Local Work Group Reports Accomplishment & Identified Needs

Karla Ware, District Conservationist Andy Kroiss, Local Working Group Chair Northeast Local Working Group Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties

2013 EQIP Data Funding Pools Initial Allocation Cropland 40% Range land 25% Forest land 35% Northeast LWG

Funding Pools No. Applications Cropland 14 Range land 17 Forest land 31 Pasture 16 High Tunnel/Energy 7 Wild Fire SI 1 Storm Damage SI 2 Organic & Transitional 5 Energy 1 Energy Caps 2  Colville Confed. Tribes 11  Kalispel Tribe 2  Spokane Tribe 0 Northeast LWG

2014 Contracts  Spokane Tribe $ 0.0  Kalispell Tribe$ 0.0  Colville Tribe$230,189  Crop–Irrigation-Organic $9,  Range $38,673  Forest$114,367  Tunnels $32,200  Energy Cap $2,031  Energy Plan $9,582  Forestry Cap $1,354 TOTAL $568,921 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…2014 has shown to be much better with our new CR specialist. Northeast LWG

North Central Team Local Working Group LWG Chair: John McLean, Foster Creek CD NCT District Conservationist: Sarah Troutman-Zahn

NORTH CENTRAL TEAM LOCAL WORKING GROUP $ Obligated - FY 14 ◦ CSP $3,048,736 (14 contracts/30 applications) ◦ EQIP $1,334,076  LWG $369, contracts/68 eligible applications  SGI $399,551 (8 contracts)  CCPI $269,190(5 contracts)  Other: Energy Initiative, High Tunnels, Wildfire, Tribal (47 contracts) Fund pools – FY 15 ◦ 40% Cropland – Soil Erosion – 22 Apps ◦ 30% Forest – Wildfire Hazard – 11 eligible apps ◦ 20% Range – Degraded Plant Condition – 9 apps ◦ 10% Other – Water Quality (CAFO) – 0 apps ◦ 0% Cropland – Inefficient Irrigation Use – 10 apps

NORTH CENTRAL TEAM LOCAL WORK GROUP  FY 15 Special Initiative Applications Storm Damage Initiative – 43 applications Sage Grouse Initiative – 6 applications High Tunnel Initiative – 14 applications Energy Initiative – 17 applications (all medium priority except one) Wildfire Initiative – 16 applications Statewide BF/SD pools – 16 applications  Barriers Natural Disasters Eligibility Deadlines/Funding Cycles Lack of Staff!!  Successes Conservation District support NRCS State Support A break from CRP!!

Northwest Local Working Group Tony Sunseri District Conservationist Carolyn Kelly Local Working Group Chair Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, San Juan, Clallam and Jefferson Counties

FY 2014 Planned percentage of LWG EQIP funds per land use Northwest LWG

Regular EQIP 2014 Fund Pool# of Applications # of Contracts Funded $$ Obligated in 2014 EQIP Water Quality Degradation 302$209,949 Degraded Plant Condition 167$198,509 Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife 104$208,416 Insufficient Water 90*$0 TOTAL6513$616,874 Northwest LWG *No applications screened high in this pool

2014 LWG EQIP Funds Obligated Northwest LWG

County# of Applications# of Contracts Funded $$ Obligated in 2014 EQIP Clallam107$138,928 Jefferson112$143,165 Island187$120,524 San Juan168$20,077 Skagit225$30,942 Snohomish196$128,003 Whatcom5612$1,618,321 TOTALS15247$2,199,961 NRCS funding including Initiatives 2014

Northwest LWG Total NWT Allocation $2,199,961

West Palouse Local Working Group Ann Swannack District Conservationist Mike Carstensen Local Work Group Chair Lincoln and Adams Counties

LWG 7 Soil Erosion (30%) $169, Water Ineffective Use (25%)$ 75, Forest (10%) $ 35, Grazing Land (25%) $135,230 5 OBLIGATED$415,53120 State Initiatives – ENERGY CAPs$ 93,92636 ENERGY CAPs$ 93,92636 ENERGY Practices$1,336,583 7 ENERGY Practices$1,336,583 7 Sage Grouse Initiative$ 183,509 2 Sage Grouse Initiative$ 183,509 2 TOTAL OBLIGATED $ 2, West Palouse 2014

2011 WPT Funding =$857,694 $812, WPT Funding =$676,144 $583, WPT Funding =$281,995 $351, WPT Funding=$507, ,531 $ 415,531 West Palouse LWG

2011 State Initiatives EQIP $ 41, State Initiatives EQIP $1,599, State Initiatives EQIP $1,817, State Initiatives EQIP: $1,614,018

2015 WPT EQIP Funding $=? 4 Pools: 45 APPLICATIONS Soil Erosion (30%)23 Water - Ineffective Use (25%) 7 Degrad. Plant - Forest (10%) 3 Degrad. Plant – Range (25%) State Initiatives EQIP 43 applications On-Farm Energy-Practices37 On-Farm Energy-Activity Plans 5 Seasonal High Tunnel 1 West Palouse LWG

FY 14 PROGRAM RESULTS AND FY 15 APPLICATION SUMMARY Big Bend Team Local Working Group BBT DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST - ERIN KACZMARCZYK LOCAL WORKING GROUP CHAIR – LOWELL BISCHOFF

Big Bend Team Local Working Group $ obligated - FY 14  Total 2014  CSP 2014 $55,000 (1 contract / 7 apps)  EQIP 2014 $978,000 (LWG- $684,000) ( 47 contracts / 94 apps) Other: Energy Initiative, High Tunnel, Organic/Transition, SGI, ($416,000) Energy Caps (21 contracts / 21 apps), Energy Imp. (2 contracts / 27 apps) High Tunnel, Organic/Transition ( 1 app / 1 contract) Sage Grouse Initiative ( 3 apps / 1 contract) Fund pools – FY15  Cropland- Inefficient Use of Irr. Water  (24 apps/ ? Funded)  Cropland- Sediment in Surface Waters  (6 apps/ ? Funded)  Cropland- Soil Erosion- Sheet, Rill & Wind  (9 app/ ? Funded)  Cropland- Pesticides in Surf. & Ground Water  (4 apps/ ? Funded)  Forest- Degraded Plant Condition-Undesirable Plant Prod. & Health  (9 apps/ ? Funded)

Big Bend Local Working Group Fund pools – FY15  Range- Degraded Plant Condition- Plant Prod., Health & Vigor  (3 app/ ? Funded_  Other- Water Quality Degradation- Pathogens & Chem. from Organic Sources  (0 apps)  Other- Fish & Wildlife- Habitat Degradation  (2 app/ ? Funded)  Pasture- Degraded Plant Condition- Plant Prod., Health & Vigor  (0 apps) Special projects/initiatives  High Tunnel Initiative – 4 apps  Energy Initiative- 1 apps (CAPs), 20 apps (implementation)  Organic/Transition – 1 app  Sage Grouse Initiative – 1 app  Historically Underserved – 7 apps  Wildfire Initiative – 2 apps Barriers  National Funding Cycles  Software  Competing Deadlines Successes  Strong partnerships with CD’s, marrying our programs; CD Task Orders, Energy Outreach- GCCD

Puget Sound Team (PST) Local Working Group Amy Hendershot District Conservationist Kristi McClelland Local Working Group Chair King, Kitsap, Mason, Pierce, & Thurston Counties

processed 149 applications worth ~$1.15 million. wrote 44 contracts with producers and forest landowners. funded approximately 30% of the number of applications received. obligated $632, through individual contracts with producers and forest landowners to address resource concerns. enrolled 2,200 acres into conservation programs. For FY14, the PST…

2014 Total Dollars Contracted by Fund Code For FY14, PST obligated $632, total

2014 LWG Fund Obligation by $ and Land Use FY14 Puget Sound LWG Obligated $555,721.69

2014 Fund Pools and Dollars Obligated by Land Use & Resource Concern FY14 Puget Sound LWG Obligated $555,721.69

2014 LWG Priorities

 Barriers:  15 fund pools were extremely hard to manage and keep straight  Fund pools don’t allow addressing multiple resource concerns  Applicants submitted multiple applications if they wanted multiple resource concerns addressed: this resulted in duplication of effort for staff  Geographic region of PST is extremely diverse which requires multiple fund pools.

 Successes: We’re still getting good conservation on the ground. Some before & afters…

Palouse Local Working Group Rich Edlund District Conservationist Larry Cochran Palouse Local Work Group Chair Spokane and Whitman Counties

2014 EQIP Fund Pool/Resource Concerns CROPLAND-Soil Erosion- Sheet, Rill and Wind(Goal 65% of funds). ACTUAL obligated= 62% CROPLAND-Irrigation Water Efficiency (Goal 5% of funds). ACTUAL obligated =4% FOREST-Plant Condition-Plant Prod. and Health (Goal 15% of funds) ACTUAL obligated = 16% FOREST- Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(Goal 3% of funds) ACTUAL obligated =0% RANGELAND-Plant Condition-Plant Prod. and Health(Goal 5% of funds) ACTUAL obligated =13% RANGELAND- Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(Goal 3 % of funds) ACTUAL obligated =0% PASTURE- Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat( Goal 2% of funds) ACTUAL obligated = 0% OTHER LAND-Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(Goal 2% of funds) ACTUAL obligated =0% Palouse LWG

APPLICATIONS FY 15: Crop-Soil Erosion- Sheet, Rill and Wind (29% of Applications). Crop-Irrigation Water Efficiency (6% of Applications). Forest-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health (23% of Applications) Forest-Inadeqate Fish and Wildlife Habitat (0% of Applications) Rangeland-Plant Condition-Plant Productivity and Health (0% of Applications) Rangeland—Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat (0% of Applications) Pasture-Water Quality- Pathogen and Chem. From Organics (6% of Applications) Pasture-Water Quality- Excess Sediment production (0% of Applications) Other Land- Water Quality- Path. and Chem. From Organics (3% of Applications) Other Land-Inadequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat(1% of Applications) Palouse LWG

BARRIERS: Lack of applicants for some Resource Concerns. Other priorities decrease staff time to determine eligibility & Screen & Rank. Field conditions prevent quality planning. BACKLOG : Energy & Seasonal High Tunnel applications for land treatment waiting to be funded. Palouse LWG

South Central Local Working Group Yakima, Benton and Klickitat Counties Corey Bonsen Acting District Conservationist Michael Crowder LWG Chair

SOUTH CENTRAL LOCAL WORK GROUP Funds obligated in FY 14  CSP $79,500  EQIP $2,725,677  LWG $855,65114 Contracts48 Apps  HU Groups $332,2338 Contracts29 Apps  Tribal $122,7892 Contracts9 Apps  High Tunnels $00 Contracts8 Apps  CAPS $6,6823 Contracts5 Apps  Air Quality $1,405,8978 Contracts8 Apps

SOUTH CENTRAL LOCAL WORK GROUP Fund pools – FY 15  Crop – Insufficient Water/Inefficient Use 25%  Pasture – Insufficient Water/Inefficient Use 5%  Crop – Soil Erosion/Sheet,Wind,Rill 30%  Forest – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 5%  Range – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 5%  Pasture – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 3%  Crop – Water Quality Degradation – Excess Nutrients in Water 5%  Other –Water Quality Degradation – Excess Nutrients in Water 10%  Crop – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation 4%  Range – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation 4%  Other – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation 4%

SOUTH CENTRAL LOCAL WORK GROUP Applications– FY 15  Crop – Insufficient Water/Inefficient Use 31  Pasture – Insufficient Water/Inefficient Use 2  Crop – Soil Erosion/Sheet,Wind,Rill 19  Forest – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 1  Range – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 6  Pasture – Degraded Plant Condition/Plant Productivity 0  Crop – Water Quality Degradation – Excess Nutrients in Water 0  Other –Water Quality Degradation – Excess Nutrients in Water 0  Crop – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation0  Range – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation0  Other – Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife – Habitat Degradation2  Tribal 15  High Tunnel 5  Energy 19  Air Quality 8  Sage Grouse 1

Special projects/initiatives  WRP Restoration Contracts Challenges  Deadlines  Down Staff  Section 106 Compliance Successes  Air Quality Initiative SOUTH CENTRAL LOCAL WORK GROUP

Southwest Team Local Work Group Lisa Schuchman Acting District Conservationist Lynn Engdahl Local Working Group Chair Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania and Wahkiakum Counties

 Improved fund pool management compared to Continue land use based fund pools.  Improve participation in outreach by LWG members.  Livestock applications?

LWG Chair - Mark Nielson Snake River Team DC – Ed Teel Snake River Team

Snake River Team Contract Totals  In 2015, 35 CSP Contracts/107, 295 Contracted Acres/ Obligation Amount = $1,397,  In 2014, 51 CSP & EQIP Contracts Contracted Acres = 43,864  CSP Obligation Amount = $1,371,  EQIP Obligation Amount = $ 812,  In 2015, 35 CSP Contracts/107, 295 Contracted Acres/ Obligation Amount = $1,397,  In 2014, 51 CSP & EQIP Contracts Contracted Acres = 43,864  CSP Obligation Amount = $1,371,  EQIP Obligation Amount = $ 812,216.00

Snake River Team 2014 Funding Pools & Obligated Funding: Locally Led EQIP = 18 Contracts/$ 638, FUNDING POOLS:  4 - Forest land - $ 40, (7%)  6 - Grazing land - $ 249, (39%)  Other, Confined Livestock - 0  4 - Cropland, Irrigated - $ 255, (40%)  3 - Cropland, Dry - $ 72, (11%)  1 - Pasture - $19, (3%) 2014 Funding Pools & Obligated Funding: Locally Led EQIP = 18 Contracts/$ 638, FUNDING POOLS:  4 - Forest land - $ 40, (7%)  6 - Grazing land - $ 249, (39%)  Other, Confined Livestock - 0  4 - Cropland, Irrigated - $ 255, (40%)  3 - Cropland, Dry - $ 72, (11%)  1 - Pasture - $19, (3%)

Snake River Team 2015 LWG objectives are to reduce livestock impacts, improve riparian health and function, reduce excessive nutrients in surface and ground water, improve plant condition, productivity, and health. Reduce upland soil erosion from cropland, and increase irrigation efficiency.

Snake River Team Priority Resource Concerns Allocations cropforest farmstead otherpasturerange total % % % % % % 1 EXCESS/INSUFFICIENT WATER - Inefficient use of irrigation water 35 2 SOIL EROSION - Sheet, rill, and wind erosion 20 3 DEGRADED PLANT CONDITION - Undesirable plant productivity and health WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION - Excess nutrients in surface and ground waters 20

Snake River Team 2015 LWG Applications:  Degraded Plant Condition Productivity & Health – Forest 3 applications/ Range 8 applications/ Pasture 1 application  Excess Nutrients in Surface & Groundwater – Other (farmstead) 2 applications  Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water – Cropland – 22 applications  Soil Erosion Sheet, Rill, and Wind Erosion – Cropland – 19 applications 2015 LWG Applications:  Degraded Plant Condition Productivity & Health – Forest 3 applications/ Range 8 applications/ Pasture 1 application  Excess Nutrients in Surface & Groundwater – Other (farmstead) 2 applications  Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water – Cropland – 22 applications  Soil Erosion Sheet, Rill, and Wind Erosion – Cropland – 19 applications

Snake River Team 2015 Application Summary  Total Applications = 55  Total Estimated Cost = $2,092,  Total Acres = 37,712  With projected funding, the Snake River Team expects 25% of the applications to be funded Application Summary  Total Applications = 55  Total Estimated Cost = $2,092,  Total Acres = 37,712  With projected funding, the Snake River Team expects 25% of the applications to be funded.