herbicide for invasive grass and weed control as a sole component, which has not been widely utilized or understood. Current Policy Windbreak/Shelterbelt Management:
Forest Stand Improvement – Thinning and Pruning:
Recommendation from SubcommitteeWindbreak Shelterbelt Management as a Required Management Practice:
KTC Recommendation: Overall support by the KTC was to forward the subcommittee recommendations as shown above to the Kansas State FSA Committee. 5. Background:
Current Policy:
National or state policy does not contain a minimum acreage rule. Recommendation from Marion County FSA Committee: Management practices on waterways enrolled in CRP:
KTC Recommendation: Overall, the KTC did not support these recommendations. The KTC recommended correspondence be directed back to Marion County for clarification. Meeting adjourned. Attendees
< Back to Kansas Technical Committee Last Modified: 09/04/2009 |
|
Back to Top