2014 Easement Compensation Jason S Kepler Resource Conservationist

2014 Easement Compensation Jason S Kepler Resource Conservationist

Some Easement Notes Will be discussing Compensation for WRP and GRP Due to Farm Bill expiration, currently have no authority to act on these easement programs NRCS has prepared in the event they are reauthorized for FY 14 Currently, only easement program with authority to act is FRPP (Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program)

GRP and WRP Easement Compensation Annually establish easement compensation values for the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Geographic Area Rate Caps (GARCs) Historically have done area wide market analysis in sub -regions across the state Annual cost of market analysis around $10, 000 Have not used analysis since 2010 (lack of applications)

GRP and WRP Easement Compensation States with limited applications, have another option Can use individual appraisals for each property The Pros Less overall expense for NRCS Only pay for what we need, when we need it More accurate compensation rate The Cons May take additional time to conduct appraisal, evaluate and close the easement

GRP and WRP Easement Compensation FY 2014 ≠ GARCs WRP Compensation – By Appraisal Expected to be around 90% of Fair Market Value Not to exceed $5, 000 per acre GRP Compensation – By Appraisal Expected to be between 60 and 75% of Fair Market Value Dependent on productivity of land carrying capacity

Questions on GRP and WRP Easement Compensation?

2014 Payment Schedules Jason S Kepler Resource Conservationist

2014 Payment Schedules Very similar process to FY 13 AZ is part of a 5 state region (with NM, CO, UT, NV) Generalized costs amongst 5 states FY 14 Payment Schedules still being reviewed and finalized Info in this presentation may change

2014 Payment Schedules Arizona only had issues with about 5% of FY 13 Practices and Costs on the Payment Schedule AZ provided this feedback to “regional team” on FY 13 Issues Costs too high or too low Need for additional scenarios Most issues have been addressed

FY 2013 Issues and FY 2014 Updates 314, Brush Management Issue: No high cost scenario for Chemical, Aerial Application Outcome: New scenarios with relevant associated costs Low Cost Chemical, Aerial Applied High Cost Chemical, Aerial Applied 382, Fence Issue: FY 13 Costs for Barbed Wire-Smooth was too low Outcome: FY 14 cost increases ~35%

FY 2013 Issues and FY 2014 Updates 428, Irrigation Ditch Lining Issue: No scenario for Notched Ditches Outcome: New scenario and costs established for Notched Ditches 442, Sprinkler Irrigation System Issue: No scenario for Poly-Lined Pivots Outcome: Still pending development of additional cost for poly lining

FY 2013 Issues and FY 2014 Updates 614, Watering Facility Issue: FY 13 costs for Permanent Drinker/Storage >5, 000 gallons was too low Outcome: FY 14 cost increases ~40% 614 Watering Facility Issue: No scenario for electronically monitored watering facilities Outcome: Request for new component was denied (twice) Remote watering considered a luxury/top of the line watering facility. Only allowed to cost share on standard practices.

Thank You Jason Kepler Resource Conservationist Jason. Kepler@AZ. USDA. gov (602) 280 -8824