State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off For Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year January 22, 2013 Washington

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 Group Presentations 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

Snake River LWG

2012 EQIP Applications = 125 for $4,706, 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, Locally Led Applications Obligated = $780, 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 UseResource Concern% Allocation CropSoil Erosion25 CropInefficient Use of Irrigation Water25 PastureExcess Nutrients5 Forest Undesirable Plant25 RangeProductivity&Health OtherWQ Excess Pathogens20 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 Snake River LWG

South Central Local Working Group Amanda Ettestad District Conservationist Ron Juris Local Working Group Chair Benton, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties

EQIP Locally Led funding for 2012 Total Dollars Obligated: $1,206, Irrigated Cropland: $453,150 obligated on 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 acres Integrated Pest Management: $76,429 obligated on acres New Technology: $19,845 obligated on 1682 acres South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP CountyApplicationsFundedTotal Estimated Application Costs Total Dollars Funded Additional Dollars to Fund Remaining Applications Benton3411$1,104,895$337,019$767,876 Klickitat2313$657,836$385,681$272,155 Yakima6312$2,082,491$484,222$1,598,269 Total12036$3,845,222$1,206,922$2,638,300 South Central LWG

Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012 South Central LWG CountyIrrigated Crop Dryland Crop Integrated Pest Management Forest Health Grazing Land- Livestock New Technology Apps/ Contracts AppContAppContAppContAppContAppContAppCont Benton Klickitat Yakima Total

CountyIrrigated Crop Dryland Crop Integrated Pest Management Forest Health Grazing Land- Livestock New Technology 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 $72,408$313,273$0 Yakima App$1,933,493$75,000$65,330$0 $8,669 Cont$426,066$0$58,156$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 CountyCropForestOther Ag Land PastureRange Insufficient Water- Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water Quality Degradation-Pesticides, Nutrients, Sediments Soil Erosion-Sheet, Rill & Wind Degraded Plant Condition- Wildfire Hazard Water Quality Degradation-Excessive Sediment Water Quality Degradation-Excess Nutrients in Surface & Groundwater 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 Klickitat Yakima2622 Total

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 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

2012 Applications vs. Contracts Southwest LWG

FY 12 - Dollars per County Southwest LWG

2012 Historically Underserved Southwest LWG

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

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 Swannack District Conservationist Tom Schultz Local Working Group Chair Lincoln and Adams Counties

Adams and Lincoln counties FY1282 contracts for $2,183, on 96,390.2 acres 2012 Funding =$676,144 $583,997 5 Pools: Contracts Confined Animal (10%) 00 Cropland – Dry Land (30%)9$ 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, Obligated =$1,599,611 On-Farm Energy-Practices12$1,484,345 On-Farm Energy-Activity Plans 34$ 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 Applications58 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 West Palouse LWG

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

6 Pools-Locally led Dryland (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 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 1. Water-Inefficient use of Irr. Water ( 38 $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 $525 K value)  Forest 1. Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard (18 K value) 2. WQ Degr. –sediment in surface waters ( 0 apps.) 3. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation (11 $35 K value)  Pasture 1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health( 2 36,500)  Range 1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health ( 5 $80 K ) 2. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation ( 0 apps)  Other Lands 1. WQ Degr. – Pathogens & Chemicals from organic sources (1 $120 K) 2. Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 9,000 value) Big Bend LWG

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

Fund Pool# of Plans$$ Amount in 2012 Fund Pool $$ Amount Obligated Cropland4 $75,443$135,635 Confined Animal 1 $150,887$18,769 Multi Land Use 6 $330,177$441,117 Forestry18 $197,926$209, Fund Overview Puget Sound LWG

2012 Other Plans Puget Sound LWG

2013 Funding Pools Puget Sound LWG

Fund Pool$$ Amount in 2013 Fund Pool # of Applications PST Funds # of HU Applications State Funds Cropland$123, Other Ag Lands $49, Pasture$221, Forestry$98, Fund Overview Puget Sound LWG

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 $ 1,000,000  Kalispel 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 LUBF$158,887  Range BF$99,474  Forest BF$31,746  Forest$134,180 TOTAL $751,118 Northeast LWG

North Central Local Working Group Amy Hendershot Acting District Conservationist John McLean Local Working Group Chair Okanogan, Chelan, and Douglas Counties

Fiscal Year 2012 EQIP (Locally Led Only) Dollars Obligated: $453, Funding Pools = 5 1. Forestland: $127, on acres 2. Grazingland: $191, on 7,429 acres 3. Cropland-Dryland: $18, on 1,630 acres 4. Cropland-Irrigated Hay/Pasture: $84, on 85 acres 5. Cropland-Other: $30, 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 LWG Applications for financial assistance and funding success for FY 2012 CountyApplications Applications Funded Percentage Applicants Funded per County (%) Total Funds Percentage of Total Team Funds (%) Average Costshare Per Contract Total Estimated Value of Applications Chelan7457$90,30620$22,576.50$147, Douglas18424$35, $8,915.14$396, Okanogan371438$327, $23,375.40$914, TOTAL $453, $1,458,008.80

Number of applications/contracts by land use category by County for FY 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 Chelan2/22/10/01/02/1 Douglas2/29/04/21/0 Okanogan7/67/41/018/23/2 TOTAL11/1018/55/219/25/3

Dollars by land use/resource concern category by County for FY North Central LWG County Forestland Funds Grazing Land Funds Dry Cropland Funds Irrigated Hay/Pasture Funds Cropland- Other Funds Chelan$34,198$46,358$0 $9,750 Douglas$16,914$0$18,746.57$84,669$0 Okanogan$76,380.12$145,031.42$0 $21,175 TOTAL$127,492.12$191,389.42$18,746.57$84,669$30,925

Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary Total Initial Fund Allocation: $ ???,??? Funding Pools = 5 1. Soil Erosion (Sheet, Rill, & Wind) on 35% 2. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant Productivity & Health) on 25% 3. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant Productivity & Health) on 20% 4. Insufficient Water (Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water) on 15% 5. Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife (Habitat Degradation) for 5% North Central LWG

Applications for financial assistance and funding success for FY CountyApplications Applications Funded Percentage Applicants Funded Per Co.% Total Funds Percentage of Total Team Funds Average Costshare Per Contract Total Estimated Value of Applications Chelan5?????$300,200 Douglas16?????$528,259 Okanogan54?????$1,089,820 TOTAL75?????$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 Chelan0/?3/?0/?1/? Douglas2/? 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 Sunseri District Conservationist Larry Davis Local 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 94$55,980 Multi-Land Use – Small Farm 84$66,050 Multi-Land Use – 412$362,942 Forestry 2520$227,932 TOTAL8330$712,904 Northwest LWG

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

Northwest LWG

FY 2013 Planned percentage of funds per land use 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 AC Jeff Harlow, Programs Alan 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 LWGs For FY 14 Doug Allen, Central AC Ed Teel, East AC

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

Questions

Workshop