A Synthesis of the NIFA Water Portfolio (2000-2013): Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Linda Stalker Prokopy, Ph.D., Purdue University

Michael O’Neill, Ph.D., University of Connecticut

Sarah Church, Ph.D, Purdue University

Laura A. Esman, Purdue University

Synthesis of NIFA Water Portfolio from 2000-2013

NIFA Water Portfolio:• Multiple funding sources• Supports research, education and

extension programs• All funded programs focus on water

resources

We proposed a unique synthesis of knowledge generated from these projects.

Core Project Team• Mike O’Neal and Emily Wilson, University of Connecticut• Linda Prokopy, Sarah Church, and Laura Esman, Purdue

University

Advisory Group• Kelly Addy, University of Rhode Island• Chester Arnold, University of Connecticut• Arthur Gold, University of Rhode Island• Jennifer Kushner, University of Wisconsin• Deanna Osmond, North Carolina State University• Douglas Parker, University of California• Maifan Silitonga, Kentucky State University• Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University

Objectives• Determine lessons learned, critical

findings, and outcomes of water projects• Evaluate effectiveness of different scaled

approaches to promote solutions • Demonstrate examples of synergies and

failed synergies among projects and how these synergies improved leveraging

• Identify water quality/quantity issues where future NIFA funding should focus

Methods• Compile NIFA Water Portfolio (formula and non-

formula grants) • Geospatial mapping• Project Director Survey• Regional and National Project Director Interviews• State-level focus groups• Case studies• Identify science priorities within the Water Portfolio to

address future funding priorities• Deliver results (NIFA staff, national meetings, land

grant university Extension and Experiment Station Directors)

Methods• Compile NIFA Water Portfolio (formula and non-

formula grants) • Geospatial mapping• Project Director Survey• Regional and National Project Director Interviews• State-level focus groups• Case studies• Identify science priorities within the Water Portfolio to

address future funding priorities• Deliver results (NIFA staff, national meetings, land

grant university Extension and Experiment Station Directors)

Non-formula Funded Projects for Each State

Non-formula Funded Projects: Total Dollars Provided for Each State

Survey Methods• Extracted non-formula funded water

projects from USDA-NIFA REEIS database (762 projects)

• Developed survey to collect supplemental data from Project Directors

• Survey was pretested with the Advisory group and researchers at Purdue University

• Qualtrics survey (3 wave) with follow up telephone calls

Final survey emailed to Project Directors for completion (54% response rate)

Outcomes: What makes a project a success?

• Collaboration• Tool development• Stakeholder involvement/learning• Trained students (graduate and

undergraduate)• Achieved goals/objectives• Additional funding• Publications

Outcomes: What makes a project a success?

• “Establish good collaboration between the two [state] universities that has not been done before”

• “This project developed and applied a land use change simulation model that was subsequently used in an NSF project and in several research proposals”

• “15 undergraduate students worked on this project and grew as scientists through the project. Most of these students chose to continue to conduct research as graduate students.”

Outcomes: What makes a project a success?

• “After demonstrating the principles involved in adaptive management, the Township partners took over all management and personnel costs, and they have been maintaining excellent water quality in all subsequent years…”

• “Development of a decision making tool for water managers and agricultural producers to save water during droughts”

• “…produced an number of collaborative publications between natural scientists and social scientists.”

Outcomes: Interdisciplinary projects – what types of individuals were included?

• Survey provided 13 choices (e.g., hydrologists, ecologists, climatologists, plant scientists, etc.)

• Respondents added 98 others including,• Aquatic entomologists• Veterinary microbiologists• Legal experts• River guides• Graphic design specialists• Citizen scientists• Breeders• Occupational health & safety specialists

Outcomes: New synergies/relationships developed through this project helped in

the following areas:

Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that synergies/relationships helped:

• Improve stakeholder adoption of project results,

• Increase leveraging of additional funds, and

• Improve water outcomes

Outcomes: Did a project lead to additional funding?

Majority indicated their project led to additional funds (both NIFA and non-NIFA)

“Funds were used as seed money to obtain $504,000 in additional graduate student scholarships and research support dollars.”

“The data and results enabled us to get additional projects from other funding agencies.”

“[This project] has resulted in an on-going, partially self-funded private water supply extension program.”

Outcomes: What would have helped the project be more successful?

• More money!• More time, longer term projects• Expand project (e.g., entire watershed,

regionally)• Increased interaction with partners

(Extension, USFWS) and team• Project management• Weather (drought, too wet, lack of wildfires)

Outcomes: What would have helped the project be more successful?

• “I as principal PI should have made time in my schedule to visit the lead PIs and other collaborators at their research sites during the growing season. I think this would have fostered a little more unity and purpose, a better visit for the overall project.”

• “Would have liked to have been able to better document impact”

• “Two PDs leaving the university in the middle of the project created unfortunate disruption in group cohesiveness and delays…”

What should NIFA funding be focused on in the future?

• Climate change – water use, availability• Water quality – emerging contaminants,

pathogens, nutrients, land cover change• Water scarcity – irrigation management,

salinity management• Drinking water – nutrients in surface water,

contaminants• Benefits of conservation practices• Better use/training of technology• Wastewater reuse

What’s Next?

• Continue review of data• Begin selection of formula funded

projects (excluding Smith-Lever funding) and survey Project Directors

• Conduct focus groups in select states• Interviews with Regional Project

Directors• Develop case studies

Linda Prokopylprokopy@purdue.edu

Mike O’Neillmp.oneill@uconn.edu

Questions?Please contact

Grant Number 2014-51130-22496