Docstoc

Lincoln County Water Quality

Document Sample
Lincoln County Water Quality Powered By Docstoc
					Natural Resources Conservation Service

Application Ranking Summary Lincoln County - Water Quality
Program: Final Ranking Score: Planner: Farm Location: National Priorities Addressed Issue Questions Responses 1. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in considerable reductions of non-point source Yes o or No o pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with TMDL's where available as well as the reduction of groundwater contamination or point source such as contamination from confined animal feeding operations? 2. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in the conservation of a considerable amount of Yes o or No o ground or surface water resources? 3. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards? 4. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land? 5. Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable increase in the promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation? State Issues Addressed Issue Questions 1. GRAZINGLAND MANAGEMENT - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 2. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL WASTE - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). Responses Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Ranking Date: Application Number: Applicant: Address: Telephone: Ranking Tool: Lincoln County - Water Quality

3. IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined Yes o or No o by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 4. WETLANDS - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 5. CONVERSION OF AG LANDS TO NON-AG USE - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 6. EXCESSIVE EROSION - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 7. STREAMBANK/SHORELINE PROTECTION - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 8. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 9. FORESTRY/AGROFORESTRY - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be Page 1 of 3 Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o

included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). 10. FLOODING - This resource concern will be directly benefited as determined by the goals identified by the landowner through the EQIP application process and reflected by the components to be included in the EQIP application (you may select more than one). Local Issues Addressed Issue Questions 1. Grazing practices - bank stabilization greater than 50 feet? 2. Grazing practices - water developments moved off stream 1? 3. Grazing practices - water developments moved off stream 2-4? 4. Grazing practices - water developments moved off stream 5 or more? 5. Grazing practices - reduced access to stream - 1 development? 6. Grazing practices - reduced access to stream - 2-4 developments? 7. Grazing practices - limited access water point on stream 1? 8. Grazing practices - limited access water point on stream 2 or more? 9. Grazing practices - if troughs more than 200' from riparian zone? 10. Grazing practices - cross fence - create 1 riparian pasture with prescribed grazing? 11. Grazing practices - cross fence - create 2-3 riparian pastures with prescribed grazing? 12. Grazing practices - cross fence - create 4 or more riparian pasture with prescribed grazing? 13. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fencing with prescribed grazing 1, 30' buffer minimum? 14. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fencing with prescribed grazing 2-3, 30' buffer minimum? 15. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fencing with prescribed grazing 4 or more, 30' buffer minimum? 16. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fence with grazing excluded for 10 years - 1? 17. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fence with grazing excluded for 10 years - 2 or more? 18. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fencing buffer 50 ft or greater? 19. Grazing practices - cross fence - riparian fencing buffer 100 ft or greater? 20. Cropland practices - bank stabilization greater than 50 feet? 21. Cropland practices - field border 30 ft minimum? 22. Cropland practices - riparian buffer 30 ft minimum? 23. Cropland practices - riparian buffer 50 ft or greater? 24. Cropland practices - riparian buffer 100 ft or greater? 25. Noxious weed control - minimum treatment 2 years? 26. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan? 27. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan with monitoring - photo plots? 28. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan with monitoring - range transects? 29. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan with monitoring - stubble height? 30. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan with monitoring - rotation table/chart? 31. Grazing system - will develop a grazing plan with monitoring - other (ie visual)? 32. Riparian health improvement 10 - 25%? 33. Riparian health improvement 26 - 50%? 34. Riparian health improvement 51 - 75%? 35. Riparian health improvement 76 - 100%? 36. Livestock facilities - if not funded by statewide? 37. Nutrient management - soil test prior to fertilizer application? 38. Nutrient management - will develop NMP? 39. Pest management - free of noxious weeds 26 - 50%? Page 2 of 3 Responses Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o

40. Pest management - free of noxious weeds 51 - 75%? 41. Pest management - free of noxious weeds 76 - 100%? 42. Pest management - actively implementing plan? 43. Pest management - will implement a plan? 44. Soil erosion - active bank erosion addressed by approved practices? 45. Soil erosion - active bank erosion? 46. Soil erosion - lack of appropriate vegetation? 47. Wildlife benefits to cutthroat trout or sage grouse? 48. Cost effectiveness < $7/pt? 49. Cost effectiveness < $10/pt? 50. Cost effectiveness < $15/pt? Land Use: Resource Concerns Ranking Score Efficiency: Local Issues: State Issues: National Issues: Final Ranking Score: Practices

Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o Yes o or No o

This ranking report is for your information. It does not in any way guarantee funding. When funding becomes available, you will be notified if your application is selected for funding. Some changes to the application may be required before a final contract is awarded.

NRCS Representative:

Applicant Signature Required for Contract Development:

Signature Date:

Signature Date:

Page 3 of 3


				
DOCUMENT INFO