850 likes | 856 Views
This kickoff meeting for the Local Working Groups (LWGs) discusses the role of LWGs in guiding national conservation programs to address local needs and prioritize funding decisions.
E N D
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 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 Farm Bill Extension Continuing Resolution Sequestration Payment Scenarios 329 Practice Standard Variance
Local Working GroupPresentations 10 Teams – 10 Local Working Groups Local Working Group Chair District Conservationist 5 minutes each
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
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 % 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
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
South Central Local Working Group Amanda Ettestad District Conservationist Ron Juris Local Working Group Chair Benton, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties
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
South Central LWG Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP
South Central LWG Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012
South Central LWG Application Estimates compared to Contract Obligation Per Funding Pool for 2012
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%
South Central LWG Applications per Locally Led Funding Pools for 2013
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.
Southwest Local Working Group Nick Vira District Conservationist Lynn Engdahl Local Working Group Chair Skamania, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum Counties
FY 2012 EQIP $498,211 Southwest LWG
Southwest LWG 2012 Applications vs. Contracts
FY 12 - Dollars per County Southwest LWG
Southwest LWG 2012 Historically Underserved
2012 Initiatives Southwest LWG
2012 Initiatives Southwest LWG
2013 LWG Funding Priorities Southwest LWG
Palouse Local Working Group Rich Edlund District Conservationist Larry Cochran Palouse Local Work Group Chair Spokane and Whitman Counties
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)
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.
West Palouse Local Working Group Ann Swannack District Conservationist Tom Schultz Local Working Group Chair Lincoln and Adams Counties
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
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%)
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 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.
Big Bend Local Working Group Lolo Garza Acting District Conservationist John Preston Local Working Group Chair Grant, Kittitas, Adams Counties
Big Bend LWG 2012 overview 6 Pools-Locally led • Dryland (5%) • 2 applications – 0 funded • $0 • Livestock (15%) • 5 applications – 4 funded • $155,000
Big Bend LWG 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 county • 24 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 obligated • 2879 acres contracted/treated
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 app@ $120 K) • Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 apps @ 9,000 value)
BigBendLWG Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary 104 applications approximate value of $3.2 million
Puget Sound Local Working Group Paul Rogers District Conservationist Eric Nelson Local Working Group Chair King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap Counties
Puget Sound LWG 2012 Fund Overview
Puget Sound LWG 2012 Other Plans
Puget Sound LWG 2013 Funding Pools
Puget Sound LWG 2013 Fund Overview