August 9, 2011 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 1. Chief Dave White Welcome Introductions Opening Remarks...

transcript

August 9, 201110:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Chief Dave WhiteWelcomeIntroductionsOpening Remarks

MRBI OverviewMRBI Overview

Tom ChristensenRegional Conservationist – Central

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River flows 2,300 miles through the heartland to the Gulf

of MexicoWatershed provides drinking water, food, industry and recreation for

millions of people and hosts globally significant migratory bird flyway

Sediments and nutrient loading have contributed to water quality problems throughout river basin

NRCS and conservation partners building on past efforts of agricultural producers to address nutrient-loading

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

Geographic Area: Arkansas Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Ohio South Dakota Tennessee Wisconsin

Current Total

• 13 States Participating

• 43 MRBI Focus Area Watersheds

• 95 Funded Projects

FY 2010 • 12 States• 41 Focus Areas

FY 2011• Added one State (South Dakota)• Added two focus areas:

• One in South Dakota • One in Mississippi

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeObjective:

Improve the health of small watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin – connect to agricultural producers and land users on a local level

MRBI Priorities: Reduce nutrient runoff Restore and enhance wildlife habitat and wetlands Maintain agricultural productivity

MRBI Uses a Systems Approach

Examples of Conservation Practices: Nutrient management Conservation Tillage Erosion control structures Waste storage facilities Cover crops Management of drainage water 6

Funding – FY 2010 through FY 2013Based on project requests, dedicating $80 million in

financial assistance each yearo Plus associated technical assistance

This is in addition to regular NRCS program funding in the Initiative states

In FY 2010 and 2011, MRBI used: Conservation Cooperative Partnership Initiative (CCPI):

o Competitive process through which entities submit project proposals

o Allows for certain flexibilities Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP) Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

Programs used in MRBI:

All are voluntary NRCS Farm Bill Programs – CCPI

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) Component of EQIP

Progress to DateProgress to Date

Deena WhebyMRBI Coordinator

Lexington, Kentucky

MRBI 2010 AccomplishmentsMRBI 2010 Accomplishments

700 EQIP, WHIP, and CSP contracts supporting conservation on private lands for more than $25 million

18 WREP projects for over $4 million in financial assistance

12 CIG projects for about $2.9 million in financial assistance

First year of edge-of-field monitoring

2010 Report is on the

NRCS website

Success stories from each of the states

State-by-State and by

program information

MRBI 2011 ActivitiesMRBI 2011 Activities

New contracting continues in the 2010 project areas with additional funding of approximately $52 million

19 new projects recently approved that will provide approximately $15 million to new project areas in fiscal year 201117 CCPI2 WREP

SWAT Technical Assistance of $4 millionPartners matched with $2.4 million

New CIG projects to be announced soon14

PartnershipsPartnershipsProject proposals submitted by:Conservation DistrictsWatershed CoalitionsPlanning CommissionsState Departments of Agriculture, Land Stewardship, Conservation, and

Water ResourcesResource Conservation and Development CouncilsEntities including TNC, Ducks Unlimited, American Farmland Trust,

American Corn Growers, Land Trusts, and wildlife groupsContributing Partners:EPA, USGS, USACOE, ARS, Universities, On-Farm Network, Discovery

Farms, and many, many others!

Lessons Learned to DateLessons Learned to Date

Tom Christensen

Lessons LearnedLessons LearnedNeed to ensure a focus on the right

conservation concerns in the right geographic locations

Need to address management of drainage water in concert with other conservation practices

Need to strive for both basic and enhanced nutrient management in the right sequence

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned (continued)

Need strategy for and assistance with monitoring and evaluation

Need to have the right kind of technical assistance available in the right places

Need to promote adaptive management after implementation as vital to sustaining system implementation

Need continued growth and refinement of partnerships to address these (and other) issues

Response to the Lessons Learned Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI and Next Steps for MRBI

Consistency: o Establish greater consistency across states with

ranking/funding pools, ranking criteria, payment schedules and conservation practice specifications

Focus Areas: o Evaluate current focus areas to determine if additional

areas are needed to address new opportunities and issues, especially agricultural drainage water management and enhanced nutrient management.

o Remove focus areas that have shown little or no activity to pursue MRBI projects

Response to the Lessons Learned Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI and Next Steps for MRBI (continued)(continued)

Management of Agricultural Drainage Water: o Foster greater adoption of this management system by

implementing strategic actions designed to overcome past barriers and limitations, and capitalize on lessons learned.

Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs): o With partners, establish and implement SWATs to directly

assist producers with conservation planning and practice implementation

Nutrient Management: o Promote adaptive nutrient management strategies to

achieve enhanced nutrient management results

Response to the Lessons Learned Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI and Next Steps for MRBI (continued)(continued)

Monitoring and Evaluation: o Seek options for NRCS monitoring and evaluation practice

offerings to include simpler, practical edge-of-field techniqueso Strategic use of edge-of-field monitoring to support CEAP

modeling to 12-digit HUC levelo Continue collaboration with EPA, USGS, and others on

monitoring and evaluation to compile consistent data that can be used to express outputs towards nutrient reductions within select MRBI small watersheds

Outcomes: o Establish clear, achievable, and measurable performance

expectations and environmental outcome measures for MRBI21

New FY 2011 New FY 2011 Approved Approved

CCPI and WREP CCPI and WREP ProjectsProjects

17 CCPI:Arkansas (3)Arkansas/Louisiana (2) Illinois (1) Indiana (1) Iowa (3)Mississippi (1)Missouri (6)

2 WREPKentucky (1) Iowa (1)

New FY 2011 Approved CCPI and WREP ProjectsNew FY 2011 Approved CCPI and WREP Projects

FY 2011 Project Financial Assistance Funding Total $14,404,121

CCPI – $9,219,746 WREP – $5,184,375

Then look for:

Fiscal Year 2011 Approved Projects for MRBI Fiscal Year 2011 MRBI Approved Projects Using CCPI and WREP Fiscal Year 2011 MRBI CCPI and WREP Brief Project Summaries

NRCS’s new webpage!

New FY 2011 New FY 2011 Conservation Innovation Grants Conservation Innovation Grants

(CIG)(CIG)

Gregorio CruzConservation Innovation Grants Manager

Washington, DC

O&E Study O&E Study Findings and RecommendationsFindings and Recommendations

NRCS management wanted to determine the frequency and type of monitoring and evaluation being used for Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative. An Oversight and Evaluation Study was conducted on Conservation Practice Standard (CSP) 799 during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 to assess the use of this practice during fiscal year 2010.

Study Objectives Determine if monitoring and evaluation practices were consistent with CPS

799 and guidance. Identify monitoring protocols. Determine lessons learned.

Methodology Reviewed 27 partner agreements and 22 EQIP contracts. Interviewed appropriate NRCS State staff. Assessed CPS 799 and other related policy. Analyzed payment schedules developed. Conducted an inventory of monitoring protocols.

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyOversight and Evaluation Study

FindingsThe data reviewed did not indicate the participants were

always provided specifications or plans for monitoring and evaluation.

The guidance provided to States regarding implementation of monitoring and evaluation was inadequate.

All States are promoting the use of CPS 799 monitoring and evaluation in context of the approved 12- and 8-digit HUC project focus areas.

There was limited coordination between States (NRCS) in the development of the payment schedule.

Findings (continued)There was a lack of specificity in the agreements regarding

CPS 799 or similar monitoring and evaluation protocols.Agreements and contracts lacked the needed operation

and maintenance (O&M) requirements for CPS 799.In some instances, the annual Plan of Work is not being

provided by the partner in accordance with the agreements.

Recommendations

Deliver training and improved guidance.Ensure adequate documentation is housed in contract case

file.Explore alternative forms of monitoring and evaluation.Consider:

Policy Modifications Lower cost monitoring systems Collecting data for longer periods

Develop a Water Quality Index tool for collection of required management data.

Recommendations (continued)Coordinate development and review of payment schedules.Develop an overarching plan in collaboration with other agencies

and partners.Incorporate and address issues identified by States into training

and policy guidance.Develop templates, examples and other aids.Ensure States are receiving, reviewing and approving or

disapproving Plan of Work (POW).

Actions Less expensive monitoring systems being considered Job sheets under developmentTraining has been provided to MRBI statesFebruary 11, 2011, memo to clarify use of CPS 590 for nitrate and

tissue testingCollaboration with State-level EPA agenciesExploring EQIP policy that limits payments to 3 yearsData coordination team to compile dataCPS 799 payment schedules will be reviewed

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and Evaluation Collaboration with EPA, USGS, ARS, Collaboration with EPA, USGS, ARS,

and Other Partnersand Other Partners

Troy DaniellConservation Initiatives Coordinator

Washington, DC

MRBI Water Quality Monitoring Strategy

Need was identified to be more consistent with protocols and complementary with efforts

Collaborate with EPA, USGS, USACOE, and ARS on monitoring a subset of 12-digit HUCs

Seek opportunities to work closer at State and Regional levels

Selection of MRBI Watersheds for Collaboration

Screening Criteria

Existing monitoring baseline and long term data and reasonable expectation of continued monitoring (Agencies, Universities and Partners)

Proximity to USGS gauging stations NRCS funded projects planned for edge-of-field monitoring per CPS 799 319 projects – nutrient related Nutrient 303d listed waters Areas where high levels of conservation systems are being implemented Potential for comparisons of before and after data Willing landowner participation Partners able and willing to do monitoring

Selected 15 MRBI 12-digit HUCs

Arkansas: L’Anguile and Point Remove

Iowa: Boone River

Minnesota: Sauk

Missouri: South Fork Salt, North Fork Salt, and Lower Grand

Mississippi: Big Sunflower

Wisconsin: Upper Rock

Next StepsNRCS facilitated a webinar among the Federal, State and

local partners to discuss consistent methods and protocols for monitoring as well as the need to make aggregated data available in the future to plug in to water quality models

Work with the Federal and State agencies as well as NGOs to coordinate funding opportunities that would help increase the density of monitoring within the selected watersheds and to increase the longevity of the monitoring.

Adaptive Nutrient ManagementAdaptive Nutrient Management

A very productive meeting with partners on July 28 to discuss what is being done on adaptive nutrient management in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes states, discuss what is working, identify challenges, and discuss how to move forward by clarifying what the states need from NRCS national headquarters and partners.

Goal of the session was to develop an action plan and timeline for moving adaptive nutrient management forward through NRCS activities in collaboration with partners in UMR and Great Lakes states.

Adaptive Nutrient ManagementAdaptive Nutrient ManagementNeeded actions identified during the meeting:

Create adaptive management work team to further flesh out and document work plan, timeline, and goals

Develop or provide assistance to states for payment schedules and job sheets they can use for FY12, with the longer term goal and work on regional payment schedules to move ahead.

Develop action plan/strategy for education of NRCS state resource conservationists and technical staff (likely 2-3 states at a time)

Develop plan for greater engagement of NRCS National Technical Support Center staffs as well as industry (fertilizer dealers, technical assistance providers, etc.)

Schedule a briefing for Chief White and Ann Mills on adaptive managementAdvance a dialogue on future of 799 standard and possible role for 799 in

adaptive management Identify how to advance adaptive management through Conservation

Action Plan – in addition to 590

Application of Agricultural Application of Agricultural Drainage Water ManagementDrainage Water Management

Paul SweeneySenior Project Leader

Office of the Regional ConservationistsBismarck, North Dakota

Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWAT)Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWAT)

NRCS provided $4 million for the establishment of SWATS in MRBI ($20 million across 9 initiatives)

Provide planning and implementation assistance, outreach, etc. Must have partner matching fundsSWAT staff will not be federal employeesMRBI’s $4 million will be matched by almost $2.4 millionMRBI will have 126 FTE (over a three year period) – more than 40

full time equivalents per year/each yearAccount for the most “boots on the ground” from all the initiativesNRCS and partners will have approximately 90 agreements signed

for all the initiatives; 23 will be in MRBI.

Discussion Discussion

Questions and AnswersQuestions and Answers

ClosingClosing

Chief Dave White

Thank you for your partnership and for your attendance to today’s meeting!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 44

August 9, 2011 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 1. Chief Dave White Welcome Introductions Opening Remarks...

Documents