Slide 1

State Technical Advisory CommitteesLocal Working Group Kick OffFor Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year

January 22, 2013Washington

WelcomeRoylene Rides at the Door,State Conservationist

Opening Remarks

AgendaSherre CopelandPartnership Liaison

Role of the Local Working GroupsEstablished 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 GroupPresentations10 Teams 10 Local Working GroupsLocal Working Group ChairDistrict Conservationist5 minutes each

Snake River Local Working GroupTeam Meeting: March 6

Ed TeelDistrict ConservationistJim Schroeder (Acting)Mark NielsonLocal Working Group ChairAsotin, Columbia, Franklin, Pomeroy, Walla Walla

Snake River LWG2012 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 LWGIn 2012, 43 Application Obligated = $1,230,561.88 19 Locally Led Applications Obligated = $780, 937.00Resource Concerns Treated:Soil Erosion, Sheet, Rill, and WindWater Quality DegradationInefficient Use Of Irrigation WaterUndesirable Plant Productivity Health & Vigor on Forest and Range lands.

Snake River LWG2013 Funding Pools:Land UseResource Concern% AllocationCropSoil Erosion25CropInefficient Use of Irrigation Water25PastureExcess Nutrients5Forest Undesirable Plant25RangeProductivity&HealthOtherWQ Excess Pathogens20

Snake River LWG2013 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 EttestadDistrictConservationistRon JurisLocal Working Group ChairBenton, Yakima, and Klickitat CountiesEQIP 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 LWGApplications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP

CountyApplicationsFundedTotal Estimated Application CostsTotal Dollars FundedAdditional Dollars to Fund Remaining ApplicationsBenton

3411$1,104,895$337,019

$767,876Klickitat2313$657,836$385,681$272,155Yakima6312$2,082,491$484,222$1,598,269Total12036$3,845,222$1,206,922$2,638,300

South Central LWGApplications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012

South Central LWGCountyIrrigated CropDryland CropIntegrated Pest ManagementForest HealthGrazing Land-LivestockNew TechnologyApps/ ContractsAppContAppContAppContAppContAppContAppContBenton14213422002132Klickitat20300043131010Yakima5291093000010Total681117411543151152CountyIrrigated CropDryland CropIntegrated Pest ManagementForest HealthGrazing Land-LivestockNew TechnologyBentonApp$293,028$756,257$18,284$0$7,482$29,845Cont$27,084$264,335$18,273$0$7,482$19,845KlickitatApp$87,591$75,520$0$87,011$397,714$10,000Cont$0$0$0$72,408$313,273$0YakimaApp$1,933,493$75,000$65,330$0$0$8,669Cont$426,066$0$58,156$0$0$0TotalApp$2,314,112$906,777$83,614$87,011$405,196$48,514Cont$453,150$264,335$76,429$72,408$320,755$19,845

South Central LWGApplication Estimates compared to Contract Obligation Per Funding Pool for 2012 Funding Pools for 2013CropInsufficient Water-Inefficient Use of Irrigation, 30%Water Quality Degradation-Pesticides, Nutrients, Sediments, 5%Soil Erosion-Sheet, Rill & Wind, 14%ForestDegraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard, 5%Water Quality Degradation-Excessive Sediment, 5%Other Associated Ag LandWater Quality Degradation-Excess Nutrients in Surface & Groundwater, 20%, Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife-Habitat Degradation, 1%PastureInsufficient Water-Inefficient Use of Irrigation, 5%RangeDegraded Plant Condition-Undesirable Plant/Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife, 15%

South Central LWGApplications per Locally Led Funding Pools for 2013

South Central LWGCountyCropForestOther Ag LandPastureRangeInsufficient Water-Inefficient Use of IrrigationWater Quality Degradation-Pesticides, Nutrients, SedimentsSoil Erosion-Sheet, Rill & WindDegraded Plant Condition-Wildfire HazardWater Quality Degradation-Excessive SedimentWater Quality Degradation-Excess Nutrients in Surface & GroundwaterInadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife-Habitat DegradationInsufficient Water-Inefficient Use of IrrigationDegraded Plant Condition-Undesirable Plant/Inadequate Habitat for Fish & WildlifeBenton41011Klickitat4412Yakima2622Total301441134 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 ViraDistrictConservationistLynn EngdahlLocal Working Group ChairSkamania, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum CountiesFY 2012 EQIP $498,211

Southwest LWG2012 Applications vs. ContractsSouthwest LWG

FY 12 - Dollars per CountySouthwest LWG

2012 Historically UnderservedSouthwest LWG

2012 InitiativesSouthwest LWG

2012 InitiativesSouthwest LWG

2013 LWG Funding PrioritiesSouthwest LWG

Palouse Local Working Group

Rich EdlundDistrict ConservationistLarry CochranPalouse Local Work Group ChairSpokane 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 LWGRich Edlund and Larry Cochran30 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 SwannackDistrictConservationistTom SchultzLocal Working Group ChairLincoln and Adams Counties Adams and Lincoln counties FY1282 contracts for $2,183,608.67 on 96,390.2 acres2012 Funding=$676,144 $583,9975 Pools: ContractsConfined Animal (10%) 00 Cropland Dry Land (30%)9$ 233,068Cropland Irrigated (25%)6$ 157,017Forest (10%)2$ 30,052Grazing Land (25%) 4$ 188,860

State Initiatives EQIP2011 Obligated = $ 41,914 2012 Obligated =$1,599,611On-Farm Energy-Practices12$1,484,345 On-Farm Energy-Activity Plans 34$ 101,095 1Seasonal High Tunnel 1$ 5,627

West Palouse LWGEQIP12 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 LWG2013 Funding = $ ?12/21/2012 cut-off 5 Fund Pools Applications58 totalConfined Animals (10%) 0Cropland-Dry Land (30%)36Cropland-Irrigated (25%)10Forest (10%) 4Grazing Land (25%) 8State Initiatives -119 applications

West Palouse LWGSUCCESSIn 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 DistrictConservationistJohn PrestonLocal Working Group ChairGrant, Kittitas, Adams Counties 6 Pools-Locally ledDryland (5%)2 applications 0 funded$0

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

Big Bend LWG2012 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 SummaryTotal Initial Fund Allocation: $ ????Funding Pools = 12CroplandWater-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)ForestDegraded 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)PastureDegradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health( 2 apps. @ 36,500) RangeDegradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health ( 5 apps @ $80 K )Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation ( 0 apps)Other LandsWQ Degr. Pathogens & Chemicals from organic sources (1 app@ $120 K)Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 apps @ 9,000 value)

Big Bend LWG

Big Bend LWGFiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary104 applicationsapproximate value of $3.2 million

Puget Sound Local Working Group

Paul RogersDistrictConservationistEric NelsonLocal Working Group ChairKing, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap Counties Fund Pool# of Plans$$ Amount in 2012 Fund Pool$$ Amount ObligatedCropland4$75,443$135,635Confined Animal1$150,887$18,769Multi Land Use6$330,177$441,117Forestry18$197,926$209,4282012 Fund Overview

Puget Sound LWG 2012 Other PlansPuget Sound LWG

2013 Funding Pools

Puget Sound LWG Fund Pool$$ Amount in 2013 Fund Pool# of ApplicationsPST Funds

# of HU ApplicationsState FundsCropland$123,29848Other Ag Lands$49,319103Pasture$221,936104Forestry$98,63816142013 Fund Overview

Puget Sound LWG 2013 Other ApplicationsPuget Sound LWG

Karla Ware, District ConservationistNortheast Local Working GroupFerry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille CountiesDave Kreft No LWG Chair52 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 implementationCR consultation backlog issue is clearing up!!However, we are still at a high Late Rate because of some high-dollar value projects still delayedbut 2013 should see a lot of these finally get implemented.

Northeast LWG 2012 ContractsSpokane Tribe $112,842Kalispell Tribe$65,370Colville Tribe$113,440Crop BF$35,170Multi LUBF$158,887Range BF$99,474Forest BF$31,746Forest$134,180 TOTAL $751,118

Northeast LWG

North Central Local Working Group

Amy HendershotActing DistrictConservationistJohn McLeanLocal Working Group ChairOkanogan, Chelan, and Douglas Counties Fiscal Year 2012 EQIP (Locally Led Only)Dollars Obligated: $453,222.11Funding Pools = 5Forestland: $127,492.12 on 307.1 acresGrazingland: $191,389.42 on 7,429 acresCropland-Dryland: $18,746.57 on 1,630 acresCropland-Irrigated Hay/Pasture: $84,669.00 on 85 acresCropland-Other: $30,925.00 on 24 acres

North Central LWG

The 18 contracts for FY2012 addressed the Local Working Groups 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 2012CountyApplicationsApplications FundedPercentage Applicants Funded per County (%)Total FundsPercentage of Total Team Funds (%)Average Costshare Per ContractTotal Estimated Value of ApplicationsChelan7457$90,30620$22,576.50$147,102.80Douglas18424$35,660.578$8,915.14$396,192.94Okanogan371438$327,255.5472$23,375.40$914,713.10TOTAL6218119$453,222.11100$1,458,008.80Number 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 LWGCountyForestland #1 PriorityGrazing Land#2 PriorityDry Cropland#3 PriorityIrrigated Hay/Pasture#4 Priority Cropland-Other#5 Priority Apps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsChelan2/22/10/01/02/1Douglas2/29/04/21/01/0Okanogan7/67/41/018/23/2TOTAL11/1018/55/219/25/3Dollars by land use/resource concern category by County for FY 2012.

North Central LWGCountyForestland FundsGrazing LandFundsDry CroplandFundsIrrigated Hay/PastureFundsCropland-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 = 5Soil 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%

North Central LWG

North Central LWGApplications for financial assistance and funding success for FY 2013. CountyApplicationsApplications FundedPercentage Applicants Funded Per Co.%Total FundsPercentage of Total Team Funds Average Costshare Per ContractTotal Estimated Value of ApplicationsChelan5?????$300,200Douglas16?????$528,259Okanogan54?????$1,089,820TOTAL75?????$1,918,279

Number of applications/contracts by land use/resource concern category by County for FY 2013North Central LWGCountySoil Erosion- Cropland #1 PriorityDegraded Plant Condition- Forestland#2 PriorityDegraded Plant Condition- Rangeland#3 PriorityInsufficient Water-Cropland#4 Priority Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife-Other#5 Priority Apps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsApps/ContractsChelan0/?3/?0/?1/?1/?Douglas2/?2/?9/?4/?0/?Okanogan0/?18/?7/?27/?0/?TOTAL2/?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 SunseriDistrictConservationistLarry DavisLocal Working Group ChairWhatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, San Juan, Clallam and Jefferson Counties Regular EQIP 2012

Fund Pool# of Applications# of Contracts Funded$$ Obligated in 2012 EQIPCropland94$55,980Multi-Land Use Small Farm84$66,050Multi-Land Use 412$362,942Forestry2520$227,932TOTAL8330$712,904Northwest LWG

Northwest LWGCounty# of Applications

# of Contracts Funded

$$ Obligated in 2012 EQIP

Clallam107$123,612Jefferson106$119,392Island146$27,824San Juan1310$25,577Skagit2921$481,368Snohomish349$185,684Whatcom6521$1,392,738TOTALS17580$2,356,195EQIP funding including Initiatives 2012

Northwest LWG FY 2013 Planned percentage of funds per land use

Northwest LWG2013 EQIP:

100 Applications for Regular EQIP to date

58 Special Initiative Applications to date

Northwest LWGLUNCH

FY 13 Statewide PerspectiveRick 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 isPurposeHow it Affects Local Working GroupsHow it Affects ApplicantsWhat NRCS Needs from LWGsFor FY 14Doug Allen, Central ACEd Teel, East AC

LWG Meeting Timelines and LogisticsHold LWG Meetings in SpringWebinarsFacilitationPackages due at end of April 2013Presentation of aggregate packages to STAC in May

Questions

Workshop