Kansas State Technical Committee Minutes - September 2004

Kansas State Technical Committee (KTC) Meeting
Friday, September 3, 2004
10:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
NRCS Conference Center
747 Duvall - Salina, Kansas

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

Conservation Security Program (CSP)

Troy J. Munsch, Soil Conservationist, NRCS, reviewed National Bulletin 300-4-8 which requires states develop a watershed prioritization process to establish a signup rotation of the eight-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) in the state.  A step in that process involved reviewing the criteria to be used with the KTC.

Troy also reviewed a list and provided a handout titled:  "Factors to Consider CSP Watershed Prioritization" to all committee members present.  This list of Geographic Information System (GIS) layers was developed with a subcommittee meeting of the KTC on August 19, 2004.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.

Factors to Consider CSP Watershed Prioritization (319 KB)

Several of the maps were shown to the group and discussed during the course of the CSP portion of the meeting.

Recommendation of KTC:  Utilize the list of evaluation tools presented with consideration given to the Kansas Source Water Protection Map.

Troy also reviewed the 2004 CSP signup activities in the Lower Little Blue River Watershed and Lower Salt Fork of the Arkansas River Watershed.  A handout with contract approval information from each watershed was provided to all committee members present.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.

CSP Contract Approval Information (691 KB)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Rod Winkler and Dennis Gaschler, Program Specialists, Farm Service Agency (FSA), opened this portion of the KTC meeting with an overview of program policy for Practice CP33, Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds.

The purpose of this session was to review KTC CRP subcommittee’s recommendations regarding the implementation of CRP Practice CP33, Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds.  The KTC recommendations will be reviewed with the Kansas State FSA Committee.  The KTC CRP subcommittee met on September 1, 2004, reviewed National Notice CRP-479, and developed various proposals for formal KTC action. The KTC is being asked to help develop a monitoring and evaluation plan in Kansas.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.

Kansas Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (984 KB)

The Kansas Monitoring and Evaluation Plan must include the following items:

• Baseline data on quail populations and estimate increased quail population and impact on other populations as a result of practice CP33
• Verification that suitable Northern Bobwhite Quail is established
• Verification that appropriate cover management practices are implemented on a timely basis
• Implementing a statewide sampling process that will provide reliable estimates of the number of quail before and after this special initiative

CP33 - Practice Overview

Rod reported out of a national allocation of 250,000 acres, Kansas received 20,000 acres for this practice.  Availability of the Habitat Buffer practice will begin October 1, 2004, provided the monitoring and evaluation plans are developed by that date.  Highlights of FSA Notice CRP-479 were reviewed. This new initiative was recently announced by President Bush.

State Priority Areas

The CRP subcommittee proposed the state be divided into two priority areas for distribution of the 20,000 acre allocation.  Priority Area Number 1 is proposed to receive 15,000 acres.  This area is identified as Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 22 (Tall Grass Prairie Region) in eastern Kansas.  Since the boundary of this region does not follow county lines, and for administration purposes, the western edge will be established with Washington County and proceeding south including the counties of Clay, Dickinson, Marion, Butler, and Cowley to the Oklahoma border.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.

Priority Areas for Practice CP33 (71 KB)

Priority Area Number 2 is proposed to consist of BCRs 18 and 19 which is the balance of the state.  This area will be allocated the remaining 5,000 acres state allocation.

Roger Wells, Quail Unlimited, provided technical background of the BCR.  He described the national goal for the BCR and the increase in quail conveys that were expected in Kansas for meeting our portion of the goal.  The BCR served as the primary justification in establishing the priority regions in Kansas.

The KTC recommends on an annual basis, beginning on October 1, 2005, the Kansas State FSA Committee, in consultation with the KTC review acreage enrollment of this practice in Kansas and assess whether adjustments need to be made to priority areas and allocations established in the monitoring and evaluation plan.

The KTC concurred with the priority area boundaries and acreage allocation as proposed in the Kansas Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Practice CP33.

Population Baseline Data

The KTC agreed with the subcommittee that currently there is no statistical data that accurately reflects a baseline population for Bobwhite Quail in Kansas.  The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) currently collects population trend data on an annual basis.  This information is designed to show relative population strength over time by region.  It cannot be used to accurately evaluate population changes from small scale habitat changes.

Statewide Sampling

The KDWP will be responsible for conducting population sampling.  They will provide results to the KTC and the Kansas State FSA Committee on an annual basis.  The method to be employed for sampling upland birds will be the monitoring scheme as developed by KDWP and presented by Roger Applegate.

This document requires Microsoft Word.

Monitoring Scheme for CP33 (25 KB)

Considerable discussion was centered on the notification of landowners when the sampling process was actually being conducted.  The KTC recommends written notice be provided producers that population monitoring will be conducted periodically throughout the contract period by the KDWP at the time of enrollment.  Additionally, reasonable effort shall be made to contact producers prior to conducting surveys to avoid harvest or other activity that may skew the data, to see if producers are interested in assisting or performing the sampling and as a common courtesy.  The FSA and the KDWP will work together in developing an appropriate letter for landowner notification at time of enrollment.

Suitable Quail Cover

The KTC concurs with the recommendation to use NRCS Standards and Specifications for Practice Code 645 and 612, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management and Shrub/Tree Establishment, for suitable quail habitat.  They also recommend encouraging use of shrubs in the planting mix; however, trees will NOT be recommended for incorporation into wildlife habitat buffer practices in Kansas.

Management Practices

National CRP policy requires performance of management activities as a part of the approved conservation plan for each CRP practice beginning with signup 26.  The subcommittee recommends the mid-contract management practices of prescribed burning and/or light disking be available for practice CP33.  The FSA Notice CRP-479 indicates the buffers shall be disturbed on a rotational basis.  The KTC concurred with this recommendation.

Kansas Policies for CP33

The basic intent of practice CP33 is to be applied around field edges of eligible cropland or at a minimum, in areas where runoff enters or leaves the field.

The following issues were discussed with the KTC regarding administration of practice policies.

• Define parameters when a habitat buffer can be accepted and the buffer is not located around the entire perimeter of the field.

Discussion:  The subcommittee feels when all four sides of the cropped field are not enrolled; the sides where the water enters or exits the field must be enrolled.  Troy Schroeder voiced the opinion that the buffer should be allowed on any side of the field without regard to water quality issues.  He points out the primary purpose of this practice is to provide food and cover for quail and upland birds.  Another comment was made that borders can be more effective as linkage to another corridor or buffer area irrespective of where water enters or exits a field.

Considering both the practice procedure and agency comments, the KTC recommends if all four sides of the cropped field are not enrolled, then the sides where water enters or exits must be enrolled.

• Discuss policy for the remaining cropland in small or long, narrow fields.

Discussion:  The subcommittee proposes that after buffer installation the remaining cropland acres must be greater than the buffer acreage.  Roger Wells indicated that this policy would be in line with similar policy of other states. 

This recommendation was accepted by the KTC.

Other CRP Issues

• Montgomery County – The county committee and conservation district are recommending the maintenance requirements be amended for CRP contracts with practices established to fescue.  They indicate fescue benefits from occasional mowing which is helpful in weed management.  They also feel mowing of fescue should be excluded from the established nesting season as they believe fescue is not utilized by game birds for a food source or habitat.

The KTC did not concur with this recommendation.  They pointed out that fescue is used as habitat for upland birds, especially during the early portion of the nesting season.  Mowing for maintenance purposes could be performed prior to the nesting season if necessary.

• Phillips County – It was noted that brush management is eligible on practice CP10 but not on Practice CP2.  Phillips County points out that in past signups expiring CRP acreage was enhanced with a forb or legume.  The enhanced acreage was enrolled as a CP2 practice to distinguish it from the acres enrolled as a CP10 practice.  In this situation both practices were virtually identical yet the CP2 practice, with established vegetation, is not eligible for brush management.  Phillips County is requesting brush management be allowed under both practices CP10 and CP2, if the CP2 practice was reoffered with established grass.

The KTC concurred with this recommendation for CP2 practices that have been enhanced and re-enrolled under practice CP2.

USDA Source Water Protection Program

Matt Steele, Source Water Technician, Kansas Rural Water Association, gave a short presentation of the USDA Source Water Protection Program.

Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

< Back to Kansas State Technical Committee