Texas State Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

Austin, Texas, August 21, 2007

Norman Bade called the meeting to order.

Salvador Salinas – Opening Remarks

Thanked group for coming to the TSTC meeting. We are in limbo concerning the Farm Bill. It is still being discussed in the Senate.

We do want Committee’s input on all resources across the state.

Announced that the new State Conservationist is Don Gohmert. Told group of Don’s father’s passing.

Norman –

Called attention to the agenda including the proposed Pronghorn Antelope EQIP, SAFE projects, etc., to be discussed.

This is the last year of the current Farm Bill which expires the end of September. We will probably have our appropriations for FY2008 before we have a new Farm Bill to tie our funds to. We expect to get the same funds for next year as we have the last several years.

We will have new rules, etc. with the new Farm Bill.

We are going to proceed as if we have funds and programs as we had this year. If we, in fact, get money and an allocation, we will then have plans to implement without any down time.

Doug Sharer –

Provided highlights of what happened this past year for EQIP– (PowerPoint)

Norman – EQIP

Emphasis areas are definitely important – we want to continue funding them if there is a need. Our intent is to go back to local work groups, special interest groups, and get any minor changes needed. We are happy with way things are rolling.

We need to consider our applications backlog of $27 million that is mainly county based. We may need to look at our allocation formula again as we work with our people at the local level.

Norman asked if the Committee had any concerns about the EQIP program. Do we need to make any changes? Are there any areas you don’t have enough information?

Question: On the county funding that didn’t get funded – assume we are still dividing funds up between all 254 counties. Have we considered basing initial allocations on county needs instead of equal dollars to each county?

Answer: We are looking at this. We realize we have counties that have not and will not spend their initial allocation. While we don’t want to not give a county any money because they haven’t spent theirs, we can make initial adjustments and also take the money they don’t use and disburse it. We will be looking at initial allocations for 2008.

Question: Does the data produce the objective report as to how we are meeting our objectives?

Answer: Yes

Question: Could a map be provided of the state of the unfunded programs and where they are?

Answer: Yes

Question: In the irrigation category – how do you determine where the dollars go?

Answer: We take the TSTC recommendation of 50 percent for SWRC. We then allocate within all the resource concerns. Typically we have asked the individuals that work on these committees to give us an idea of funding they would recommend. With the irrigation concern, as with all others, we look at recommended funding and then prorate between the irrigation areas based on the total amount allocated. We will take a good look at this.

Comment - We are not through with the West Texas Irrigation.

Answer: As long we have applications and a viable need we will continue to fund.

Question: Of the 25-30 unfunded applications in his district (Omar Garza) we always have more than enough applications. Have you thought of allocating based on producers and not applications?

Answer: (Norman) This would be more difficult. We do need to know who we are missing. We could look at this and evaluate how many applications we have in comparison to applications not funded and where they are located?

Norman asked --Salt cedar – where are we going – Is there still a need?

Response from Mike McMurry - A major interest from the State of New Mexico and along the Delaware River.

Question: What is the percentage of EQIP funds for statewide concerns?

Answer: We have been running about 60 percent county based and 40% state concerns.

Albert Miller – New – Proposed Pronghorn Antelope Wildlife Emphasis Area –

Family’s been ranching since 1925. Pronghorn is in a slow decline, TPWD says it is half of what it used to be. Number one reason is drought. Landowners in the Trans Pecos are recommending the Pronghorn be named a resource concern. Brush invasion on rangeland is one of the problems. Brush management practices under EQIP can help this.
Water provided for livestock is not necessarily good for Pronghorn. We need to look at adding this (water for pronghorn) as a practice.

We also propose modification of section fences to allow section of fences be raised so antelope can go under.

Some rangeland is still over grazed. This might be addressed with grazing incentives. This would provide forage.

Soil preparation and range seeding might also be considered.

Coyotes are a major problem. They have increased.

After reaching 6 months of age, Pronghorn have a good chance of survival.

After having a good ground coverage from the fall rains, Pronghorn still did not have a good survival rate.

Question: Will you be willing to close the season for five years?

Answer: Minimal harvest of older bucks. This is not affecting the herd. Major problem has been the drought.

Question: Does the habitat practices also enhance the Mule Deer?

Answer: Some do. They are seeing a lot of Mule Deer because of the fall rains.

Question: Wouldn’t a lot of the other measures benefit smaller creatures?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Should we include other areas, such as the Panhandle – same practices would work well for other areas for those counties that have a declining antelope population.

Answer: Yes, other areas should be included.

Comment – We applaud this effort – however, we are starting to mix wildlife control with habitat. We have a larger problem with feral pigs. We have to work to get dollars appropriated from other agencies. Have a concern incorporating these with EQIP funds.

Comment - State agencies have limited funding and personnel to help.

Norman – We need to separate from a funding standpoint and a practice standpoint. We have no problem with management of land for habitat; however, coyote control may not be the roll of EQIP funds.

Comment - Maybe a portion of private funds can help with this problem.

Suggestion - Fawn Survival Enhancement Program – this can be name of resource concern.

Question: GRP or other conservation easement programs – can these funds be used?

Answer: There is always a possibility that funds from other programs may benefit.

Question: What other funds can be used for fawn survival?

Answer: Susan – we will be open for suggestions. We can work with other state agencies. Concerned about lumping Panhandle and Trans Pecos because of the diversity.

Mike McMurry (TDA) --This is an innovative way to not only preserve Pronghorn, but to put conservation on the ground. Supports this initiative.

Ned Meister (FB) – The agencies should work together to keep things happening. We need to keep water quality in mind. EPA will have to step up and recognize that wildlife should not be used in assessing water quality.

Doug Sharer-

Continued update on Farm Bill programs -- WHIP – Appreciative of TPWD helping with the new WHIP plan.

John Fuston (FSA) –

FSA is in the process of closing offices. Do not like having to do this, but the management of offices is very important. It is time to stream line so we can give our producers the service they deserve.

Crop Disaster Activities – signup mid October – planted prior to February 28, 2007.

Juan Garcia –

Gave overview of disaster programs to be administered in the next few months. Agricultural Assistance Act 2007 provides funding for:

Crop Disaster Program (CDP)
Livestock Compensation Program (LCP)
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP)
Dairy Disaster Assistance Program (DDAP-III)
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)
Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCR Drafting regulations to be published in the Federal Register, fact sheets, etc. are being developed.

Norman – We are all working to incorporate the conservation aspects of the Farm Bill with regular conservation planning and our partnership with FSA – that mesh is always there. We offer support.

Mickey Woodward, FSA (Power Point Presentation)

Emergency Forestry CRP

Initiated last fall from 2005 Hurricane Rita. Appropriations were made to extend the program. Does not have an ending date.

Active signup August 6 – December 31, 2007

Question: Is the information being sent to county residents?

Answer: Yes, widespread news, radio, etc.

Sammy Orange

State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) (PowerPoint of each project)

Received three good proposals. Recommending for approval.

What is SAFE?
The State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) initiative is a locally led effort to address high—value wildlife habitat restoration.

Proposal No. 1 - Mixed Grass Prairie Restoration and Lesser Prairie Chicken --

In order to participate, producers must be in counties under the 25 percent cropland limitation.
Mike McMurry -- This is another get ahead of the power curve deal. This species is not listed. It would be best to keep it off the list.

Question: Is there a way to extend, or make a modification, to the current CRP so you can exceed the cap?

Answer: That would have to be decided in Washington.

Discussion on converting existing CRP to native grasses - One requirement is weed control; this limits you to not being able to use herbicide. The only way to control is by mowing. Could plant in strips in old CRP.

Norman – the idea of planting in strips is to fully destroy the existing cover and then plant. The simple converting from Old World Bluestem to native grass isn’t going to work very well.

Don Wilhelm – recommendation not to accept conversion into the proposal.

Project No. 2 – Gulf Coast Prairies

Question: Are you allowed moderate grazing?

Answer: Yes, only allowed to 1 out of every 10. You could file with NEPA to get changed. Also, only one weed control application after planting within 12 months.

Question: Why did you stop before you got to Nueces County?

Answer: LA/TX proposal, upper coast mottled ducks region. This represents those counties. There are brush clearing issues.

Question: Can this program combine funds?

Answer: If you are receiving Federal funds, you can’t receive this funding also.

Question: If there are some peripheral counties, can’t they be counted?

Answer: The primary goal is to bring outside partners to take part. The Gulf Coast Prairie author has agreed to add Goliad. In the future, if this project is successful, it can be expanded.

Proposal No. 3 – Lower Rio Grande Valley Thornscrub Restoration Project

Project Description – needs to be changed to a 10-15 year project.

Question: If they have an EQIP project, are they precluded from entering?

Answer: Yes.

Norman

Gone through all three proposals. FSA is requesting recommendations from State Technical Committee to submit these three proposals to NHQ.

Comment - Goliad County – can this county be put in? Author will take recommendation to add Goliad.

State Technical Committee recommended that all three proposals be submitted.

John Fuston - Any changes made will be sent for review and we will get the information back. State committee won’t look at it until September 11.

Kirby Brown – Lower Rio Grande – put thorny brush back in.

John Mueller –

Discussed a coming Conservation Practice Standard Revision for Irrigation System, Microirrigation with a national requirement to test water for drip systems.

Question: Replacement of old sprinklers – is there work being done on that?

Answer: Yes, we are going to be including that for ’08.

Question: Any caveats on that?

Answer: (Mueller) We are going to ask cooperator to provide evidence that it is 20 years or older. Current proposal for STC consideration is that a system must be 20 years old and a payment rated based on 20% be applied.

Norman

Payment Schedules (Power Point)

Question: When you set rates, is there going to be some type of model so that you can update it every year?

Answer: Yes, we have a model for each practice.

Steve Verett -- This is bad idea. We use a lot of different types of sprinklers and need more than one rate. Also, some counties want to set lower than the recommended rate.

Norman – We will capture all types of sprinkler irrigation. We are not showing the cost-share rate. We can use variation of rates if we can geographically combine where they occur.

Comment - Arizona has been doing this for two years. It is working good at field level.

Comment - It is going to make it better for producers.

Claude Ross

Conservation Easement Programs

Provided update on conservation easement programs.

WRP –

Question: Why would appraisers value be going down when land value is going up?

Answer: Prior to 2006 we looked at the ag value. Beginning 2006 we started looking at a before and after value.

Question: What is term on easement?

Answer: The option is 30 years at 75%.

Question: Do you think changing appraisal provisions is the reason for decline?

Answer: Yes, that is one reason.

Question: Do you see something else coming from the House and Senate?

Answer: There was has been some discussion on changes. It may have a total change in shift of where WRP is going,

CIG

News Release

Question: Do you know what the payment limit is in the House, and how this will affect landowners in Texas?

Answer: AGI is adjusted gross income. We have concerns with AGI and how it could affect producers applying and working with programs. We do not have any income figures from anyone.

Salvador Salinas – Keep in mind that some of the new language in the house version of the 2007 talks program limitation dollars. Everyone has a different interpretation. We don’t know if it’s 60,000 or one $60,000 unit.

Payment schedule is something important. It is going to make things easier for field. Any comments you have, give to Norman or Don, or anyone at field level.

We are all about conservation planning. A lot of the contracts are one practices contracts, we complete plans and address all of the resource concerns. Use EQIP, WHIP, etc. provide those opportunities to landowners. They can use the various dollars to do complete plans.

Encourage those that had not met Don to call Enedina and make an appointment.

Meeting was adjourned

Printable version requires Microsoft Word.

08/21/07 - Texas State Technical Committee meeting minutes (DOC; 70 KB)

< Back to Programs