slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 85

State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 128 Views
  • Uploaded on

Washington. State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off For Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year January 22, 2013. Welcome. Roylene Rides at the Door, State Conservationist Opening Remarks. Agenda. Sherre Copeland Partnership Liaison. Role of the Local Working Groups.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off' - archie


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Washington

State Technical Advisory Committee’s

Local Working Group Kick Off

For Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year

January 22, 2013

welcome
Welcome

Roylene Rides at the Door,

State Conservationist

Opening Remarks

agenda
Agenda

Sherre Copeland

Partnership Liaison

role of the local working groups
Role of the Local Working Groups

Established in Farm Bill

Subcommittees to the State Technical Advisory Committee

Guide national conservation programs to address local needs

Very important to the locally led process

Recommendations based on resource needs

Prioritize funding decisions and watersheds

Help with outreach

issues affecting nrcs in fy 13
Issues Affecting NRCS in FY 13

Farm Bill Extension

Continuing Resolution

Sequestration

Payment Scenarios

329 Practice Standard Variance

local working group presentations
Local Working GroupPresentations

10 Teams – 10 Local Working Groups

Local Working Group Chair

District Conservationist

5 minutes each

slide7

Snake River Local Working Group

Team Meeting: March 6

Ed Teel

District Conservationist

Jim Schroeder (Acting)

Mark Nielson

Local Working Group Chair

Asotin, Columbia, Franklin, Pomeroy,

Walla Walla

slide9

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
slide10

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.
slide11

Snake River LWG

2013 Funding Pools:

Land Use Resource Concern % Allocation

Crop Soil Erosion 25

Crop Inefficient Use of

Irrigation Water 25

Pasture Excess Nutrients 5

Forest Undesirable Plant 25

Range Productivity &Health

Other WQ Excess Pathogens 20

slide12

Snake River LWG

  • 2013 EQIP Applications = 128
  • Ranking Completed?
  • Lots of Work to be done!

I am anticipating:

  • 3 Dry crop contracts
  • 4 Irrigated crop contracts
  • 1 Pasture contract
  • 3-4 Range/Forest contracts
  • 1 Other (livestock) contract
slide13

South Central

Local Working Group

Amanda Ettestad

District

Conservationist

Ron Juris

Local Working Group Chair

Benton, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties

slide14

South Central LWG

  • EQIP Locally Led funding for 2012

Total Dollars Obligated: $1,206,921.47

    • Irrigated Cropland: $453,150 obligated on 366.1 acres
    • Dry Cropland: $264,335 obligated on 2,751.2 acres
    • Livestock and Grazing: $320,755 obligated on 5,629.3 acres
    • Forest Health: $72,408 obligated on 171.2 acres
    • Integrated Pest Management: $76,429 obligated on 520.3 acres
    • New Technology: $19,845 obligated on 1682 acres
slide15

South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP

slide16

South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012

slide17

South Central LWG

Application Estimates compared to Contract Obligation Per Funding Pool for 2012

slide18

South Central LWG

  • 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%
slide19

South Central LWG

Applications per Locally Led Funding Pools for 2013

slide20

South Central LWG

  • 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.
slide21

Southwest Local Working Group

Nick Vira

District

Conservationist

Lynn Engdahl

Local Working Group Chair

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

2012 initiatives
2012 Initiatives

Southwest LWG

2012 initiatives1
2012 Initiatives

Southwest LWG

slide29

Palouse Local Working Group

Rich Edlund

District Conservationist

Larry Cochran

Palouse Local Work Group Chair

Spokane and Whitman Counties

slide30

Palouse LWG

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)
slide31

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………
slide32

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)
slide33

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.
slide34

West Palouse Local Working Group

Ann Swannack

District

Conservationist

Tom Schultz

Local Working Group Chair

Lincoln and Adams Counties

slide35

West Palouse LWG

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

  • 2012 Funding=$676,144 $583,997
  • 5 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 EQIP2011 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
slide36

West Palouse LWG

EQIP12 by county

2012 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 Crop
    • 4,936.7 acres treated (33.5%)
    • $369,434 obligated (62%)
slide37

West Palouse LWG

  • 2013 Funding = $ ?
  • 12/21/2012 cut-off 5 Fund Pools Applications 58 total
    • Confined Animals (10%) 0
    • Cropland-Dry Land (30%) 36
    • Cropland-Irrigated (25%) 10
    • Forest (10%) 4
    • Grazing Land (25%) 8
  • State Initiatives -119 applications
success
SUCCESS

In 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.

slide39

Big Bend Local Working Group

Lolo Garza

Acting District

Conservationist

John Preston

Local Working Group Chair

Grant, Kittitas, Adams Counties

slide40

Big Bend LWG

2012 overview

6 Pools-Locally led

  • Dryland (5%)
    • 2 applications – 0 funded
    • $0
  • Livestock (15%)
    • 5 applications – 4 funded
    • $155,000
slide41

Big Bend LWG

Grant, Kittitas and Adams Counties

  • Forestry (7%)
    • 10 applications – 4 funded
    • $112,000
  • Orchard/Vineyard(5%)
    • 1 application – 0 funded
slide42

Big Bend LWG

  • Upper Yakima (28%) –Kittitas county
    • 24 applications – 4 funded
    • $340,000
  • Ground Water Management Area (40%)-

(Grant & Adams County)

    • 37 applications – 8 funded
    • $410,000
slide43

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 obligated
  • 2879 acres contracted/treated
slide44

Big Bend LWG

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary

  • Total Initial Fund Allocation: $ ????
  • Funding Pools = 12
    • Cropland
      • Water-Inefficient use of Irr. Water ( 38 apps @ $2 mil value)
      • WQ Degr. –Pesticides to Surface & Ground (1 app. ? value)
      • WQ Degr. – Nutrients in Surface & Ground ( 1app. ? Value)
      • WQ Degr. – Sediment in surface waters (27 apps. @ $525 K value)
    • Forest
      • Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard (18 apps. @$284 K value)
      • WQ Degr. –sediment in surface waters ( 0 apps.)
      • Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation (11 apps. @ $35 K value)
    • Pasture
      • Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health( 2 apps. @ 36,500)
    • Range
      • Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health ( 5 apps @ $80 K )
      • Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation ( 0 apps)
    • Other Lands
      • WQ Degr. – Pathogens & Chemicals from organic sources (1 [email protected] $120 K)
      • Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 apps @ 9,000 value)
slide45

BigBendLWG

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary

104 applications

approximate value of $3.2 million

slide46

Puget Sound Local Working Group

Paul Rogers

District

Conservationist

Eric Nelson

Local Working Group Chair

King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap Counties

slide47

Puget Sound LWG

2012 Fund Overview

slide48

Puget Sound LWG

2012 Other Plans

slide49

Puget Sound LWG

2013 Funding Pools

slide50

Puget Sound LWG

2013 Fund Overview

slide51

Puget Sound LWG

2013 Other Applications

slide52

Northeast Local Working Group

Ferry, Stevens, and

Pend Oreille Counties

Karla Ware, District Conservationist

slide53

Northeast LWG

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

slide54

Northeast LWG

Funding PoolsNo. Applications Funds Requested

Cropland 5 $

Grazing land 12 $

Forest land 26 $520,000 High Tunnel/Energy 6 $50,000

Other $

  • Colville Confed. Tribes 18 $ 1,000,000
  • Kalispel Tribe 0 $
  • Spokane Tribe 2 $ 154,000
slide55

Northeast LWG

Number of Applications

Cropland – regular 3 $

- BFR&SocDis2 $

Grazing * - regular 11 $ 0

- BFR&SocDis1 $ 0

Forest - regular 21 $

- BFR&SocDis 5 $

Other* - regular

- BFR&SocDis

slide56

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.
slide57

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

slide58

North Central Local Working Group

Amy Hendershot

Acting District

Conservationist

John McLean

Local Working Group Chair

Okanogan, Chelan, and Douglas Counties

slide59

North Central LWG

Fiscal Year 2012 EQIP (Locally Led Only)

  • Dollars Obligated: $453,222.11
  • Funding Pools = 5
    • Forestland: $127,492.12 on 307.1 acres
    • Grazingland: $191,389.42 on 7,429 acres
    • Cropland-Dryland: $18,746.57 on 1,630 acres
    • Cropland-Irrigated Hay/Pasture: $84,669.00 on 85 acres
    • Cropland-Other: $30,925.00 on 24 acres
slide60

North Central LWG

Applications for financial assistance and funding success for FY 2012

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.

slide61

North Central LWG

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.

slide62

North Central LWG

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

slide63

North Central LWG

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary

  • Total Initial Fund Allocation: $???,???
  • Funding Pools = 5
    • Soil Erosion (Sheet, Rill, & Wind) on Cropland @ 35%
    • Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant Productivity & Health) on Forestland @ 25%
    • Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant Productivity & Health) on Rangeland @ 20%
    • Insufficient Water (Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water) on Cropland @ 15%
    • Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife (Habitat Degradation) for Other @ 5%
slide64

North Central LWG

Applications for financial assistance and funding success for FY 2013.

slide65

North Central LWG

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

slide66

North Central LWG

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

slide67

Northwest Local Working Group

Tony Sunseri

District

Conservationist

Larry Davis

Local Working Group Chair

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

slide68

Northwest LWG

Regular EQIP 2012

slide69

Northwest LWG

EQIP funding including Initiatives 2012

slide71

Northwest LWG

FY 2013 Planned percentage of funds per land use

slide72

Northwest LWG

2013 EQIP:

100 Applications for Regular EQIP to date

58 Special Initiative Applications to date

fy 13 statewide perspective
FY 13 Statewide Perspective

Rick Noble, West AC

Jeff Harlow, Programs

Alan Fulk, Programs

fy 13 screening tool
FY 13 Screening Tool
  • What it is
  • Purpose
  • How it Affects Local Working Groups
  • How it Affects Applicants
what nrcs needs from lwgs for fy 14
What NRCS Needs from LWGsFor FY 14

Doug Allen, Central AC

Ed Teel, East AC

lwg meeting timelines and logistics
LWG Meeting Timelines and Logistics
  • Hold LWG Meetings in Spring
    • Webinars
    • Facilitation
  • Packages due at end of April 2013
  • Presentation of aggregate packages to STAC in May
ad