Welcome!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Last year's local work group recommendations can be found here:
http://www.stearnscountyswcd.net/read_file.php?content_type=PDF&file_name=1329.pdf
Note: to return this site click your browser "back" button.
An essential step in locally led conservation is the input from a broad range of individuals, agencies, organizations, and businesses. Your interest in and familiarity with local resource needs and conditions provides a foundation for conservation program delivery in Stearns County.
Stearns County 2011 EQIP Local Work Group
Last year's local work group recommendations can be found here:
http://www.stearnscountyswcd.net/read_file.php?content_type=PDF&file_name=1329.pdf
Note: to return this site click your browser "back" button.
4 comments:
I would like to make the following suggestions to the questions proposed under #4 of the District's FY11 EQIP recommendations:
Q1 regarding points awarded for Water Quality in certain areas of the county - more weight should be placed on this question. With the recent findings of MPCA and DNR, and in light of their newly started research project in Western Stearns Co. (Bonanza Valley), along with an increasing population in Stearns Co., a greater emphasis should be placed on water quantity and quality, especially in those areas that are already impaired or are vulnerable to impairment.
Q2 - This question, and the points associated with it, seems redundant, and can be added to other questions where water quality resource concerns are addressed. If it must be kept, then the weight of the previous question should be even greater.
Q3&Q4 - I understand the importance of these practices, but weight might be too high on each of the questions, which detracts from other important practices, especially if numerous waste storage facilities and animal mortality facilities have been cost-shared in the past - the cost in constructing these operations may have come at the expense of neglecting other high importance resource concerns.
Q5 irrigation conversion - This practice can easily address water quantity concerns and should be weighted higher if a low percentage of irrigation systems in the county have not yet been converted to low-pressure. Irrigation management plans should also be encouraged.
Q7 - Planned grazing systems that benefit both soil and water should be of greater concern. A large part of Western Stearns is currently grazed or in pasture and cost-sharing for proper grazing systems could have a large impact on the above listed resource concerns along with wildlife habitat. While Soil Erosion and Quality are both listed as resource concerns that EQIP should address in Stearns Co., the questions that deal with soils are weighted too lightly to help make any real impacts. Planned grazing systems can also benefit the small tracts of remaining native prairie in Stearns Co., which would have a large impact on curbing the spread of invasive species and improving wildlife habitat.
Q8 - This question, regarding wildlife habitat, is, in my opinion, too broad, and should be more specific or withdrawn. Improper placement of wildlife habitat practices can be a detriment to many native wildlife species. Instead, points for wildlife habitat should only be awarded when the practice would improve wildlife habitat specifically addressed in a plan written or approved by a wildlife biologist. Would it be possible for extra points to be given for planting only native and local genotype seed? I would also recommend awarding points where applicable for delaying haying of fields after July 15.
Q10 - Given the lack of conservation tillage systems in Stearns Co, and the apparent need for better soil and water conservation, I think that these practices should be awarded more points, making it more attractive for County producers to institute a conservation tillage system. If alfalfa in a crop rotation is a problem with tillage, then perhaps points could be awarded for conservation tillage practices in two years out of a three year period.
Q11 - Wind erosion: I feel that this question and its points are unnecessary and can be addressed elsewhere, for instance, through a conservation tillage system. If windbreaks or tree/shrub establishment must be cost-shared, I would recommend that these only be included in ecologically appropriate areas of the county. The western third of Stearns Co. is included in the Prairie Parkland province ecoregion of MN, which was historically dominated by prairie and grasslands, not trees. The wildlife that depend on grasslands and associated wetlands are suffering throughout MN in part because of encroachment by invasive tree species.
I agree with the proposed EQIP resource concerns, but would like to ensure that "Water Quantity" is captured within "Water Quality". MPCA and DNR just finished a study in Benton Co. that suggests ground water supplies depleted by increased irrigation have lead to further degradation of impaired water systems. Improving irrigation efficiency should help curtail these problems.
To - Stearns County Local Work Group:
1. One area that could receive additional focus is that of Conservation Drainage (CD) practices. While financial resources are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain to work on all issues, there are opportunities to work closer with local producers and drainage authorities on implementing a number of CD BMPs - in conjunction with other conservation projects across the landscape. The local work group is encouraged to further investigate this area.
2. The Stearns County SWCD efforts in ecosystem services trading are important and can provide a template for other efforts across the state, where appropriate. The local work group may want to further consider how this effort can augment producer environmental quality assurance programs in relation to cost-share scoring procedures.
1. With all of the drainage requests that Stearns County and NRCS are dealing with it seems like a good option would be develop some conservation drainage options for landowners when they make a request. Many of the sites should be evaluated for conservation drainage, wet soils management and even complete restoration depending on the financial and environmental benefit.
2. In meeting with the Rice Lake Association and hearing some of the results from there TMDL study, it shows that 93% of the loading is coming from the North Fork Crow River. It seems we could develop some strategic conservation implementation to assist in meeting the TMDL goals. One off the top of my head would be incentives to implement conservation tillage, buffer all water resources, and restore marginal farmlands. A possibility might be to couple BWSR CWF’s with EQIP to create the incentive needed?
Post a Comment