state technical advisory committee’s local working group kick off
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
State Technical Advisory Committee’s
Local Working Group Kick OffFor Fiscal Year 2014 Program Year
January 22, 2013
Washington
Welcome
Roylene Rides at the Door,State Conservationist
Opening Remarks
Agenda
Sherre CopelandPartnership Liaison
Role of the Local Working Groups
Established in Farm BillSubcommittees to the State Technical
Advisory CommitteeGuide national conservation programs to
address local needsVery important to the locally led processRecommendations based on resource needsPrioritize funding decisions and watershedsHelp with outreach
Issues Affecting NRCS in FY 13Farm Bill ExtensionContinuing ResolutionSequestrationPayment Scenarios329 Practice Standard Variance
Local Working GroupPresentations
10 Teams – 10 Local Working Groups
Local Working Group ChairDistrict Conservationist5 minutes each
Snake River Local Working GroupTeam Meeting: March 6
Ed TeelDistrict ConservationistJim Schroeder (Acting)
Mark NielsonLocal Working Group Chair
Asotin, Columbia, Franklin, Pomeroy,
Walla Walla
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
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.
Snake River LWG
2013 Funding Pools:Land Use Resource Concern %
AllocationCrop Soil Erosion 25Crop Inefficient Use of
Irrigation Water 25Pasture Excess Nutrients 5Forest Undesirable Plant 25Range Productivity &HealthOther WQ Excess Pathogens 20
Snake River LWG
2013 EQIP Applications = 128Ranking Completed?Lots of Work to be done! I am anticipating:3 Dry crop contracts4 Irrigated crop contracts1 Pasture contract 3-4 Range/Forest contracts1 Other (livestock) contract
Snake River LWG
South Central Local Working Group
Amanda EttestadDistrictConservationist
Ron JurisLocal Working Group Chair
Benton, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties
EQIP Locally Led funding for 2012Total Dollars Obligated: $1,206,921.47Irrigated Cropland: $453,150 obligated on 366.1
acresDry Cropland: $264,335 obligated on 2,751.2
acresLivestock and Grazing: $320,755 obligated on
5,629.3 acresForest Health: $72,408 obligated on 171.2 acresIntegrated Pest Management: $76,429 obligated
on 520.3 acresNew Technology: $19,845 obligated on 1682 acres
South Central LWG
Applications and Contracts for 2012 locally led EQIP
County Applications
Funded Total Estimated Application
Costs
Total Dollars Funded
Additional Dollars to
Fund Remaining
Applications
Benton 34 11 $1,104,895 $337,019 $767,876
Klickitat 23 13 $657,836 $385,681 $272,155
Yakima 63 12 $2,082,491 $484,222 $1,598,269
Total 120 36 $3,845,222
$1,206,922
$2,638,300
South Central LWG
Applications and Contracts Per Funding Pool for 2012
South Central LWG
County Irrigated Crop
Dryland Crop
Integrated Pest
Management
Forest Health
Grazing Land-
Livestock
New Technology
Apps/ Contrac
ts
App
Cont
App
Cont
App Cont App
Cont
App
Cont
App Cont
Benton 14 2 13 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 3 2
Klickitat 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 3 13 10 1 0
Yakima 52 9 1 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total 68 11 17 4 11 5 4 3 15 11 5 2
County Irrigated Crop
Dryland Crop
Integrated Pest
Management
Forest Health
Grazing Land-
Livestock
New Technolog
y
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 $0 $0 $72,408 $313,273 $0
Yakima
App $1,933,493
$75,000 $65,330 $0 $0 $8,669
Cont
$426,066
$0 $58,156 $0 $0 $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
County Crop Forest Other Ag Land
Pasture Range
Insufficient
Water-
Inefficien
t Use of
Irrigation
Water Quality Degradation-Pestici
des, Nutrie
nts, Sedime
nts
Soil Erosion
-Sheet, Rill &
Wind
Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire
Hazard
Water Qualit
y Degradation
-Excessive
Sediment
Water Qualit
y Degradation
-Exces
s Nutrients in
Surface &
Groundwate
r
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 4 10 1 1
Klickitat 4 4 1 2
Yakima 26 2 2
Total 30 14 4 1 1 3 4
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 ViraDistrictConservationist
Lynn EngdahlLocal Working Group Chair
Skamania, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and
Wahkiakum Counties
FY 2012 EQIP $498,211
$199,284
$99,642
$99,642
$99,642
Initial Funding Distribution
CAFO - 40%Forest - 20%Crop - 20%Multi-Land Use - 20%
Southwest LWG
2012 Applications vs. Contracts
CAFO $171,568
Crop $132,593
Forest $95,267
Multi Land Use $147,183
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Deferrered Ap-plicantsFunded Contracts
Southwest LWG
FY 12 - Dollars per County
Lewis 35%Clark 28%Cowlitz 1%Grays Harbor 17%Pacific 19%Skamania 0%Wahkiakum 0%
Southwest LWG
2012 Historically Underserved
CAFO Crop Forest Multi Use0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Socially Disad-vantaged BeginningNon HU
Southwest LWG
2012 Initiatives
Forest CAPs
Lewis 2Grays Harbor 1Cowlitz 1Clark 1
Energy CAP
Grays Harbor 3Lewis 3Pacific 2Clark 2
Southwest LWG
2012 InitiativesSeasonal High
Tunnel
Ska-mania 1Pacific 1Lewis 3Clark 8Grays Harbor 1
Organic
Clark 3
Southwest LWG
2013 LWG Funding Priorities
Forest 30%Pasture 10%Crop 30%Other - HQ 30%
Southwest LWG
Palouse Local Working Group
Rich EdlundDistrict Conservationist
Larry CochranPalouse 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 SwannackDistrictConservationist
Tom SchultzLocal Working Group Chair
Lincoln and Adams Counties
Adams and Lincoln counties FY12 82 contracts for $2,183,608.67 on 96,390.2 acres
2012 Funding=$676,144 $583,9975 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 EQIP 2011 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
West Palouse LWG
EQIP12 by county2012 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 Crop4,936.7 acres treated (33.5%)$369,434 obligated (62%)
West Palouse LWG
2013 Funding = $ ?12/21/2012 cut-off 5 Fund Pools
Applications 58 totalConfined Animals (10%) 0Cropland-Dry Land (30%) 36Cropland-Irrigated (25%) 10Forest (10%) 4Grazing Land (25%) 8
State Initiatives -119 applications
West Palouse LWG
SUCCESSIn 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 GarzaActing DistrictConservationist
John PrestonLocal Working Group Chair
Grant, Kittitas, Adams Counties
6 Pools-Locally ledDryland (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 county24 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 obligated2879 acres contracted/treated
Big Bend LWG
Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary Total Initial Fund Allocation: $ ???? Funding Pools = 12
Cropland1. Water-Inefficient use of Irr. Water ( 38 apps @ $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 apps. @ $525 K value)
Forest1. Degraded Plant Condition-Wildfire Hazard (18 apps. @$284 K value)2. WQ Degr. –sediment in surface waters ( 0 apps.)3. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation (11 apps. @ $35 K value)
Pasture1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health( 2 apps. @ 36,500)
Range1. Degradation of Plant Condition-Productivity & Health ( 5 apps @ $80 K )2. Fish & Wildlife-Habitat degradation ( 0 apps)
Other Lands1. WQ Degr. – Pathogens & Chemicals from organic sources (1 app@ $120
K)2. Fish & Wildlife- habitat ( 2 apps @ 9,000 value)
Big Bend LWG
Big Bend LWG
Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP Summary
104 applicationsapproximate value of $3.2 million
Puget Sound Local Working Group
Paul RogersDistrictConservationist
Eric NelsonLocal Working Group Chair
King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap
Counties
Fund Pool # of Plans $$ Amount in 2012 Fund
Pool
$$ Amount Obligated
Cropland 4 $75,443 $135,635
Confined Animal
1 $150,887 $18,769
Multi Land Use
6 $330,177 $441,117
Forestry 18 $197,926 $209,428
2012 Fund Overview
Puget Sound LWG
Hig
h Tu
nnel
s
CAP For
estry
On
Farm
Ene
rgy
PSSR
P
Certifi
ed O
rgan
ic
Org
anic T
rans
ition
al
Nut
rient
Mgm
t CAP
21
12
58 9
5 1
2012 Other Plans
Puget Sound LWG
Other as-sociated Ag lands
Cropland Pasture Forestry
25%
10%
45%
20%
2013 Funding Pools
Puget Sound LWG
Fund Pool $$ Amount in 2013 Fund
Pool
# of ApplicationsPST Funds
# of HU ApplicationsState Funds
Cropland $123,298 4 8
Other Ag Lands
$49,319 10 3
Pasture $221,936 10 4
Forestry $98,638 16 14
2013 Fund Overview
Puget Sound LWG
Hig
h Tu
nnel
s
CAP For
estry
On
Farm
Ene
rgy
Certifi
ed O
rgan
ic
Org
anic T
rans
ition
al
Shel
lfish
19
8
21
41
3
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 $ 1,000,000Kalispel 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 LU BF $158,887 Range BF $99,474 Forest BF $31,746 Forest $134,180
TOTAL $751,118
Northeast LWG
North Central Local Working Group
Amy HendershotActing DistrictConservationist
John McLeanLocal Working Group Chair
Okanogan, Chelan, and Douglas Counties
Fiscal Year 2012 EQIP (Locally Led Only)Dollars Obligated: $453,222.11Funding Pools = 5
1. Forestland: $127,492.12 on 307.1 acres2. Grazingland: $191,389.42 on 7,429 acres3. Cropland-Dryland: $18,746.57 on 1,630
acres4. Cropland-Irrigated Hay/Pasture:
$84,669.00 on 85 acres5. Cropland-Other: $30,925.00 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 LWGApplications for financial assistance and
funding success for FY 2012County Applications Applications
FundedPercentage Applicants
Funded per County (%)
Total Funds Percentage of Total Team
Funds (%)
Average Costshare
Per Contract
Total Estimated Value of
Applications
Chelan 7 4 57 $90,306 20 $22,576.50 $147,102.80
Douglas 18 4 24 $35,660.57 8 $8,915.14 $396,192.94
Okanogan 37 14 38 $327,255.54 72 $23,375.40 $914,713.10
TOTAL 62 18 119 $453,222.11 100 $1,458,008.80
Number of applications/contracts by land use category by County for FY 2012.
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 Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/ContractsChelan 2/2 2/1 0/0 1/0 2/1Douglas 2/2 9/0 4/2 1/0 1/0Okanogan 7/6 7/4 1/0 18/2 3/2TOTAL 11/10 18/5 5/2 19/2 5/3
Dollars by land use/resource concern category by County for FY 2012.
North Central LWG
County Forestland Funds
Grazing LandFunds
Dry CroplandFunds
Irrigated Hay/PastureFunds
Cropland-OtherFunds
Chelan $34,198 $46,358 $0 $0 $9,750Douglas $16,914 $0 $18,746.57 $84,669 $0Okanogan $76,380.12 $145,031.42 $0 $0 $21,175TOTAL $127,492.12 $191,389.42 $18,746.57 $84,669 $30,925
Fiscal Year 2013 EQIP SummaryTotal Initial Fund Allocation: $???,???Funding Pools = 5
1. Soil Erosion (Sheet, Rill, & Wind) on Cropland @ 35%2. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant
Productivity & Health) on Forestland @ 25%3. Degraded Plant Condition (Undesirable Plant
Productivity & Health) on Rangeland @ 20%4. Insufficient Water (Inefficient Use of Irrigation Water)
on Cropland @ 15%5. Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife (Habitat
Degradation) for Other @ 5%
North Central LWG
North Central LWGApplications for financial assistance and
funding success for FY 2013. County Applications Applications
FundedPercentage Applicants Funded Per Co.%
Total Funds
Percentage of Total Team Funds
Average Costshare Per Contract
Total Estimated Value of Applications
Chelan 5 ? ? ? ? ? $300,200
Douglas 16 ? ? ? ? ? $528,259
Okanogan 54 ? ? ? ? ? $1,089,820
TOTAL 75 ? ? ? ? ? $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 Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/Contracts Apps/ContractsChelan 0/? 3/? 0/? 1/? 1/?Douglas 2/? 2/? 9/? 4/? 0/?Okanogan 0/? 18/? 7/? 27/? 0/?TOTAL 2/? 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 SunseriDistrictConservationist
Larry DavisLocal 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 9 4 $55,980
Multi-Land Use – Small Farm
8 4 $66,050
Multi-Land Use – 41 2 $362,942
Forestry 25 20 $227,932
TOTAL 83 30 $712,904
Northwest LWG
Northwest LWG
County # of Applications
# of Contracts Funded
$$ Obligated in 2012 EQIP
Clallam 10 7 $123,612
Jefferson 10 6 $119,392
Island 14 6 $27,824
San Juan 13 10 $25,577
Skagit 29 21 $481,368
Snohomish 34 9 $185,684
Whatcom 65 21 $1,392,738
TOTALS 175 80 $2,356,195
EQIP funding including Initiatives 2012
8%
32%
51%
9%
2012 Funds Obligated
Cropland 8%Forestry 32%Multi-Land use 51%Multi-Land use - Small Farm 9%
Northwest LWG
FY 2013 Planned percentage of funds per land use
8 8
3054
Crop 8%
Pasture 8%
Forestry 30%
Other Associated Lands 54%
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 ACJeff Harlow, ProgramsAlan 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 LWGsFor FY 14
Doug Allen, Central ACEd Teel, East AC
LWG Meeting Timelines and LogisticsHold LWG Meetings in Spring
WebinarsFacilitation
Packages due at end of April 2013Presentation of aggregate packages to STAC
in May
Questions
Workshop