Is NRCS “EQIPed” to Get the Most from EQIP? State Allocation and Ranking Procedures Ralph...

Is NRCS “EQIPed” to Get the Most from EQIP?

State Allocation and Ranking Procedures

Ralph HeimlichRalph HeimlichAgricultural Conservation EconomicsAgricultural Conservation Economics

forforEnvironmental DefenseEnvironmental Defense

EQIP Expansion After 2002

• Four-fold EQIP funding expansion – average of $200 millon/year in 1996-2001– average of $830 million/year after 2002

• Shift in emphasis from conservation priority areas to more open enrollment

• Confusion about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness

Environmental Defense Analyses

• In January 2003, Environmental Defense issued “Getting More Bang for the Buck” analyzing the 2002 EQIP program

• We followed up with “Getting a Bigger Bang for the Buck”, analyzing allocation and ranking procedures for all states in the 2003 EQIP program

(see handout for URLs)

Principles for Ranking

Pre-screen Applications

• Evaluate the best, cut your losses on the rest• Develop a few screening questions for each

resource concern to prioritize applications• Do a good, thorough evaluation on the

highest priority group for each resource concern

• Customers will thank you for NOT wasting THEIR time

Address National Priorities• The National priorities for EQIP are:

– Reducing nonpoint source water pollution– Reducing air emissions– Reducing soil erosion – Promoting at-risk species habitat

• State EQIP program resource concerns should relate directly to these priorities

• Additional resource concerns can be addressed

Rank Resource Concerns Separately

• It’s difficult to compare “apples” and “oranges”

• Allows you to focus on the appropriate evaluation for the resource concern

• Much easier if you allocate funds to resource concerns

Evaluate All Aspects of the Concern

• Be fair to all farms that might contribute to the concern

• Example--water quality– Cropland--sediment, nutrient, pesticides– Pasture--sediment, nutrients– Barnyards, animal concentrations--nutrients– Interception practices--buffers, wetlands,

controlled drainage

Measure Performance

• Award points for:– The magnitude of the environmental benefits – Shown by the degree of improvement

– Reflecting the level of performance of conservation practices

• Measure actual environmental conditions, e.g., Tons of soil erosion

• Use levels of management intensity as a surrogate, if necessary

Existing resource condition

Expected resource condition

after approval

=Degree of

Improvement from funding

this application

Calculate Cost-effectiveness

• Award appropriate points for environmental benefits, other rule requirements

• Divide by the total cost, not just the cost to government (avoids “bidding down”)

• Fund the applications with the highest cost-effectiveness ratio

• Most “bang-for-the-buck” by definition

Use True Scale Neutrality• Once cost is considered, scale must be taken

into account

• Scale (acres, animal numbers) matters because larger operations can be more damaging to the environment

• Simply leaving out scale does NOT ensure that your ranking is scale-neutral

• Treating larger operations costs more, so you need to scale up points to be neutral

Incorporate All Other Rule Requirements

• Address multiple resource concerns• Use longer-lived practices or agreements • Leverage human resources, incentive,

education, and on-farm research programs • Bolster multi-county or multi-state collaborative

efforts • Use ways to measure performance and success• Consider the degree of difficulty producers face

in complying with environmental laws

Use of Ranking Principles In FY 2003

PrincipleNumber of

States Pre-screen 14Address all National priorities 15Rank concerns separately 21Measure performance 26True scale neutrality 1Calculate cost-effectiveness points per dollar 1 cost per unit 5All rule requirements multiple resource concerns 46 longer-lived practices 6 leveraging other projects 11 multi-county or multi-state projects 6 contiguous cooperative projects 5 ways of measuring performance and success 15 degree of difficulty meeting regulation 42

Model Ranking Templates

Incorporate key ranking mechanics for performance, cost-effectiveness, all rule requirements

To be adapted to the State’s or District’s situation and conservation goals

Provide a starting point for effective ranking

Parts can be adapted to your existing ranking sheets

Broad and Narrow Ranking SheetsBroad

Narrow

General water quality

Water quality problems from

manure management

General rangeland health

Riparian rangeland health

General wildife habitat

Bog turtle habitat

Native forest health

Longleaf pine forest

Water Conservation

Each Summary Sheet Has Four Major Categories:

1. Improved on-farm management benefits

2. Special project benefits

3. Environmental significance multipliers

4. Total environmental points

Example: General Water Quality

Farm Identification:I. IMPROVED ON-FARM MANAGEMENTA. Benefits from improved crop field management—Use the Crop Field Management Worksheet which evaluates a separate score for each field for nutrients, sediment and pesticide improvements and weights each field by its acreage.

1. Sum of nutrient points, all fields 02. Sum of sediment points, all fields 03. Sum of pesticide points, all fields 0 4. Total crop field management points (lines 1+2+3) 0B. Benefits from improved concentrated livestock area management—Use the Concentrated Livestock Area Management Worksheet which evaluates improvements that reduce direct runoff from each nonpasture area holding livestock (barnyards, loafing yards, etc.)

5. Watercourse exclusion 06. Manure storage size 07. Manure storage runoff 08. Volatilization emissions 09. Clean water diversion 0 10. Total concentrated livestock area management points (lines 5+6+7+8+9) 0C. Benefits from improved pasture grazing management--Use the Pasture Grazing Management Worksheet, which evaluates water quality improvements in each pasture area on which livestock graze.

11. Total pasture grazing management points 0D. Benefits from improved nonpoint pollution interception management—Use the Interception worksheet, which evaluates improvements for each practice that intercepts runoff.

12. Riparian Buffers 013. Wetlands 014. Controlled drainage 0 15. Total nonpoint pollution interception points (lines 12+13+14) 0 16. Total On-Farm Management Points (lines 4+10+11+15) 0II. SPECIAL PROJECT BENEFITS 17. Technological Innovation and Demonstration Benefits 018. Multiple Benefits 019. Benefits if EQIP plan helps reduce excess regional manure nutrients 020. Assistance in meeting existing or potential regulatory requirements 0 21. Total Special Project Points (lines 17+18+19+20) 0 22. Total Base Points (lines 16+21) 0III. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIERS 23. Importance of water resource 0.0024. Cooperative Project 0.0025. Other Agency or Non-Profit Financial Contribution 0.0026. Length of conservation benefits 0.00 27. Total Multipliers (lines 23+24+25+26), then add 1 to total 0.00IV. Total Environmental Points 28. Multiply Total Base Points (line 22) by Total Multipliers (line 27) 0 29. Cost of practices (from cost sheet) 0 30. Final Cost-Effectiveness Score: Ratio of environmental points to total cost (line 28/line 29) #DIV/0!

Environmental Defense Proposed Water Quality Ranking Sheet

Nutrients (line 1)--Change in management, scaled for intensity of nutrient use, weighted by field acreage.

(1) Post Treatment

Score, points for achieved management

level

(2) Existing Condition

Score, points for existing

management level

(3) Scaling factor for

intensity of nutrient use

for dominant

crop or crop rotation

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)

Field 1 0 Field 2 0Field 3 0 Etc….. 0

0

Sediments (line 2)--Sediment reduction (Tons of soil saved per acre as a result of proposed treatment using RUSLE or other method adopted by state) X Delivery ratio

(1) Post Treatment


level



management level

(3) Delivery ratio

(Appendix C)

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)


0

Pesticides (line 3)--Pesticide management improvement (change in IPM index as a result of proposed treatment, times factor for intensity of pesticide use) Appendix D

(1) Post Treatment


level



management level


intensity of pesticide use for

dominant crop or crop

rotation

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)


0Total crop field management points (for transfer to line 4) 0

Sum of nutrient points, all fields (for transfer to line 1)

Sum of pesticide points, all fields (for transfer to line 3)

Sediment delivery ratios, Appendix C

Pesticide index, Appendix D

or commercial fertilizer and manure (Appendix B)

A. Crop Field Management Worksheet—This sheet is evaluated for each field, and the total score is the sum of all fields.

Column (3) Scaling factor Crop normally uses pesticides intensively (e.g. cor

Sum of sediment points, all fields (for transfer to line 2)

Crop fields receiving either only commercial fertilizer (Appendix A)

Column (3) Scaling factor Manured field --1.25 High intensity fertilizer use (e.g. continuous corn or corn/soybean) – 1.0 Medium intensity use (e.g. wheat, small grains) – 0.5 Low intensity use (e.g. hay) – 0.2

Nutrients (line 1)--Change in management, scaled for intensity of nutrient use, weighted by field acreage.

(1) Post Treatment


level



management level


intensity of nutrient use

for dominant

crop or crop rotation

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)


0

Sediments (line 2)--Sediment reduction (Tons of soil saved per acre as a result of proposed treatment using RUSLE or other method adopted by state) X Delivery ratio

(1) Post Treatment


level



management level

(3) Delivery ratio

(Appendix C)

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)


0

Pesticides (line 3)--Pesticide management improvement (change in IPM index as a result of proposed treatment, times factor for intensity of pesticide use) Appendix D

(1) Post Treatment


level



management level


intensity of pesticide use for

dominant crop or crop

rotation

(4) Acres in field

(5) Total score for

field (1)-(2) X (3) X (4)


0Total crop field management points (for transfer to line 4) 0

Sum of nutrient points, all fields (for transfer to line 1)

Sum of pesticide points, all fields (for transfer to line 3)

Sediment delivery ratios, Appendix C

Pesticide index, Appendix D

or commercial fertilizer and manure (Appendix B)

A. Crop Field Management Worksheet—This sheet is evaluated for each field, and the total score is the sum of all fields.

Column (3) Scaling factor Crop normally uses pesticides intensively (e.g. cor

Sum of sediment points, all fields (for transfer to line 2)

Crop fields receiving either only commercial fertilizer (Appendix A)

Column (3) Scaling factor Manured field --1.25 High intensity fertilizer use (e.g. continuous corn or corn/soybean) – 1.0 Medium intensity use (e.g. wheat, small grains) – 0.5 Low intensity use (e.g. hay) – 0.2

Scaling by acres

Why Scale?

Points reflect improvements

on the farm

Costs increase with scale

(acres, animals)

Need to weight points by scale of operation to be fair

Once cost is included, must consider scale

Appendix A: Performance Based System for Nutrient Management -- Commercial Fertilizer Only

Points for each level 1 3 7 11

Comply with ALL minimum requirements of 590 standard (see below for requirements for 590 standard compliance), including application at recommended rate

X X X X

Has nutrient management plan that sets forth application rate and provides credit for all N sources

X X X X

All fertilizer application equipment, including planters, is well-maintained and calibrated annually or more often as needed.

X X X X

Soil tests for phosphorus at least once every two years and applies at rate that assures no build-up of phosphorus

X X X

Use conservation tillage practices to reduce fertilizer runoff

X X X

Use split applications and apply majority of N only at times of plant uptake during growing season. Avoid fall applications unless winter crop grown.

X X X

Use PSNT or other annual spring soil test before applying N

X X

Apply at 15% less than recommended rate or normal PSNT recommendation

X

Level IVNutrient Management Practice Level I Level II Level III

A. Watercourse exclusion—Livestock holding areas must be located away from streams and fences exclude livestock -- choose one (1).

0

A1 Vegetated flow distance from edge of fenced livestock holding area to stream at least 200 feet—5A2 Vegetated flow distance from edge of fenced livestock holding area to stream at least 100 feet—2A3 Vegetated flow distance from edge of fenced livestock holding area to stream is 10 to 100 feet -- 1A4 Stream flows through or immediately adjacent to barnyard -- 0B. Manure storage size—Manure storage is not located in floodplain and runoff and groundwater are diverted away from storage. (choose one)

0

B1 270 days of storage provided—7B2 120 days of storage provided - 3B3 Less than 120 days of storage provided or storage is in floodplain- 0C. Manure storage runoff—Manure storage is not located in floodplain and runoff and groundwater are diverted away from storage -- choose one (1) between C1, C2, C3, or C4. Add C5 points if applicable.

0

C1 Long-term storage facility is designed, installed, and operated to current engineering standards to prevent any leaching or leaks —4C2 Long-term storage facility is designed, installed, and operated to engineering standards in use at the time of construction and no sign of leaching or leaks —2C3 Operation has temporary manure storage that is located on medium or fine textured soils, clean water is excluded from the manure pile area, manure pile is not located in a floodplain, and manure pile is spread when conditions are appropriate -- 1C4 Does not meet C1, C2, or C3 -- 0C5 Storage is covered to exclude rainwater—add 2D. Volatilization emissions--Manure storage and handling reduces emission of volitilized ammonia nutrients -- choose one (1).

0

D1 Emissions captured through daily collection of manure into digestion or other comperable treatment technology or collected daily into covered storage prior to digestion or comparable treatment technology --25D2 Emissions limited by daily collection of manure into covered storage AND 1) properly managed composting (turned at proper times and covered) or 2) barn/barnyard use of chemical additions that reduce volatilization --15D3 Emissions limted by collecting manure daily into covered storage without advanced treatment --5D4 Does not qualify for D1, D2 or D3 - 0E. Clean water diversion—Clean water falling on roofs and pavement is kept out of contact with livestock and manure storage -- choose one (1).

0

E1 All barnyard runoff is collected and held in storage capable of handling all runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event and all clean water is diverted away from barnyard using surface water diversions and perimeter drainage systems—5E2 All barnyard runoff is diverted away from barnyard using surface water diversions and perimeter drainage systems—3E3 Little or no control over amount of roof water, surface water runoff, or groundwater entering storage—0Total concentrated livestock area management points 0A + B + C + D + E

Concentrated Livestock Area Management Worksheet—This sheet is evaluated for each nonpasture area holding livestock (barnyards, loafing yards, etc.)

Livestock Area Management (1) Post-treatment

(2) Pre-treatment

(3) Animal units

(4) Total score (1) – (2) X (3)

Pasture Grazing Management (1) Post-treatment condition

(2) Pre-treatment condition

(3) Animal units

(4) Total score

(1) – (2) X (3)

pasture 1 0pasture 2 0pasture 3 0pasture 4 0etc… 0Total pasture grazing management points--Sum of pastures, weighted by animal units of grazing (for transfer to line 11) 0

Pasture management, Appendix E

Pasture Grazing Management Worksheet—This sheet is evaluated for each pasture area on which livestock are grazed during the year.

Grazing Practice Level I Level II Level III Level IV

Points 1 3 7 11Comply with minimum requirements of 528 Standard X X X X

Records are kept of pasture sizes, rotations, forage condition, soil tests, fertilizer or lime applications.

X X X X

Fence out and control access to all streams and waterways. If livestock must cross stream, they do so over a constructed laneway complete with a culvert and gates at both ends.

X X X

Pasture fully vegetated except in minor areas of heavier animal traffic X X X

Grazing is limited during the fall and winter when the grass is dormant and in saturated areas.

X X X

Test soils at least every two years. X X X

Any lime or additional fertilizer applications will be according to soil test recommendations after manure and legume credits have been taken.

X X X

Stocking rate is maintained at rate that minimizes any nitrate leaching from pastures and balances nutrient uptake capacity of pasture vegetation with nutrients in deposited manure.

X X X

Restrict concentrated feed ration to no more than 30 percent of total nutrition to minimize nutrients in manure.

Place portable waterers and supplemental feed sources in each paddock and move to different locations within each paddock to promote uniform grazing and manure distribution.

X X

Pasture is managed to ensure that all areas are fully vegetated, laneways are either fully vegetated or well-developed with stone or gravel and there are no visible gullies

X X

Drag the pasture to spread manure to promote uniform fertilization of the pasture and uniform re-growth.

X X

Certified organic dairy operation X

Appendix E: Performance Based System for Grazing Management, Water Quality:

A. Riparian Buffers—Quality of buffer established, times factor for effectiveness based on width, times drainage area intercepted.

(1) Quality of interceptor establishment

(2) Size/width and effectiveness

(see chart 1)

(3) Drainage area intercepted (acres, total

agricultural field drainage area

intercepted by the installed or

improved buffer or wetland)

(4) Total score for interceptor (1) X (2) X (3)

A1 Install optimum buffer--EQIP funds install or significantly enhance buffer that uses the most desirable buffer vegetation for the area—5

5 0

A2 Install or enhance non optimum buffer--EQIP funds install or significantly enhance buffer that not using the most desirable buffer vegetation –2.5

2.5 0

A3 Existing buffers--Farm has already installed buffers or will install them using nonEQIP funds (e.g. CRP, CREP, other State or NGO program)-1

1 0

A. Sum of riparian buffer points, all buffers 0

B. Wetlands—Quality of wetland established, times factor for effectiveness based on size, times drainage area intercepted. Only applicable to farms that are drained or that have significant natural subsurface drainage in a manner that can be intercepted

(1) Quality of interceptor establishment

(2) Size/width and effectiveness (see chart 2)

(3) Drainage area intercepted (acres, total

agricultural field drainage area

intercepted by the installed or

improved buffer or wetland)

(4) Total score for interceptor (1) X (2) X (3)

B1 – Restore optimum wetlands--Wetlands will be restored or significantly enhanced with most appropriate wetland vegetation to maintain average detention time of 5 days or more—7.5

7.5 0

B2 – Restore, enhance or construct nonoptimum wetlands--Wetlands will be restored, significantly enhanced or constructed using wetland vegetation that is most appropriate to maintain average detention time of 1-5 days—5

5 0

B3 – Existing wetlands--Wetlands already present or will be restored, significantly enhanced or constructed using nonEQIP funds (e.g., CRP, CREP, other State or NGO program)—1

1 0

B. Sum of wetland interception points, all wetlands

0

C. Controlled drainage—Other controlled drainage system that intercepts runoff of nonpoint pollutants from the farm. If field is drained and controlled drainage will be installed in a manner that significantly reduces runoff rates – 6

6 0

Total Nonpoint Pollution Interception points 0

Nonpoint Pollution Interception Management Worksheet—This sheet is evaluated for each interception practice installed.

Chart 1 should be adjusted to local conditions using something such as the ARS REMM: Riparian Ecosystem Management Model http://www.cpes.peachnet.edu/remmwww/

A + B + C

Item Points

Scaling factor (either acres treated or

animal units)

Score (points X scaling factor)

1. Technological Innovation and Demonstration Benefits—Using practices that are new to the area and will demonstrate benefits for other producers. (Choose one level, or zero)

0A. The plan uses a technology or production system that has high potential for assisting producers to meet conservation needs and that is little implemented anywhere in the country – 20 points

B. The plan uses a technology or production system that has high potential and that is little used in the area, but is used elsewhere in the country –10 points

2. Multiple Benefits—Practices in the plan undertaken for water quality improvement also benefit air quality, at-risk species, or reduce green house gases (points may be earned in any or all categories). 0A. Plan will produce air quality benefits from removing nearly all air pollutants emitted – 20 points Example, plan will incorporate anaerobic digester or other technology

B. Plan will produce air quality benefits from removing a significant portion of air pollutants emitted – 10 points

C. Plan will significantly benefit at-risk species – 3 points Example, plan will achieve high level of sediment reduction in watershed of priority salmon nesting strea

Plan will significantly capture methane emissions from animal wastes contributing to greenhouse warming--15 points

Plan will significantly significantly sequester greenhouse gases in forest tree plantings or riparian forest plantings – 5 points Note: this element should be weighted by acres of forest planted, not animal units.

weight by acres planted3. Reducing excess regional manure nutrients—The plan results in replacement of commercial fertilizer with sources of local manure that assists another farm to appropriately dispose of manure – 5 points 0

4. Assistance in meeting existing or potential regulatory requirements—(Choose one level, or zero)

0A. Plan enables the farm to avoid regulation altogether – 5 points

B. Plan assists the farm in complying with an existing regulation – 4 points

C. Plan significantly reduces likelihood of regulation for the farm and/or similar farms in the area – 3 points

II. Total Special Project Points

0

Total points from innovation and demonstration, multiple benefits, regional manure, and regulatory assistance

II. SPECIAL PROJECT BENEFITS--Scaled using either cropland acres treated or animal units, depending on which resource is primarily affected.

Total Environmental Significance Percentage Multipliers

0

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIERS--Enter percentage as decimal (I.e., 5 percent is .05)

1. Importance of water resource—The farm is in the watershed of an important water resource and the plan reduces pollutants of concern in the watershed (e.g., reducing phosphorus for a phosphorus-impacted resource).

Category 2 resource – 7 percent

Category 1 resource -- 10 percent

Category 3 resource –3 percent

2. Cooperative Project—The plan is part of a cooperative project of many producers and will implement a detailed water quality improvement plan that has the support of multiple stakeholders – 10 percent

B. Landowner promises to maintain management practices for at least 15 years (must last at least five years beyond end of contract) – 5 percent

4. Length of conservation benefits— (choose one)

A. Land on which treatment will occur is subject to a permanent conservation easement and landowner promises to maintain mangement practices for at least fifteen years (must last at least five years beyond end of contract)– 10 percent

3. Other Agency or Non-Profit Financial Contribution—Significant human resources, incentive programs, education programs and/or research programs are provided to the participant by other federal, state, local or private parties to address the water qualit

Why Percentage Multipliers?

These factors increase the value of a plan in proportion to the other benefits of the plan

All multiplier factors are mandated by the rule

All multiplier factors help determine the likely magnitude of success

Farm Identification:I. IMPROVED ON-FARM MANAGEMENTA. Benefits from improved crop field management—Use the Crop Field Management Worksheet which evaluates a separate score for each field for nutrients, sediment and pesticide improvements and weights each field by its acreage.

1. Sum of nutrient points, all fields 02. Sum of sediment points, all fields 03. Sum of pesticide points, all fields 0 4. Total crop field management points (lines 1+2+3) 0B. Benefits from improved concentrated livestock area management—Use the Concentrated Livestock Area Management Worksheet which evaluates improvements that reduce direct runoff from each nonpasture area holding livestock (barnyards, loafing yards, etc.)

5. Watercourse exclusion 06. Manure storage size 07. Manure storage runoff 08. Volatilization emissions 09. Clean water diversion 0 10. Total concentrated livestock area management points (lines 5+6+7+8+9) 0C. Benefits from improved pasture grazing management--Use the Pasture Grazing Management Worksheet, which evaluates water quality improvements in each pasture area on which livestock graze.

11. Total pasture grazing management points 0D. Benefits from improved nonpoint pollution interception management—Use the Interception worksheet, which evaluates improvements for each practice that intercepts runoff.

12. Riparian Buffers 013. Wetlands 014. Controlled drainage 0 15. Total nonpoint pollution interception points (lines 12+13+14) 0 16. Total On-Farm Management Points (lines 4+10+11+15) 0II. SPECIAL PROJECT BENEFITS 17. Technological Innovation and Demonstration Benefits 018. Multiple Benefits 019. Benefits if EQIP plan helps reduce excess regional manure nutrients 020. Assistance in meeting existing or potential regulatory requirements 0 21. Total Special Project Points (lines 17+18+19+20) 0 22. Total Base Points (lines 16+21) 0III. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PERCENTAGE MULTIPLIERS 23. Importance of water resource 0.0024. Cooperative Project 0.0025. Other Agency or Non-Profit Financial Contribution 0.0026. Length of conservation benefits 0.00 27. Total Multipliers (lines 23+24+25+26), then add 1 to total 0.00IV. Total Environmental Points 28. Multiply Total Base Points (line 22) by Total Multipliers (line 27) 0 29. Cost of practices (from cost sheet) 0 30. Final Cost-Effectiveness Score: Ratio of environmental points to total cost (line 28/line 29) #DIV/0!

Environmental Defense Proposed Water Quality Ranking Sheet

CostsUse standard costs approved for project

practices and elements

Estimate final “engineering” project cost later--a preliminary cost estimate is fine for ranking

Using TOTAL costs (not just the federal cost) avoids “bidding down”

True size neutrality requires:– Scaling benefits– Accounting for cost

Cost-effectivenessAdd points from all sections, appropriately scaled,

and divide the total by the total cost

Calculating the degree of cost-effectiveness is the only way to ensure that EQIP funds give the most “bang for the buck”

The plan with the highest ratio of points to cost is THE BEST plan evaluated in this category because it provides the most benefits (points) for each dollar spent

Four Key Improvements• Rank resource concerns separately • Measure levels of performance or

management intensity • Calculate the degree of cost-effectiveness• Reward special projects that incorporate

cooperative, leveraged, multi-county, multi-state or regulatory relief elements

For More Information...

Contact

Ralph Heimlich, 301-498-0722, [email protected]

Suzy Friedman,202-572-3376 [email protected]

Is NRCS “EQIPed” to Get the Most from EQIP? State Allocation and Ranking Procedures Ralph...

Documents

Transcript of Is NRCS “EQIPed” to Get the Most from EQIP? State Allocation and Ranking Procedures Ralph...