State Technical Advisory Committee’s

Local Working Group Kick OffFor Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year

January 22, 2013

Washington

Welcome

Roylene Rides at the Door,State Conservationist

Opening Remarks

Agenda

Sherre CopelandPartnership Liaison

Role of the Local Working Groups

Established in Farm BillSubcommittees to the State Technical

Advisory CommitteeGuide national conservation programs to

address local needsVery important to the locally led processRecommendations based on resource needsPrioritize funding decisions and watershedsHelp with outreach

Issues Affecting NRCS in FY 13Farm Bill ExtensionContinuing ResolutionSequestrationPayment Scenarios329 Practice Standard Variance

Local Working GroupPresentations

10 Teams – 10 Local Working Groups

Local Working Group ChairDistrict Conservationist5 minutes each

Snake River Local Working GroupTeam Meeting: March 6

Ed TeelDistrict ConservationistJim Schroeder (Acting)

Mark NielsonLocal Working Group Chair

Asotin, Columbia, Franklin, Pomeroy,

Walla Walla

Snake River LWG

2012 EQIP Applications = 125 for $4,706,917.00

Funding Pools:Forest land Grazing land Livestock, confined Cropland, Irrigated Cropland, Dry Cropland, Dry Nutrient/Pest

Management

Snake River LWG

In 2012, 43 Application Obligated = $1,230,561.88

19 Locally Led Applications Obligated = $780, 937.00• Resource Concerns Treated:• Soil Erosion, Sheet, Rill, and Wind• Water Quality Degradation• Inefficient Use Of Irrigation Water• Undesirable Plant Productivity Health &

Vigor on Forest and Range lands.

Snake River LWG

2013 Funding Pools:Land Use Resource Concern %

AllocationCrop Soil Erosion 25Crop Inefficient Use of

Irrigation Water 25Pasture Excess Nutrients 5Forest Undesirable Plant 25Range Productivity &HealthOther WQ Excess Pathogens 20

Snake River LWG

2013 EQIP Applications = 128Ranking Completed?Lots of Work to be done! I am anticipating:3 Dry crop contracts4 Irrigated crop contracts1 Pasture contract 3-4 Range/Forest contracts1 Other (livestock) contract

Snake River LWG

South Central Local Working Group

Amanda EttestadDistrictConservationist

Ron JurisLocal Working Group Chair

Benton, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties

EQIP Locally Led funding for 2012Total Dollars Obligated: $1,206,921.47Irrigated Cropland: $453,150 obligated on 366.1

acresDry Cropland: $264,335 obligated on 2,751.2

acresLivestock and Grazing: $320,755 obligated on

5,629.3 acresForest Health: $72,408 obligated on 171.2 acresIntegrated Pest Management: $76,429 obligated

on 520.3 acresNew Technology: $19,845 obligated on 1682 acres

South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP

County Applications

Funded Total Estimated Application

Costs

Total Dollars Funded

Additional Dollars to

Fund Remaining

Applications

Benton 34 11 $1,104,895 $337,019 $767,876

Klickitat 23 13 $657,836 $385,681 $272,155

Yakima 63 12 $2,082,491 $484,222 $1,598,269

Total 120 36 $3,845,222

$1,206,922

$2,638,300

South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012

South Central LWG

County Irrigated Crop

Dryland Crop

Integrated Pest

Management

Forest Health

Grazing Land-

Livestock

New Technology

Apps/ Contrac

ts

App

Cont

App

Cont

App Cont App

Cont

App

Cont

App Cont

Benton 14 2 13 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 3 2

Klickitat 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 3 13 10 1 0

Yakima 52 9 1 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 68 11 17 4 11 5 4 3 15 11 5 2

County Irrigated Crop

Dryland Crop

Integrated Pest

Management

Forest Health

Grazing Land-

Livestock

New Technolog

y

Benton

App $293,028

$756,257

$18,284 $0 $7,482 $29,845

Cont

$27,084 $264,335

$18,273 $0 $7,482 $19,845

Klickitat

App $87,591 $75,520 $0 $87,011 $397,714 $10,000

Cont

$0 $0 $0 $72,408 $313,273 $0

Yakima

App $1,933,493

$75,000 $65,330 $0 $0 $8,669

Cont

$426,066

$0 $58,156 $0 $0 $0

Total

App $2,314,112

$906,777

$83,614 $87,011 $405,196

$48,514

Cont

$453,150

$264,335

$76,429 $72,408 $320,755

$19,845

South Central LWG

Application Estimates compared to Contract Obligation Per Funding Pool for 2012

Funding Pools for 2013

Crop Insufficient Water-Inefficient Use of Irrigation, 30% Water Quality Degradation-Pesticides, Nutrients, Sediments, 5% Soil Erosion-Sheet, Rill & Wind, 14%

Forest Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard, 5% Water Quality Degradation-Excessive Sediment, 5%

Other Associated Ag Land Water Quality Degradation-Excess Nutrients in Surface &

Groundwater, 20%, Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife-Habitat Degradation, 1%

Pasture Insufficient Water-Inefficient Use of Irrigation, 5%

Range Degraded Plant Condition-Undesirable Plant/Inadequate Habitat for

Fish & Wildlife, 15%

South Central LWG

Applications per Locally Led Funding Pools for 2013

South Central LWG

County Crop Forest Other Ag Land

Pasture Range

Insufficient

Water-

Inefficien

t Use of

Irrigation

Water Quality Degradation-Pestici

des, Nutrie

nts, Sedime

nts

Soil Erosion

-Sheet, Rill &

Wind

Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire

Hazard

Water Qualit

y Degradation

-Excessive

Sediment

Water Qualit

y Degradation

-Exces

s Nutrients in

Surface &

Groundwate

r

Inadequate

Habitat for Fish and

Wildlife-

Habitat

Degradation

Insufficient Water-Inefficient

Use of Irrigation

Degraded Plant

Condition-

Undesirable

Plant/Inadequate Habitat for Fish

& Wildlife

Benton 4 10 1 1

Klickitat 4 4 1 2

Yakima 26 2 2

Total 30 14 4 1 1 3 4

Barriers or issues:

Multiple deadlines have spread out applications, though no additional funding comes for later sign ups.

Statewide Initiatives have broken up funding and created confusion among customers as far as what and when to apply.

Statewide Initiatives do not show up on this presentation.

Locally led process seems to be less “local” each year.

South Central LWG

Southwest Local Working Group

Nick ViraDistrictConservationist

Lynn EngdahlLocal Working Group Chair

Skamania, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and

Wahkiakum Counties

FY 2012 EQIP $498,211

$199,284

$99,642

$99,642

$99,642

Initial Funding Distribution

CAFO - 40%Forest - 20%Crop - 20%Multi-Land Use - 20%

Southwest LWG

2012 Applications vs. Contracts

CAFO $171,568

Crop $132,593

Forest $95,267

Multi Land Use $147,183

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Deferrered Ap-plicantsFunded Contracts

Southwest LWG

FY 12 - Dollars per County

Lewis 35%Clark 28%Cowlitz 1%Grays Harbor 17%Pacific 19%Skamania 0%Wahkiakum 0%

Southwest LWG

2012 Historically Underserved

CAFO Crop Forest Multi Use0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Socially Disad-vantaged BeginningNon HU

Southwest LWG

2012 Initiatives

Forest CAPs

Lewis 2Grays Harbor 1Cowlitz 1Clark 1

Energy CAP

Grays Harbor 3Lewis 3Pacific 2Clark 2

Southwest LWG

2012 InitiativesSeasonal High

Tunnel

Ska-mania 1Pacific 1Lewis 3Clark 8Grays Harbor 1

Organic

Clark 3

Southwest LWG

2013 LWG Funding Priorities

Forest 30%Pasture 10%Crop 30%Other - HQ 30%

Southwest LWG

Palouse Local Working Group

Rich EdlundDistrict Conservationist

Larry CochranPalouse Local Work Group Chair

Spokane and Whitman Counties

2013 EQIP Fund Pool/Resource Concerns

Crop-Soil Erosion- Sheet, Rill and Wind(38% of funds). Crop-Water Quality-Excessive Sediment (25% of funds). Crop-Irrigation Water Efficiency (5% of funds). Forest-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health (10% of

funds) Forest-Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard(6% of funds) Forest- Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(2% of funds) Rangeland-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health(5% of

funds) Rangeland-Plant Condition-Excessive Plant Pest(2% of funds) Pasture-Plant Condition-Productivity and Health(2% of funds) Other Land- Water Quality-Excess Pathogen and Chem. From

Organic Sources (3% of funds) Other Land-Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(1% of funds) Other Land-Plant Condition-Excessive Plant Pest ( 1% of funds)

Palouse LWG

APPLICATIONS FY 13: Crop-Soil Erosion- Sheet, Rill and Wind(41% of Applications). Crop-Water Quality-Excessive Sediment (2% of Applications). Crop-Irrigation Water Efficiency (5% of Applications).

Forest-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health (15% of Applications) Forest-Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard(0% of Applications) Forest- Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(2% of Applications)

Rangeland-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health(8% of Applications) Rangeland-Plant Condition-Excessive Plant Pest(0% of Applications)

Pasture-Plant Condition-Productivity and Health(0% of Applications) Other Land- Water Quality-Excess Pathogen and Chem. From Organics (2% of

Applications) Other Land-Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(0% of Applications) Other Land-Plant Condition-Excessive Plant Pest(0% of Applications) AND………

Palouse LWG

APPLICATIONS FOR STATEWIDE FUNDING:

Statewide Beginning Farmer -Cropland: (13% of Applications)

Statewide Beginning Farmer- Forest: (6% of Applications)

Statewide Beginning Farmer –Pasture(6% of Applications)

Palouse LWG

BARRIERS: Lack of applicants in some Fund Pools/Resource Concerns.

Short timeline to determine Eligibility & screen & Rank. Field conditions prevent quality planning.

BACKLOG : Energy Applications waiting to be funded.

Palouse LWG

West Palouse Local Working Group

Ann SwannackDistrictConservationist

Tom SchultzLocal Working Group Chair

Lincoln and Adams Counties

Adams and Lincoln counties FY12 82 contracts for $2,183,608.67 on 96,390.2 acres

2012 Funding=$676,144 $583,9975 Pools: Contracts

Confined Animal (10%) 0 0 Cropland – Dry Land (30%) 9 $ 233,068 Cropland – Irrigated (25%) 6 $ 157,017 Forest (10%) 2 $ 30,052 Grazing Land (25%) 4 $ 188,860

State Initiatives EQIP 2011 Obligated = $ 41,914

2012 Obligated =$1,599,611 On-Farm Energy-Practices 12 $1,484,345 On-Farm Energy-Activity Plans 34 $ 101,095 1 Seasonal High Tunnel 1 $ 5,627

West Palouse LWG

EQIP12 by county2012 Funding = $857,694 Obligated = $ 583,997 on 14,228.8 ac.

Adams:7 contracts-1 Gz Land, 4 Dry Cropland, 2 Irr.9,476.1 acres treated ( 66.5%)$214,563 obligated (38%)

Lincoln:14 contracts- 2 Forest, 4 Irrigated, 3 Gz Land, 5 Dry Crop4,936.7 acres treated (33.5%)$369,434 obligated (62%)

West Palouse LWG

2013 Funding = $ ?12/21/2012 cut-off 5 Fund Pools

Applications 58 totalConfined Animals (10%) 0Cropland-Dry Land (30%) 36Cropland-Irrigated (25%) 10Forest (10%) 4Grazing Land (25%) 8

State Initiatives -119 applications

West Palouse LWG

SUCCESSIn 2012, a CTA

funded Task Order with the Lincoln County Conservation

District allowed completion of

cultural resource investigations and reports for four applicants.

Installation of practices began within weeks of

contract obligation.

Big Bend Local Working Group

Lolo GarzaActing DistrictConservationist

John PrestonLocal Working Group Chair

Grant, Kittitas, Adams Counties

6 Pools-Locally ledDryland (5%)

2 applications – 0 funded$0

Livestock (15%)5 applications – 4 funded$155,000

Big Bend LWG

2012 overview

Grant, Kittitas and Adams Counties

Forestry (7%)10 applications – 4 funded$112,000

Orchard/Vineyard(5%)1 application – 0 funded

Big Bend LWG

Upper Yakima (28%) –Kittitas county24 applications – 4 funded$340,000

Ground Water Management Area (40%)-

(Grant & Adams County)37 applications – 8 funded$410,000

Big Bend LWG

Grant, Kittitas and Adams Counties

100+ applications received ( Locally led & national initiatives)

$3,900,000 total requests

20 applications approved$1,015,197 obligated2879 acres contracted/treated

Big Bend LWG

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary Total Initial Fund Allocation: $ ???? Funding Pools = 12

Cropland1. Water-Inefficient use of Irr. Water ( 38 apps @ $2 mil value)2. WQ Degr. –Pesticides to Surface & Ground (1 app. ? value)3. WQ Degr. – Nutrients in Surface & Ground ( 1app. ? Value)4. WQ Degr. – Sediment in surface waters (27 apps. @ $525 K value)

Forest1. Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard (18 apps. @$284 K value)2. WQ Degr. –sediment in surface waters ( 0 apps.)3. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation (11 apps. @ $35 K value)

Pasture1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health( 2 apps. @ 36,500)

Range1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health ( 5 apps @ $80 K )2. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation ( 0 apps)

Other Lands1. WQ Degr. – Pathogens & Chemicals from organic sources (1 app@ $120

K)2. Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 apps @ 9,000 value)

Big Bend LWG

Big Bend LWG

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary

104 applicationsapproximate value of $3.2 million

Puget Sound Local Working Group

Paul RogersDistrictConservationist

Eric NelsonLocal Working Group Chair

King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap

Counties

Fund Pool # of Plans $$ Amount in 2012 Fund

Pool

$$ Amount Obligated

Cropland 4 $75,443 $135,635

Confined Animal

1 $150,887 $18,769

Multi Land Use

6 $330,177 $441,117

Forestry 18 $197,926 $209,428

2012 Fund Overview

Puget Sound LWG

Hig

h Tu

nnel

s

CAP For

estry

On

Farm

Ene

rgy

PSSR

P

Certifi

ed O

rgan

ic

Org

anic T

rans

ition

al

Nut

rient

Mgm

t CAP

21

12

58 9

5 1

2012 Other Plans

Puget Sound LWG

Other as-sociated Ag lands

Cropland Pasture Forestry

25%

10%

45%

20%

2013 Funding Pools

Puget Sound LWG

Fund Pool $$ Amount in 2013 Fund

Pool

# of ApplicationsPST Funds

# of HU ApplicationsState Funds

Cropland $123,298 4 8

Other Ag Lands

$49,319 10 3

Pasture $221,936 10 4

Forestry $98,638 16 14

2013 Fund Overview

Puget Sound LWG

Hig

h Tu

nnel

s

CAP For

estry

On

Farm

Ene

rgy

Certifi

ed O

rgan

ic

Org

anic T

rans

ition

al

Shel

lfish

19

8

21

41

3

2013 Other Applications

Puget Sound LWG

Karla Ware, District Conservationist

Northeast Local Working Group

Ferry, Stevens, and

Pend Oreille Counties

2012 EQIP Data

Funding Pools Initial Allocation

Cropland 25% Grazing land 25% Forest land 35% Other 15% Also have pools for : Colville Confederated

Tribes Kalispel Tribe of Indians Spokane Tribe of Indians

Northeast LWG

Funding Pools No. Applications Funds Requested Cropland 5 $ Grazing land 12 $ Forest land 26 $520,000

High Tunnel/Energy 6 $50,000 Other $

Colville Confed. Tribes 18 $ 1,000,000Kalispel Tribe 0 $ Spokane Tribe 2 $ 154,000

Northeast LWG

Number of Applications Cropland – regular 3 $ - BFR&Soc Dis 2 $

Grazing * - regular 11 $ 0 - BFR&Soc Dis 1 $ 0

Forest - regular 21 $ - BFR&Soc Dis 5 $

Other* - regular - BFR&Soc Dis

Northeast LWG

Barriers or issues, backlog of implementation CR consultation backlog issue is clearing up!! However, we are still at a high “Late Rate” because

of some high-dollar value projects still delayed…but 2013 should see a lot of these finally get implemented.

Northeast LWG

2012 Contracts

Spokane Tribe $112,842 Kalispell Tribe $65,370 Colville Tribe $113,440 Crop BF $35,170 Multi LU BF $158,887 Range BF $99,474 Forest BF $31,746 Forest $134,180

TOTAL $751,118

Northeast LWG

North Central Local Working Group

Amy HendershotActing DistrictConservationist

John McLeanLocal Working Group Chair

Okanogan, Chelan, and Douglas Counties

Fiscal Year 2012 EQIP (Locally Led Only)Dollars Obligated: $453,222.11Funding Pools = 5

1. Forestland: $127,492.12 on 307.1 acres2. Grazingland: $191,389.42 on 7,429 acres3. Cropland-Dryland: $18,746.57 on 1,630

acres4. Cropland-Irrigated Hay/Pasture:

$84,669.00 on 85 acres5. Cropland-Other: $30,925.00 on 24 acres

North Central LWG

The 18 contracts for FY2012 addressed the Local Working Group’s goal of providing a balance of funding to five major land-use/resource concern areas. These are Forestry, Grazing land, Dry Cropland, Cropland-Irrigated Hayland-Pasture, and Cropland-Other. This is also the order of priority assigned by the LWG. Many of the Douglas County applications were funded under the Sage Grouse Initiative.  

North Central LWGApplications for financial assistance and

funding success for FY 2012County Applications Applications

FundedPercentage Applicants

Funded per County (%)

Total Funds Percentage of Total Team

Funds (%)

Average Costshare

Per Contract

Total Estimated Value of

Applications

Chelan 7 4 57 $90,306 20 $22,576.50 $147,102.80

Douglas 18 4 24 $35,660.57 8 $8,915.14 $396,192.94

Okanogan 37 14 38 $327,255.54 72 $23,375.40 $914,713.10

TOTAL 62 18 119 $453,222.11 100 $1,458,008.80

Number of applications/contracts by land use category by County for FY 2012.

Douglas County grazing land applications got funded under SGI instead. Dryland farmers generally chose CSP instead of EQIP for their resource concerns.

North Central LWG

County Forestland #1 Priority

Grazing Land#2 Priority

Dry Cropland#3 Priority

Irrigated Hay/Pasture#4 Priority

Cropland-Other#5 Priority

Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/ContractsChelan 2/2 2/1 0/0 1/0 2/1Douglas 2/2 9/0 4/2 1/0 1/0Okanogan 7/6 7/4 1/0 18/2 3/2TOTAL 11/10 18/5 5/2 19/2 5/3

Dollars by land use/resource concern category by County for FY 2012.

North Central LWG

County Forestland Funds

Grazing LandFunds

Dry CroplandFunds

Irrigated Hay/PastureFunds

Cropland-OtherFunds

Chelan $34,198 $46,358 $0 $0 $9,750Douglas $16,914 $0 $18,746.57 $84,669 $0Okanogan $76,380.12 $145,031.42 $0 $0 $21,175TOTAL $127,492.12 $191,389.42 $18,746.57 $84,669 $30,925

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP SummaryTotal Initial Fund Allocation: $???,???Funding Pools = 5

1. Soil Erosion (Sheet, Rill, & Wind) on Cropland @ 35%2. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant

Productivity & Health) on Forestland @ 25%3. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant

Productivity & Health) on Rangeland @ 20%4. Insufficient Water (Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water)

on Cropland @ 15%5. Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife (Habitat

Degradation) for Other @ 5%

North Central LWG

North Central LWGApplications for financial assistance and

funding success for FY 2013. County Applications Applications

FundedPercentage Applicants Funded Per Co.%

Total Funds

Percentage of Total Team Funds

Average Costshare Per Contract

Total Estimated Value of Applications

Chelan 5 ? ? ? ? ? $300,200

Douglas 16 ? ? ? ? ? $528,259

Okanogan 54 ? ? ? ? ? $1,089,820

TOTAL 75 ? ? ? ? ? $1,918,279

Number of applications/contracts by land use/resource concern category by County for FY 2013

North Central LWG

County Soil Erosion- Cropland #1 Priority

Degraded Plant Condition- Forestland#2 Priority

Degraded Plant Condition- Rangeland#3 Priority

Insufficient Water-Cropland#4 Priority

Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife-Other#5 Priority

Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/ContractsChelan 0/? 3/? 0/? 1/? 1/?Douglas 2/? 2/? 9/? 4/? 0/?Okanogan 0/? 18/? 7/? 27/? 0/?TOTAL 2/? 23/? 16/? 31/? 1/?

Barriers or Issues: Too many programs and initiatives for which staff and customers to become proficient and insufficient time to provide quality technical assistance via quality conservation planning

North Central LWG

Northwest Local Working Group

Tony SunseriDistrictConservationist

Larry DavisLocal Working Group Chair

Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, San Juan, Clallam and Jefferson

Counties

Regular EQIP 2012

Fund Pool # of Applications

# of Contracts Funded

$$ Obligated in 2012 EQIP

Cropland 9 4 $55,980

Multi-Land Use – Small Farm

8 4 $66,050

Multi-Land Use – 41 2 $362,942

Forestry 25 20 $227,932

TOTAL 83 30 $712,904

Northwest LWG

Northwest LWG

County # of Applications

# of Contracts Funded

$$ Obligated in 2012 EQIP

Clallam 10 7 $123,612

Jefferson 10 6 $119,392

Island 14 6 $27,824

San Juan 13 10 $25,577

Skagit 29 21 $481,368

Snohomish 34 9 $185,684

Whatcom 65 21 $1,392,738

TOTALS 175 80 $2,356,195

EQIP funding including Initiatives 2012

8%

32%

51%

9%

2012 Funds Obligated

Cropland 8%Forestry 32%Multi-Land use 51%Multi-Land use - Small Farm 9%

Northwest LWG

FY 2013 Planned percentage of funds per land use

8 8

3054

Crop 8%

Pasture 8%

Forestry 30%

Other Associated Lands 54%

Northwest LWG

2013 EQIP:

100 Applications for Regular EQIP to date

58 Special Initiative Applications to date

Northwest LWG

LUNCH

FY 13 Statewide Perspective

Rick Noble, West ACJeff Harlow, ProgramsAlan Fulk, Programs

FY13 Allocations

FY13 Estimated Statewide Allocations

Estimated FY 13 LWG Allocations

Estimated Allocations if Energy changes are allowed

Washington Program Obligation Deadlines for FY 2013

FY 13 Screening Tool

• What it is• Purpose• How it Affects Local Working Groups

• How it Affects Applicants

What NRCS Needs from LWGsFor FY 14

Doug Allen, Central ACEd Teel, East AC

LWG Meeting Timelines and LogisticsHold LWG Meetings in Spring

WebinarsFacilitation

Packages due at end of April 2013Presentation of aggregate packages to STAC

in May

Questions

Workshop