1 / 85

State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off

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.

rajah-merrill
Télécharger la présentation

State Technical Advisory Committee’s Local Working Group Kick Off

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Welcome Roylene Rides at the Door, State Conservationist Opening Remarks

  3. Agenda Sherre Copeland Partnership Liaison

  4. 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

  5. Issues Affecting NRCS in FY 13 Farm Bill Extension Continuing Resolution Sequestration Payment Scenarios 329 Practice Standard Variance

  6. Local Working GroupPresentations 10 Teams – 10 Local Working Groups Local Working Group Chair District Conservationist 5 minutes each

  7. 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

  8. Snake River LWG

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

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

  14. 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

  15. South Central LWG Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP

  16. South Central LWG Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012

  17. South Central LWG Application Estimates compared to Contract Obligation Per Funding Pool for 2012

  18. 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%

  19. South Central LWG Applications per Locally Led Funding Pools for 2013

  20. 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.

  21. Southwest Local Working Group Nick Vira District Conservationist Lynn Engdahl Local Working Group Chair Skamania, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum Counties

  22. FY 2012 EQIP $498,211 Southwest LWG

  23. Southwest LWG 2012 Applications vs. Contracts

  24. FY 12 - Dollars per County Southwest LWG

  25. Southwest LWG 2012 Historically Underserved

  26. 2012 Initiatives Southwest LWG

  27. 2012 Initiatives Southwest LWG

  28. 2013 LWG Funding Priorities Southwest LWG

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

  30. 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)

  31. 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………

  32. 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)

  33. 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.

  34. West Palouse Local Working Group Ann Swannack District Conservationist Tom Schultz Local Working Group Chair Lincoln and Adams Counties

  35. 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

  36. 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%)

  37. 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

  38. 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.

  39. Big Bend Local Working Group Lolo Garza Acting District Conservationist John Preston Local Working Group Chair Grant, Kittitas, Adams Counties

  40. Big Bend LWG 2012 overview 6 Pools-Locally led • Dryland (5%) • 2 applications – 0 funded • $0 • Livestock (15%) • 5 applications – 4 funded • $155,000

  41. Big Bend LWG Grant, Kittitas and Adams Counties • Forestry (7%) • 10 applications – 4 funded • $112,000 • Orchard/Vineyard(5%) • 1 application – 0 funded

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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)

  45. BigBendLWG Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary 104 applications approximate value of $3.2 million

  46. Puget Sound Local Working Group Paul Rogers District Conservationist Eric Nelson Local Working Group Chair King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap Counties

  47. Puget Sound LWG 2012 Fund Overview

  48. Puget Sound LWG 2012 Other Plans

  49. Puget Sound LWG 2013 Funding Pools

  50. Puget Sound LWG 2013 Fund Overview

More Related