Kansas State Technical Committee Minutes - July 2005

Kansas State Technical Committee (KTC) Meeting
Thursday, July 21, 2005
10:00 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.
NRCS Conference Center
747 Duval - Salina, Kansas

Harold L. Klaege, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) gave the welcome and opening remarks. Introductions were made.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Required Manage Practice - Prescribed Burning - Burning Dates

Gaye L. Benfer, Soil Conservationist, NRCS, presented a recommendation for the Kansas Technical Committee’s (KTC) consideration regarding a change in the prescribed burning dates for sandy soils in southwest Kansas. This recommendation pertains only to those sandy soils with an “I” value of 86 or greater. The current burning period for this soil classification is April 15 through April 30. The proposed burning period is April 1 through April 30. The burning period for soils with an “I” value of less than 86 will remain at February 1 through April 15. The KTC recommended acceptance of this proposal by the Kansas State Farm Service Agency (FSA) Committee.

Review and Adjusting of CRP Rental Rates

Dennis Gaschler, Programs Specialist, FSA, indicated that all counties are being asked to conduct a thorough CRP soil rental rate review to ensure that market-based rates are used in CRP offers. These rates must reflect average nonirrigated cash rents for the three most recent years for the production of predominant annually tilled crops. A state team was established and provided each county a county average cash market dryland rent estimate based on three years of cash rent surveys received from producers. The surveys were conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Cooperative Extension Service, using this survey data and FSA county rental rate averages, utilized a formula for calculating county average cash rent values. These values are statistically valid data. This review process begins with a County Review Team and eventually includes the County FSA Committee, a State Review Team and the Kansas State FSA Committee who makes the final determinations. The NRCS provides a crucial role in this process at both the county and state level.

2005 CRP One-Year Contract Modifications

Dennis Gashler informed the KTC of a recent announcement by the FSA’s deputy administrator for farm programs, regarding a one-year CRP contract extension. Participants with contracts expiring September 30, 2005, may modify all or part of that contract to extend the expiration date for a one-year period at the existing per acre payment rate. Extensions can not be granted that would result in a contract period greater than 15 years. Participants may submit requests through September 2, 2005, to modify eligible contracts for this extension. The notice also indicated that a general signup is not scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. Kansas has approximately 11,400 acres that will expire this September.

Assessment of Mid-Contract Management Practices

Rod J. Winkler, Agricultural Programs Specialist, FSA, reviewed with the KTC the required management practices approved in Kansas. The CRP management practices are designed to ensure plant diversity and wildlife benefits while protecting soil and water resources. The practices approved in Kansas are:

• Prescribed Burning
• Interseeding
• Light Disking
• Brush Management
• Managed Haying and Grazing

Rod proceeded with a review of the 2003 and 2004 state totals for Managed Haying/Grazing. A lively discussion then ensued if the combination of several required management practices conducted in the same year were primarily for habitat improvement or forage production. The KTC was asked for their recommendation regarding the following situations:

• Prescribed Burn in the Spring and Managed Haying/Grazing that Summer. There were a number of comments and a mixed review of this combination of practices. The KTC recommended that prescribed burning followed by a managed haying is production oriented and should not be allowed.

  It was recognized that a prescribed burn followed by managed grazing could be acceptable since a Forage Management Plan would be based on soils, existing grass stand, and appropriate stocking rate. However, it was preferred, for ultimate wildlife benefits, that a prescribed burn and managed grazing not be scheduled in the same year. Burning could be performed in year one with the grazing in year two. They recommended this policy be followed regardless if the burning was considered maintenance or a management practice.

  The KTC also noted the FSA State Committee policy of allowing managed haying on 100 percent of acreage is forage and not wildlife oriented.

• Fertilization in the Spring and Managed Haying/Grazing that Summer. It was noted that fertilization of cool-season grasses on existing CRP contracts is required in the Conservation Plan of Operations (CPO) every three to four years. Counties have reported that producers may fertilize on their own accord even if not noted in the CPO. The NRCS mentioned fall fertilization is for stand health while a spring fertilization is for productivity. The KTC felt this situation would be difficult to monitor and recommended not to develop specific policy.
• Prescribed Burning in the Spring and Light Disking. The KTC gave no objection to this combination of practices since the light disking can not be performed until after dormancy in the fall and prior to the beginning of the nesting season.
• Elimination of Brush Management. Most of the comments concurred with the elimination of brush management although a distinction was made between shrub growth and tree growth and the effect on wildlife. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks noted even a small percentage of trees on CRP should not be acceptable. Ron Brown, KTC member, indicated this could be a useful practice for volunteer brush in eastern Kansas considering higher rainfall areas. The recommendation was to eliminate brush management.
• Add a Fertilization Management Practice for Trees Through Irrigation Systems. The Kansas Forest Service felt this was not a necessary practice. The recommendation was not to add a fertilization practice.

Rod completed discussion of this topic by noting the final authority for implementing these recommendations rests with the Kansas State FSA Committee.

The following file is in Microsoft PowerPoint format.

Mid-Contract Management Practices on CRP - Assessment (482 KB)

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Gaye L. Benfer, Soil Conservationist, NRCS, reviewed the FY 2006 EQIP national ranking template, and Kansas ranking criteria and eligible practices developed with the assistance of the EQIP Subcommittee.

The KTC EQIP Subcommittee (hereafter referred to as the subcommittee) recommended state priority resource concerns for FY 2006 of:

• Air Quality – Objectionable Odors
• Domestic Animals – Inadequate Stock Water
• Plant Condition – Productivity, Health, and Vigor (Forestland)
• Plant Condition – Productivity, Health, and Vigor (Grazing Land)
• Plant Condition – Noxious, Invasive Species
• Soil Erosion – Stream Bank
• Soil Quality – Organic Matter Depletion
• Water Quality – Excessive Nutrients and Organics in Ground or Surface Water
• Water Quality – Harmful Levels of Pesticides in Ground or Surface Water
• Water Quality – Excessive Suspended Sediment and Turbidity in Surface Water
• Water Quantity – Inefficient Water Use on Irrigated Land
• Water Quantity – Aquifer Overdraft

The KTC supported this recommendation.

It was recommended by the subcommittee that NRCS electronic Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTG) Practice Code 521D, Pond Sealing and Lining, Natural Clay, be added as an eligible practice to treat all applicable resource concerns (Air Quality, Grazing Lands Health, Soil Quality, Water Quality, and Water Quantity). The KTC supported this recommendation.

Air Quality (Air Quality – Objectionable Odors)

The subcommittee recommended that priority for these applications be given to those that were within a mile from a population center. The KTC supported this recommendation.

Water Quality – Animal Waste (Water Quality – Excessive Organics in Ground and Surface Water)

The subcommittee recommended that priority be given to those applications under this resource concern:

1. By location:
   1. within a TMDL area for ecoli bacteria
   2. within 180 feet of a receiving water body
   3. within a Kansas Source Water Assessment Area
   4. within a Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) Sensitive Groundwater Area
   5. within an At-Risk Species Habitat Area
2. Where the applicant has received written notice from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment that their current system has insufficient treatment
3. Treatment of non-confined feeding area
4. Type of Animal Feeding Operation (AFO):
   1. existing AFO, not previously treated
   2. existing AFO, improving efficiency
   3. new or expansion

The subcommittee recommended that all eligible practices remain the same. The NRCS asked for consideration to increase the incentive payment for the NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 100 – Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP). The KTC supported these recommendations with a change from $250/contract to $1000/contract for Practice Code 100.

Forestland Health (Plant Condition – Productivity, Health, and Vigor)

The subcommittee recommended that priority be given to those applications that are:

1. In Windbreak Suitability Groups I or II
2. By location
   1. within a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) area for eutrophication, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and/or pesticides
   2. within 180 feet from a receiving water body
   3. within an At-Risk Species Habitat Area and treatment will assist that species

The subcommittee recommended that NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 472, Use Exclusion, be added to the eligible practices for this resource concern.

The KTC supported these recommendations.

Grazing Lands Health (Plant Condition – Productivity, Health, and Vigor; Plant Condition – Noxious, Invasive Weeds; Domestic Animals – Inadequate Stock Water)

The subcommittee recommended the addition of Domestic Animals – Inadequate Stock Water as a priority resource concern to be addressed in Kansas.

Recommended priorities were:

1. Rest in grazing system:
   1. 74 percent or greater
   2. 30 percent - 73.9 percent
2. Treatment of invasive species
   1. 1 percent – 25 percent of identified acres
3. Treatment of At-Risk Species
   1. Lesser or Greater Prairie Chicken habitat contains five percent or greater infestation of red cedar or osage-orange
4. Brush Treatment
   1. High priority level per NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 314, Brush Management, specification
   2. Medium priority level per NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 314, Brush Management, specification

Changes recommended to eligible practices include:

• NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 338, Prescribed Burning, change to cost-shared rate instead of incentive payment to be consistent with other Farm Bill programs.
• Change cost-share rate of NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 314, Brush Management, to 30 percent for broadcast treatment and 70 percent for mechanical treatment. The NRCS asked for consideration to change this to 50 percent for broadcast treatment and 70 percent for mechanical treatment. Cost share for aerial treatment will only be eligible where mechanical or spot treatment is not practical.
• Change incentive rates for NRCS eFOTG Practice Code 528, Prescribed Grazing, to:
  • 74 percent or greater rest - $10/acre
  • 30 percent – 73.9 percent rest - $6/acre

The KTC supported the recommendations of the subcommittee and the NRCS consideration for brush management.

Soil Quality (Soil Quality – Organic Matter Depletion)

The subcommittee recommended that priority be given to applications by:

1. Erodibility
   1. Highly Erodible Land
   2. Erosion Index >= 8 for any soil
2. Permanent vegetation being planted
3. Cropping management
   1. Positive Soil Conditioning Index (SCI) and Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) Index less than 10
   2. Positive SCI and STIR >= 10 and < 30
   3. Improvement in SCI by >=+.2 and STIR =< 70
4. Treatment of At-Risk Species

The NRCS asked for consideration to add NRCS eFOTG Practice Codes 590, Nutrient Management, and 595, Pest Management, to the eligible practices.

The KTC supported these recommendations.

Water Quality – Nutrients/Pesticides/Sedimentation (Water Quality – Excessive Nutrients and Organics in Ground or Surface Water; Water Quality – Harmful Levels of Pesticides in Ground or Surface Water; Water Quality – Excessive Suspended Sediment and Turbidity in Surface Water; Soil Erosion – Stream Bank)

The subcommittee recommended that priority be given by:

1. Location
   1. within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 11 watershed than drains directly into a federal reservoir
   2. within HUC 8 that drains directly into a federal reservoir
   3. TMDL for eutrophication, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and/or pesticides
   4. within 180 feet of a receiving water body or a soil with frequent or very frequent flood frequency
   5. Kansas Source Water Assessment Area
   6. KGS Sensitive Groundwater Area
   7. High nitrate leaching potential or high potential soil loss index for predominance of unit
2. Leveraging of funds
3. Treatment of At-Risk Species

No changes were recommended to the eligible practices.

KTC supported these recommendations and added that priority should be included for the Smoky Hill River drainage and the Kansas River drainage.

Water Quantity – (Water Quantity – Inefficient Water Use on Irrigated Land; Water Quantity – Aquifer Overdraft)

It was recommended by the subcommittee that priority be given to:

1. Conversion to non-irrigated on at least 33 percent of the application acres
   1. Acres enrolled in the State of Kansas Water Rights Conservation Program
2. Reduce current water use
   1. By 50 percent
   2. By 35 percent
3. Increase in irrigation efficiency
4. Location
   1. Kansas Water Plan Priority Groundwater Decline Area
   2. At-Risk Species
   3. TMDL for nutrients/pesticides
   4. KGS Sensitive Groundwater Area
   5. Kansas Source Water Assessment Area
5. Producer will use an evapotranspiration-based scheduling system

No changes were recommended to eligible practices. The KTC supported these recommendations with the following change that priority be first given to those who will reduce current water use, then to those that convert to non-irrigated.

A presentation was given by Susan Stover, Kansas Water Office (KWO), regarding a "Quick Response" proposal for EQIP Ground and Surface Water funds, from the KWO, Division of Water Resources, and Groundwater Management Districts in Kansas. The KTC supported this proposal. There was discussion that projects outside of the High Plains Aquifer region need more than 10 percent. It was recommended that NRCS stay at the current rate of approximately 80 percent and if any is remaining after funding, distribute that amount to the High Plains Aquifer region.

The following files are in Adobe Acrobat format.

"Quick Response" Proposal for EQIP Ground & Surface Water Priority Areas (20 KB)
High Plains Aquifer Quick Response Areas (281 KB)

The NRCS asked for consideration in raising the incentive payment cap, currently set at $25,000 to $50,000. The KTC supported this request.

The NRCS proposed a FY 2006 EQIP allocation distribution  that would be consistent with working with the EQIP national ranking template. The KTC supported this request. There was some discussion to designate two percent of the EQIP regular allocation to wildlife concerns. The NRCS expressed concern that EQIP was a working lands program. Gaye Benfer will look at how other states have included wildlife concerns in their programs. The NRCS will look at giving priority in the ranking template to those contracts that promote wildlife habitat.

The following file is in Adobe Acrobat format.

Fiscal Year 2006 Allocation Distribution Recommendation (9 KB)

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

< Back to Kansas State Technical Committee