STAC – LWG Meeting

“Easel” Notes

February 3, 2012 – Wenatchee, WA

Opening Remarks – Roylene Rides at the Door:

  • Build the budget request from Washington State from ground up
  • Tied to land use and resource concerns and build from estimates of treatment on resource concerns made by LWG
  • Position ourselves for success
  • Streamlining initiative – looking at ways to reduce workload and administration of programs
  • Asking each LWG for treatment acres on resource concerns and geographic areas
  • Partnership agreements for 30 FTE
  • Energy conservation has high potential
  • Absolutely not building the estimates from the state office level

Important Role of LWGs, Relation to STAC and STC:

See presentation slides

Local Work Group Reports of Accomplishment & Identified Needs:

See presentation slides for information on past accomplishments, relation to LWG recommendations, present signups, and issues needed addressed

State Resource Assessment Use:

See presentation slides and matrix

  • Helps NRCS and STAC focus on resource needs
  • Priority resource concerns by land use identified by LWGs

Harold Crose noted that 5 questions are important in use of the resource assessment

  • How much land use acres in the LWG Area?
  • What is the condition of the resource?
  • What practices/systems are needed to address the condition of the resource?
  • How much would it cost?
  • Are producers ready, willing, and able

Recommended & Required Changes Effecting LWGs:

See presentation slides

  • LWG to input on:

Where problems are

Ranking questions

Supporting practices

Hold downs for incentive payment

Treatment acres goals by land use & geographic area (see matrix

Options for Program Application Ranking:

  • Option 1: 24 statewide funding pools with statewide ranking
  • Option 2: 58 area funding pools with area ranking
  • Option 3: no change (186 funding pools)
  • Option 4: state funding pools for beginning farmers and socially disadvantage – leave rest of system as is (64 – 72 funding pools)

(None of the above options include the special initiatives)

Action Item:LWGs to send recommendations to Sherre Copeland by March 27

Questions & Discussion:

  1. Location of resource concern scope and scale of estimates? To the HUC 12 level
  2. Resource Condition Mapping and estimated treatment acres per each county or LWG? Either is OK – aggregate at LWG level by HUC 12
  3. Funds available for districts to do estimates within LWG? NRCS has Contributing Agreement with Conservation Commission for task orders with Districts
  4. East area specific land use and resource concerns only or use statewide land use and resource concerns? Undecided – make recommendation
  5. What if you opened up whole set of land uses and resource concern listing to the LWG – then look at where they are and not box-in – see where they fall out on treatment by land use and resource concern? Recommendation received.
  6. Confirmation of what will be the allocation of funding – by administrative area for land use and resource concern estimated treatment? Depends on option for ranking – state will be state only allocation; area would be area level allocation based on treatment levels and sort at area level; team level would be team level allocation and team and area sort
  7. Will not be allocating funds by LWG area? Willnot basing allocation on dollars but on treatments and cost to treat at LWG level, even state level allocation will be based on treatment estimates via PRS system.
  8. When can we revise our entries into State Resource Assessment? Annually
  9. Resource concerns and sub-resource concerns and related ranking questions by LWG? Efforts will be made to take similar ranking questions and consolidate – eg 37 questions currently for cropland…could these be consolidated
  10. How will the pools be changed? Pools can be created for land use

National Initiatives & Farm Bill Programs Overview:

See presentation slides

  • Several national initiatives favor WA State including; energy conservation, organic, hoop houses, sage grouse, and potentially the NW Salmon Initiative

Recommendations to STAC & STC: (brainstorm activity – groups of 3-4 people)

  • Groups discussing and have input into the funding needs to be retained – the incentive for participation
  • Coordination – the LWG becomes the coordinating center – use similar words for what we are doing – use LWG to pull the language together
  • When you start identifying ready, willing and able (producers) before funding is identified, if no funding or implementation occurs – lose agency credibility
  • Suggest run with existing system with a revision to state pool for new producers and one state pool for historically underserved – allow historically underserved to participate in local and state pools
  • NC LWG feels comfortable with just 24 accounts – option 1- LWG concentrates on state resource assessment, resource concerns, acres of treatment, practices available
  • Wow, a lot of initiatives and the field staff is trying to catch up with all the details and workload
  • Consolidation is a reasonable thing to do for administrative benefits and related impact on resource concerns
  • If we have to change from current system, take an intermediate step, state pool for underserved and new, or area system…try out for a year and compare to a state pool concept (xx) with area managing the funds to maintain the integrity of LWG and program results
  • LWG data by acres will be important to build the budget request
  • Any applications in the existing SRA priorities would float to the top

Calendaring &Timeline:

  • LWGs hold meetings between now and March 27
  • Recommendations on four options to Sherre on funding pool options by March 27
  • LWG packages through DCS to state office by April 17

1 | Page