State Technical Committee Meeting Minutes

3. State Technical Committee - Suzanne Collier, NRCS

Suzanne stated that the State Technical Committee serves as an advisory group to USDA to provide input to NRCS and FSA. All meetings are open meetings and are available to the public. An updated State Technical Committee Policy, including the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Committee, was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2009.

Changes to the Committee established with the new Farm Bill are: expanded agricultural and forestry involvement on the Committee; modified responsibilities of the Committee; exempted Local Working Groups from the Federal Advisory Committee Act; added review of whether Local Working Groups are addressing state (national) priorities; supports standardization of Committee operations through the development of SOPs; and reaffirmed the role of the Committee as advisory in nature.

Statutory required members of the Committee are: NRCS, FSA, US Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (formerly the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service), State Fish and Wildlife Agency, State Forester, State Water Resources Agency, State Department of Agriculture, State Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Agribusiness, Nonprofits with demonstrable conservation expertise, Owners of nonindustrial private forest land, and Agriculture Producers.

Because of the new changes to the Committee, NRCS will be sending out a questionnaire to gain contact information and email addresses from each agency. Please reply to this mailing in order that meeting notifications will reach the correct person.

NRCS’s webpage does include State Technical Committee Meeting Minutes. The SOP and interim final rule are also posted on the website.

4. Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) – Suzanne Collier, NRCS, & Rod Wanger, FSA

Suzanne reported that a GRP signup is ongoing. New applications are being accepted, and the ranking cutoff date is May 15th. She also reported that Oklahoma funded 102 rental agreements across 24 counties on over 52,000 acres from 2002-2007. In addition, five easements were funded in four counties on over 5,500 acres. The total financial assistance amounted to $8,645,712. The backlog of applications was well over $66 million from the initial years of the program signup.

The Farm Bill changed rental agreements to rental “contracts”. Only permanent easements are now available; there are no more 30 year easements. FSA administers the rental contracts; NRCS handles the easements. Priority enrollment is available for land previously enrolled in CRP if the land is eligible land, is of high ecological value, and is under significant threat of conversion to uses other than grazing. In addition, authority has been provided for NRCS to enter into cooperative agreements with eligible entities to own, write, and enforce easements.

Suzanne reported that nationally, 60% of GRP funding is to be used for easements, and 40% for rental contracts. If a state only wants to accept easements OR rental contracts, approval would be needed from the NRCS Chief. Oklahoma will acquire appraisals for all GRP easement applications that NRCS wishes to fund. Oklahoma received an initial allocation of $1,637,348 in financial assistance for fiscal year 2009.

Suzanne stated that State Technical Committee input is needed for: restoration practices and cost-share rates, Geographical Area Rate Caps, state priorities for project selection, and ranking and evaluation criteria.

Mike Sams questioned if hayland figures into this, and Suzanne replied yes, anything in support of a grazing situation. John Hendrix asked how CRP contracts will be handled, and Suzanne replied that expiring CRP is in the ranking criteria.

Ranking & Evaluation Criteria: Rod Wanger discussed the Evaluation Criteria Worksheet with the group. He stated a landowner receives more points for longer contracts and for an easement. Priority enrollment is given for expiring CRP acres; the landowner receives points if the land is enrolled in a 20 year contract or a permanent easement. If an entity submits an application, 100 points are received as they provide 50% of the funds and manage the easement. More points are received if no restoration is needed, or if the landowner is willing to pay for the restoration costs. Terry Bidwell asked about the benchmark for restoration – if it is from the technical guide, inventory of invasive species, etc, and Lanny replied it is based on ecological site guides. If at least 90% of the offered acres contribute directly to the forage base of the grazing operation, extra points are received also.

Rod then provided information regarding how extra points are received for protection from threats to conversion. If the offered acres are located in one of the identified counties AND at least 51% of the acres are within 3 miles of known/visible expanding developments, extra points are received. Marla Peek questioned why Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties were left out, and another member of the group commented that Osage County is excluded and you might pay less for an easement there than in Oklahoma County. Rod also stated that an application receives more points at ranking if no wind power will be developed. Dwayne Elmore commented that it should be based on wind likelihood instead of wind potential, and he thinks Osage County should be added to the map. John Hendrix commented he thinks the points should be increased to 50 or more from the 25 suggested. Shanon Phillips asked if additional points could be added for critical habitat for the Lesser Prairie Chicken, and Suzanne replied that this is covered in the ranking criteria in Section D.

Rod reported that native rangelands and prairies receive 50 points, and introduced pastures receive 30 points in the ranking criteria. Mike Sams commented that the concern of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation is to stress natives, introduced pasture/no restoration – 80 points, and native range with cedars removed – 75 points. Dwayne Elmore suggested not offering extra points for introduced pastures, maybe give 10 points instead of 30 points. Paul Jackson stated he would hate to drop the points to 10 points as there are so many introduced pastures. Marla Peek and Scott Dewald both commented that due to the goals of the program, they want to see the points remain at 30. Jean Steiner commented that for contracts coming out of CRP, there are already given 50 points. Terry Bidwell stated the biodiversity of introduced pasture is “0”, and Dwayne Elmore agreed with that statement. A comment was made that applications do get extra points for the Lesser Prairie Chicken, extra points for non-development, and 25 points for agreeing not to do wind generation. Rod asked if there are any other species to add, or should the black-tailed prairie dog be removed. A comment was made to include the Mountain Plover, which is a declining species.

Location significance – proximity of area offered to other protected areas such as refuges, and wildlife management areas, national forests, natural areas, or permanent conservation easements was also discussed as far as how close to the protected area, and if the acreage limit should be taken out. Dwayne Elmore commented that proximity to grasslands should be added in order to have contiguous areas of grasslands. Terry Bidwell commented that the location language is unfortunate as the idea of protection is excluding private lands. Terry stated the assumption is that because it is owned by the government, it is in good condition and that is not true. There was also a question about C4 of the worksheet regarding making the landowner manage the area to keep “junk” off his land under contract. Mike Sams asked how C4 would be determined, and the reply was to look at the offered acres and pasture that borders it; it will be a visual assessment from the property being offered. Shanon Phillips commented on the purposes of GRP and how she would like to see the priority of watersheds tied into grasslands. John Hendrix stated if the offered acres have never been tilled or manipulated, he would like to see it receive 50 points. A comment regarding D4 (location significance) was made suggesting that something be included in the language for private land, nature preserves.

A handout was provided to the group, detailing proposed restoration practices for GRP, as well as a handout for proposed Geographic Area Rate Caps (GARCs) which was developed by the NRCS economist. The landowner will be paid the lesser of the appraised value, GARC, or landowner offer.

Rod also discussed CRP and the fact that Oklahoma has 160,000 acres coming out of the program this year. He stated there is an Environmental Impact Statement being conducted, and it will be awhile before there is a signup. The cap has been lowered to 32 million acres beginning in 2010. Only 1 ½ million acres will be put back in, and for 70% of these acres, people will have to do something with them (70% of 160,000 acres in Oklahoma). They will receive an average of $32/acre in CRP, but the majority will have a commodity base and will enroll in the commodity program. They will have the opportunity to hay and graze, and can enroll in GRP. John Hendrix asked if 25% of the county is still the cap, and Rod replied yes, but they must set a fraction of a % of their county for CREP.

5. Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) – Suzanne Collier

Suzanne stated that the 2002 Farm Bill allowed Cooperative Agreements to be developed with eligible entities for the FRPP. The 2008 Farm Bill requires the Secretary to establish criteria for certified entities that have demonstrated their ability to administer easements. Certified eligible entities are eligible for agreements of five years or more; non-certified eligible entities are eligible for agreements of three to five years. In Oklahoma, there are no “certified” entities.

Suzanne reported that entities have until June 12th to submit proposals to the State Conservationist. NRCS is not acquiring the easement; the entity handles the acquisition process and the management of the easement. NRCS provides funds to the entity, but the entity holds the easement and NRCS does not have the right of enforcement. Suzanne stated that a yellow book appraisal is not required, and the entity has the choice of the type of appraisal utilized. The State Technical Committee provides input to the State Conservationist on the weight of the national ranking factors and any state factors to be considered in the evaluation of FRPP parcels. Suzanne reported there are no unique or soils of statewide significance in Oklahoma. Ben Pollard asked how this relates to MLRA, and the reply was that 50% of the offered parcel has to contain a map unit with “prime” soils. Terry Bidwell stated “prime” is usually Class 1, occasionally Class 2.

John Hendrix stated he would like to see this program expanded; US Fish & Wildlife Service designated the Tallgrass Prairie as an important ecological site and relates to “furthers a State or local policy consistent with the purposes of the program”. Mike Sams commented that ODWC would like to see the Shinery Oak Grasslands in western Oklahoma considered.

Suzanne then discussed the eight Nationally Mandated Factors which were listed in a handout provided along with the State Ranking Factors to be considered. Dwayne Elmore questioned if forestland would be included since there is an increased interest in forestland in the Farm Bill, and Suzanne replied that private forestland would be eligible for FRPP if it occurred on prime soils and was to be maintained in production. Dwayne asked whether they would be eligible if there is cattle grazing with forestland as the sole purpose would not be timber harvest, and Suzanne replied they would be eligible. John Hendrix asked if the ranking points could be manipulated in the 8 national categories, and Suzanne replied they can be manipulated. Suzanne also commented that parcels will have to close in less than 18 months.

6. Closing Remarks - Ron Hilliard

< Back to the previous page