State Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Spokane, Washington
November 22, 2011
Attendees
Sherre Copeland, NRCS Larry Johnson, NRCS Lee Hemmer, Foster Creek CD
Lacey Gaw, NRCS Bonda Habets, NRCS Larry Davis, Northwest LWG
Don Larsen, WDFW Larry Brewer, WSCC Steve Stinson, WA Farm Forestry
Ray Abriel, US FS Ray Ledgerwood, WSCC Carol Smith, WSCC
Kirk Cook, WA Dept Ag Larry Cochrane, Palouse LWG Ty Meyer, Spokane County CD
Kurt Merg, WDFW Carri Gaines, NRCS Aaron Everett, DNR
Chris Herron, Franklin CD Ron Scheibe, Asotin CD Nicole Berg-Tobin, Wheat Growers
Georgia Sormun, NRCS David Lundgren, Lincoln CD Steve Fuseal
Opening Remarks
At the beginning of the meeting we did not have visual, so Sherre reviewed today’s agenda.
Changes in the EQIP Program Manual – Lacey Gaw
Lacey provided information on the recent changes to the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) manual.
Grammar and Format Change
ü Made more user-friendly
ü Expands guidance on information and outreach
Agricultural Producer
ü Better defines what an agricultural producer is
§ Must have signature authority
§ Be engaged/have interest in ag production or forestry management. This may be documented in a few ways. Records from FSA that shows person as owner or operator; documentation of the production of $1,000 in ag. products; documentation supplemented by state policy.
Organic Production Requirements
ü EQIP Organic Initiative includes: certified organic, transitioning to organic, exempt operations.
ü All participants are required to have an organic system plan (OSP).
§ Certified Organic – Before a contract can be approved, landowner must provide a copy of their OSP. Certification needs to be maintained for life of the contract.
§ Transitioning to Organic – Must self-certify that they agree to develop and implement an OSP. Need to provide contact information of their USDA accredited organic certifying agent. NRCS will annually review that implemented practices are consistent with OSP.
§ Exempt Operations – If producer sells less than $5,000 per year they are exempt from organic certification. Exempt landowners are eligible to participate in EQIP. Must meet other organic initiative requirements.
Lacey highly encourages all local work groups to take a look at the manual in order to get a better understanding of the program. Any comments should be sent to her.
Question – What does this mean for the hobby farmers?
Answer – This topic will be discussed at our next QLT meeting (November, 2011)
Question – How will this effect landowners with 3-4 acres with animals?
Answer – They will need to show ownership to FSA
Comment – NRCS usually doesn’t work with small farms. If local work groups show concerns, we may be able to use CTA dollars.
Comment – With FSAs budget being cut, they may not want to work with small farmers.
Comment – Roylene Rides at the Door is requesting STAC input on hobby farmers.
Comment – Local work group flexibility has diminished. Feel organic shouldn’t be its own initiative. It should be incorporated with other programs.
Comment – Local work groups could invite organic producers to be members of the group.
Comment – Each year, it seems that local work group input/decision making has been reduced.
Comment – Washington is one of the few states that take local work groups seriously. Since most states didn’t, national didn’t take local work groups seriously.
Question – Is there a number on dollars for the general fund and EQIP?
Answer – No allocations yet
ACTION – Sherre Copeland – will put some figures together and share this information
ACTION REQUESTED FROM THE STAC – Sherre Copeland would like input from the STAC on what role they would like to play.
Aquaculture
ü New policy clarifies how NRCS handles aquaculture production regarding land eligibility and conservation practices and planning. It clarifies the meaning of ineligible practices.
Energy
ü Clarifies ineligible practices, eligible costs and ineligible costs.
ACTION – Sherre Copeland – Provide hard copies of this manual to the local work groups (ten copies).
Waste Storage Facility Evaluation Tool – Larry Johnson
Larry gave a presentation on the status of the Waste Storage Pond (WSP) evaluation tool. He also talked about the cooperative agreement with the Department of Agriculture. The goal of this tool is to know the risk assessment in order to target funding.
Background
There has been concern regarding the performance of existing waste storage ponds. We have had some documented breaches that affected surface and ground water. We have seen an increase in FOIA requests on dairy farms. Also, NRCS has become involved with existing WSPs that we may or may not have been involved with when they were designed and installed. The average “life” of a WSP is 15 years. If WSP is older than 15 years, there is no supervision by NRCS.
NRCS feels that it is important to have a policy and evaluation procedure in place in order to determine the risk assessment for contamination from existing WSPs. This will enable NRCS to ensure that cost-share for conservation practices addresses resource concerns.
A discussion with the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) took place regarding standardizing inventory procedures for WSPs across the state. The Puget Sound Basin was identified as a common area of interest. Data collection forms were developed for standardization of inspections that WSDA conducts. NRCS and WSDA entered into an agreement to develop a Technical Note, “Existing Waste Storage Pond Evaluation Tool. Data will be collected for the estimated 514 WSPs in Puget Sound. An agreement was signed on August 31, 2011 and will expire one year from that date. NRCS will maintain risk assessments in-house so requests for information will need to fit FOIA guidelines.
Several products will come from this agreement:
ü Tech note for assessing risk to surface/ground water for existing WSPs
ü Inventory of current configuration and modifications of WSPs in Puget Sound Basin
ü GIS mapping layer of inventoried WSPs
ü Risk assessment for all WSPs in Puget Sound Basin
ü List of WSPs that could be decommissioned
ü Policy for providing funds toward dairy operations.
This partnership opportunity will provide the following:
ü Standardized process for inventorying WSPs
ü Leverage activities to avoid duplication of efforts
ü Provide peer review of NRCS technical notes
Comment – I see the potential of Puget Sound Basin owners not wanting NRCS doing a risk assessment on their facility.
2012 Payment Schedule and Regionally-Developed Scenarios – Bonda Habets
Previously, states developed payment schedules and scenarios. It has now been mandated that this will be done regionally by the Tech Centers. For 2012 there will be 15 practices with each having a maximum of eight scenarios. By FY 2013, states will have no control over payment schedules. She sees technical notes also being done on a regional level.
Comment – Agency must have better documentation of where dollars are spent.
Comment – Another example of local input being taken away. I don’t feel that this is good accountability.
Comment – Our prices are accurate and accountable. Our state is paying the price for other states.
Comment – Agency is trying to regionalize so there is no duplication of work between states.
Question – On EQIP sign-up for 2012, how will people know costs, etc?
Answer – It is suggested that people apply without all the information, knowing that they can withdraw their application at any time before it is signed.
Question – If the cost of a project goes up, can an adjustment be made (especially with cultural resources)?
Answer – No
Question – Is there any way to tie the cost of a cultural resources review to the cost of the contract?
Answer – No, the money is set aside for that year. You can’t get more money on the contract.
Comment – Maybe the sequence of events should be done differently to be more close to when cultural resource review will be done and actual practice installation begins.
Question – What has been done to address states that aren’t doing things right?
Answer – I think the intentions of each state are good. National wants to take some workload off individual states – maybe regionally.
Question – Are there more practices on the horizon? Local offices are saying no cost yet for direct seed.
Answer – The fifteen have been regionalized on FY 12 contract. The remainder will be done for FY13.
Forestry Subcommittee – Bonda Habets and Aaron Everett
A discussion was held on whether the STAC should create a forestry subcommittee. The purpose of this committee would be to bring information on forestry issues and recommendations to the STAC. Information gathered by this committee could also be shared with other committees. Oregon has a forestry subcommittee and it is working well.
Question– There is a Forestry Stewardship Committee (FSC). Who serves on it?
Answer – NRCS, USFS, WDFW, DOE, WSU, WSCC, conservation districts, tribal representatives. It has been in existence since 1990. It works similar to the STAC Steve Gibbs is the lead.
Question – Who does the FSC report to and/or advise?
Answer – To Aaron Everett, Dept of Natural Resources
Question – Are there other subcommittees to the STAC
Answer – Local Work Groups and Tech Standards Review
Question – Historically, has there been a need for a forestry subcommittee
Answer – Yes, there has been an upsurge in the last 3 – 4 years.
Comment – I like the idea of a formal subcommittee
Comment – I don’t see the advantage of spending time, money on a subcommittee
Comment – We try to ensure that forestry issues are addressed at the LWG level
Comment – Ask Forestry Stewardship Committee to be involved with the STAC
ACTION FOR SHERRE – Bring the idea of a forestry subcommittee to Roylene for input.
Draft Memorandum of Understanding – Forestry – Bonda Habets
In order to improve technical and financial assistance to provide better service to forest landowners, DNR, NRCS, USFS, WACD, WACC and WSU Extension have been working on a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Bonda feels that the MOU is now ready for signature. Once signed, there will be a meeting yearly to decide what projects to work on and a plan of action will be prepared.
Question – Was MOU distributed to the STAC?
Answer – No
ACTION FOR SHERRE – Post MOU on NRCS website
Comment – MOUs formalize partnerships. They don’t stop collaboration with all partners.
Comment – We need to work together. MOUs are an opportunity to do this, it stops repetitiveness. It is a good use of time, money and resources.
EQIP National Initiatives – Lacey Gaw
National application ranking periods have been set for the following initiatives: Energy, Organic, Seasonal High Tunnels and Sage Grouse. Changes have been made to available practices, the funding process and ranking criteria.
Application Period Deadlines
1. February 2, 2012
2. March 30, 2012
3. June 1, 2012
NHQ has taken over administration of Conservation Activity Plans (CAP). States will not be able to modify their CAP. Per Bonda, an IPM plan is required as well as a drainage water management plan. Seasonal High Tunnels are not strictly focused on organic and are only available on croplands.
Question – Do all CAPS go to NHQ for funding?
Answer – Yes
ACTION FOR SHERRE AND LACEY – Send contact information for CAPS, Seasonal High Tunnel, Energy, Organic to STAC members
WRP Pilot – Lacey Gaw and Don Larsen
We have the opportunity to participate in a pilot for Reserved Grazing Rights. In this pilot, the landowner keeps rights, but has a 25 percent reduction in payments. Channel scabland is a good place for this pilot. There is landowner interest in area (see map of proposed pilot area). Restoration costs are not as expensive as other areas. This pilot does not provide extra funding, it comes from WRP dollars. Landowner can still use regular WRP.
Comment – except for the Snake River, there are no wetlands in Franklin County.
Question – How big of an impact is cultural resources
Answer – We see more of an issue on the Westside of the state. The process could take a few years before being implemented.
Question – Is there objection from the STAC to identifying this specific area?
Answer – No objection
ACTION FOR LACEY – Talk to Roylene before sending to NHQ for approval. There is no deadline, but this needs to be done sooner than later.
Parking Lot and Open Discussion
David Lundgren and Steve Fuseal talked about a project wit they are involved in with Bonneville called “Save Water Save Energy,” an energy efficient program. There is money to fund this project until the end of December. In order to continue receiving funds, they must show the benefits of the project. They are looking for potential partnerships to keep the program running.
Comment – Would like to see a more comprehensive presentation
Suggestion – Contact Harold Crose
Suggestion – Contact Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance