Now that we see that the NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) made it into the new farm bill, who has experience with this program? Love it, hate it, what say you? Most of the NRCS folks I know don't like this program. I'd say landowner acceptance is more divided. If you don't like it....how would you suggest crafting a better program?... A lot of people I ask that to say the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a better program. I can see the good and bad in EQIP as well. My concern with EQIP is a lot of dollars spent in the program aren't necessarily tied to management. They could be, but that situation isn't super common in my humble experience. For example, financial assistance goes to brush management projects but...there is no guarantee good grazing management will be carried out with it. I just have to wonder how a more effective conservation program might be engineered....
NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program
- Thread starter Paisano
- Start date
TrickyTross
Active member
The trouble with many Farm Bill programs is the implementation of them differ state to state. For example, in NC we use EQIP to address a resource concern that is in the realm of Soil, Water, Air, Plant, Human, Animal (SWAPHA). It all comes back to what the resource concern is that is being addressed and also of the person developing the plan. The example you give for Brush management and grazing is interesting. In NC, Brush management is in the forestry pool and grazing is not (unless its silvopasture, which has other standards and guidelines that address both practices),its in a pasture pool. In Texas, they may have things different. Also, different states have different standards and policies per practice. The standards must be vetted by NEPA and then a Technical Review Committee develops any additional components or can petition the Secretary for exceptions to their standards. In my experience, the landowner and the plan developer can work together and develop a plan that may take years (contracts) to implement, but can be achieved with the tools they have available.
In regards to CSP, it is more of an incentive program. In my experience, this program has been utilized by landowners who have addressed a vast majority of their resource concerns and are interested in doing other practices over a 5 year period and receive compensation for implementing and maintaining these practices. For many of our cattle folks, they used EQIP to exclude the cattle from water sources, put in heavy use areas, have a Waste Utilization Plan (if there are enough cows), develop a grazing plan, and provide alternative watering sources. After doing these contracts, unless an error was made by the planner and a resource was overlooked, the person is ready for CSP. In the cattle scenario, that could look like incorporating "x" percent of legumes into their pasture mixes for one practice, and the other of utilizing wildlife friendly fencing. The list goes on for those examples.
However, that's about to be a no-issue. In the very near future when a landowner fills out an application, they wont be checking a box for EQIP or CSP. The planner will be coming out and working with the land owner to develop a sound conservation plan. And the programs will be dictated by the plan... nto the other way around which has been what was going on. The theory is that by developing a sound conservation plan, we should be able to implement and wisely use the resources available regardless of their acronym.... I reckon we will see. Hopefully this route will make the programs better. For far too long, you had to develop a plan to fit into a program. Id be willing to bet my NRCS counterparts would agree, even though they may not be able too....
In regards to CSP, it is more of an incentive program. In my experience, this program has been utilized by landowners who have addressed a vast majority of their resource concerns and are interested in doing other practices over a 5 year period and receive compensation for implementing and maintaining these practices. For many of our cattle folks, they used EQIP to exclude the cattle from water sources, put in heavy use areas, have a Waste Utilization Plan (if there are enough cows), develop a grazing plan, and provide alternative watering sources. After doing these contracts, unless an error was made by the planner and a resource was overlooked, the person is ready for CSP. In the cattle scenario, that could look like incorporating "x" percent of legumes into their pasture mixes for one practice, and the other of utilizing wildlife friendly fencing. The list goes on for those examples.
However, that's about to be a no-issue. In the very near future when a landowner fills out an application, they wont be checking a box for EQIP or CSP. The planner will be coming out and working with the land owner to develop a sound conservation plan. And the programs will be dictated by the plan... nto the other way around which has been what was going on. The theory is that by developing a sound conservation plan, we should be able to implement and wisely use the resources available regardless of their acronym.... I reckon we will see. Hopefully this route will make the programs better. For far too long, you had to develop a plan to fit into a program. Id be willing to bet my NRCS counterparts would agree, even though they may not be able too....
