Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy ... · Develop nutrient reduction strategies,...

Helping People Help the Land

Presented by: Mike Sullivan, Arkansas State Conservationist

Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy

Watershed Initiative


Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin


4

2008 Action Plan Goals

1. Coastal Goal: Strive to reduce or make significant progress towards reducing the five-year running average areal extent of the hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers by the year 2015

2. Within Basin Goal: To restore and protect the waters of the 31 States and Tribal lands within the Basin through implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction actions

3. Quality of Life Goal: To improve the communities of the MARB, in particular the agriculture, fisheries, and recreation sectors, through a cooperative, incentive-based approach


11

Key Actions from 2008 Plan

• Three “Actions to Accelerate the Reduction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus” will have the most direct effect on the size of the zone

– Utilize existing programs to enhance protection of Gulf and local water quality

– Focus on State nutrient strategies

– Introduce complementary Federal strategies


Arkansas Strategies Identify nutrient reduction activities and determine funding needs.

Develop nutrient reduction strategies, including an analysis of implementation costs. Support federal programs - Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), CRP, CREP, Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Support writing “on‐farm” nutrient management plans within designated nutrient‐surplus watersheds.

Complete modification of Illinois River CREP agreement to increase landowner participation.


Federal Strategies Mississippi River Basin Healthy

Watersheds Initiative • Objective

– Improve the overall health and water quality in small watersheds

• MRBI Priorities

– Reduce nutrient runoff

– Restore and enhance wildlife habitat and wetlands

– Maintain agricultural productivity

• MRBI Uses a Systems Approach

– Conservation practices are used in combination for greater

effectiveness

• Examples of Conservation Practices

– Nutrient management

– Conservation tillage

– Cover crops

– Erosion control structures


Back to the Future

Legacy Principles

• Assess the resources, problems, and opportunities

• Draw on various sciences and disciplines and integrate into a plan for the whole property

• Work closely with land users so that the plans for conservation reflect their objectives

• Through implementing conservation on individual properties, contribute to the overall quality in the watershed


• Original goals: Quantify and establish the scientific understanding of the effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale, and estimate conservation effects and benefits at regional and national scales.

• Vision for the future: Enhanced natural resources and healthier ecosystems through improved conservation effectiveness and better management of agricultural landscapes.

15

CEAP: The Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Helping People Help the Land 16

CEAP: Regional Cropland Assessment Reports

Helping People Help the Land 17

• The voluntary, incentives-based conservation approach is achieving results.

• Opportunities exist to further reduce sediment and nutrient losses from cropland.

• Comprehensive conservation planning and implementation are essential.

• Targeting enhances effectiveness and efficiency.

• Full treatment of the most vulnerable acres will require a suite of conservation practices, because no single practice is a universal solution.

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments


9


Avoiding, Controlling, Trapping (ACT)

Avoiding

• Nutrient management

• Rate, Timing, Form, Method

Controlling

• Residue and tillage management

• Drainage Water Management

Trapping

• Buffers

• Wetlands designed for nutrient removal

Avoiding

Trapping Controlling

ACT


MRBI vs General Conservation Programs

MRBI General Programs

Projects proposed and sponsored by conservation partners

Funding provided through NRCS without matching contributions from partners

Partners choose ranking questions State Technical Committee chooses ranking questions

Partners choose conservation practices

Most available practices can be selected by farmers

Funding is provided within a specific project area

Funding is statewide

Water quality monitoring and evaluation is included in conservation practices

Water quality monitoring and evaluation is not available


Small Watershed Focus

• Projects address one or more 12-digit HUC watersheds within a designated 8-digit HUC focus area.

• 12-digit HUCs list is available on the NRCS MRBI website

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045823.pdf

21



Geographic Area

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012

# Participating

States 12 13 13

# Focus Areas

41 43 54

# CCPI

Projects 58 95 23

# WREP

Projects 18 2 5

Arkansas-Illinois-Indiana-Iowa-Kentucky-Louisiana-Minnesota-Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio-South Dakota-Tennessee-Wisconsin


123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds

More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement

Average of 9.5 partners per watershed

FY10 – FY12 funding = $222 million

FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated

123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit

watersheds

More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement

Average of 9.5 partners per watershed FY10 – FY12 funding = $222 million

FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million

anticipated


MRBI Program for 13 states Funding

CCPI $269 million

WREP $260 million

CIG $26.6 million

Total over the life of agreements $555.6 million

Landscape Conservation Initiative Funding


Top 5 Practices for the MRBI States

Practice Code Count Planned Amount

Payment Amount

Cover Crop 340 478 54,052 $3,473,694

Irrigation Storage Reservoir 436 27 98,561 $3,362,277

Waste Storage Facility 313 39 59 $3,289,363

Terrace 600 363 1,705,319 $3,208,786

Underground Outlet 620 429 1,011,718 $2,360,685


Cover Crop

• Reduce runoff from water erosion • Increase soil organic matter content

reducing nutrient inputs. • Capture and recycle or redistribute

nutrients in the soil profile. • Promote biological nitrogen fixation

and reduce energy use. • Increase water quantity and

availability for plant uptake. • Suppress Weeds. • Manage soil moisture. • Minimize and reduce soil

compaction. • Enhance nutrient use efficiency


Nutrient Management

Injecting split applications of nitrogen emphasizes the four R’s:

• Right Source of Nutrients,

• Right Time of Application,

• Right Rate, and

• Right Method of Application

This practice lines up with the national nutrient management strategy.


Expected Water Quality Results

• Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus loading into waterways

• Reduced sediment from sheet & rill erosion

• Reduced sediment from irrigation-induced erosion


• 15 Focus Areas

• 24 Projects

• 19 CCPI

• 5 WREP

• > 70 partners

• $135 m Fed Funding

• $28 m from producers

• > $1 m from WREP partners

• > 1 m acres to be treated

Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist

Arkansas Progress

Active Projects


Obligated

EQIP funds to

date 10/01/12

Total EQIP

funding for

project

1 - Little River Ditches $1,688,280 $3,093,614

2 - Lower St. Francis River $1,333,009 $2,908,836

3 – L’Anguille River $1,779,175 $4,182,105

4 – Outlet Larkin Creek $1,111,238 $1,320,000

5 – Point Remove Wetlands $6,018,346 $6,345,000

2010 CCPI Projects

7 – Cache River NLR $647,572 $1,054,000

8 – Lower St. Francis NLR $1,915,590 $4,202,275

9 – Middle Bayou Macon $4,600,725 $5,450,000

10 – Bayou Boeuf $1,361,753 $4,047,000 (AR gets $1,666,317)

11 – Lower Bayou Macon $1,181,867 $2,764,200 (AR gets $1,382,100)

2011 CCPI Projects

12 – Bayou Meto Arkansas Co. $811,024 $6,962,861

13 – Bayou Meto Middle $729,173 $9,880,017

14 – Lower Arkansas Upper $601,120 $9,650,276

15 – Grand Prairie $1,071,866 $9,730,220

16 – Big $537,740 $3,232,510

17 – EAEC (L’Anguille) $162,677 $1,214,875

18 – Tyronza River $411,614 $4,951,633

19 – Middle Cache $297,507 $3,022,459

20 - Wapanocca $85,430 $1,318,286

20102 CCPI Projects

6 – 2010 Cache River

21 – 2012 AGFC

22 – 2012 Cache-L’Anguille River

23 – 2012 Mississippi River Trust

24 – 2012 The Nature Conservancy

WREP Projects

Arkansas Project Funding


Cache River Watershed WREP Project

• 2010 goal: Restore 10,000 acres

• Offers on 4,090 acres, restored 1,862 acres.

• Sediment load will be reduced by 27,000 tons/yr

• 8,000 additional acres in 2012

• Designated as “America’s Great Outdoors” project

• Big Woods – large stand of bottomland HW

• Cypress estimated over 500 years old

• 200,000 acres designated as wetlands of International Importance

• TNC, USACE, USFWS, NRCS


The Nature Conservancy


Initiative Modifications in Lower Mississippi River Basin

• Water management additions/ revisions to current MRBI

• Multi-state Mississippi River batture lands forestry/wildlife initiative


State # of Contracts

Funds obligated

Treated acres

Arkansas 671 26,478,114 167,595

Louisiana 72 1,837,195 18,775

Mississippi 403 20,898,497 69,853

Missouri 784 23,175,656 80,725

Tennessee 92 1,345,010 5,971

Total 2,022 73,734,471 342,920

MRBI in the Lower Mississippi River Valley

Data Source: ProTracts FY12, Oct. 24, 2012


Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

• Voluntary monitoring to determine effects of conservation practice installation

• Partnering with Universities and other entities

• 3 tiered approach

• Edge of Field

• In Stream

• Pour Point


Typical MRBI Monitoring Partnerships

Monitoring Activity Partnership

Edge-of-Field monitoring partial funding for up to 9 years

EQIP funding provided through NRCS to agricultural producer

Edge-of-Field monitoring plan, equipment installation, sampling, analysis for up to 9 years

Monitoring partner contracts with landowner for assigned EQIP payment and contributes remaining funds

In-stream monitoring above and below implemented conservation practices & edge-of-field sampling site

Monitoring partner funds

12-digit HUC outlet monitoring Monitoring partner funds

Modeling of monitoring results Monitoring partner funds or funding agreements with NRCS at state level


Adaptive Management

• Initiative scale

• Add focus areas

• Review/modify eligible practices

• Evaluate and report results

• Project scale

• Annual review

• Review goals and evaluate progress

• Review/adjust ranking criteria

• Recommend eligible practices

• Field/contract scale

• Implement practices

• Evaluate results


Assessment of Projects

Reviews for 2010/11 Projects

• Partners are meeting their in-kind contributions.

• Good communication between all parties.

• Increase landowner participation in all projects.

• All projects need additional funding beyond projects request.

• Making progress in planning of core practices.

• Will adapt ranking questions for FY13 to ensure practices are implemented to proximity of streams.


Joint MRBI review meeting with

Louisiana and Arkansas.


Next Steps


• More in depth review for existing projects – right practices in right places, sufficient treatment to achieve objective?

• Monitoring Activity Plan (new guidelines)

• FY13 Request for Proposals (RFP)

• Same Focus areas

• EQIP funding only

• Share lessoned learned regarding successful projects


Questions?

Follow-up questions can be sent to:

Mike Sullivan

State Conservationist

Natural Resources Conservation Service

[email protected]

or call 501-301-3100


Non-Discrimination Statement: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives financial assistance from USDA, you may file a complaint with USDA. Information about how to file a discrimination complaint is available from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. To file a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign and mail a program discrimination complaint form, available at any USDA office location or online at www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to: USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 Or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate office or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).


Easement Funds

Obligated

Acres Number of Easements

Restoration Dollars

Obligated

Cache River (WREP) 2010 $2,044,900 1911 4 $1,051,011.50

TNC-FY11 $2,685,520 2233 9 $3,913,835

TNC FY12 $4,084,155 3249 19 $5,871,264.50

MRT-Batture Lands FY12 $989,650 713 2 $1,381,525

AR Game & Fish $810,000 568 4 $1,122,400

Cache/L’Anguille (Poinsett Co.) 0 0 0 0

Total $10,614,225 8,674 38 $15,384,936

WREP

Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy ... · Develop nutrient reduction strategies,...

Documents

Transcript of Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy ... · Develop nutrient reduction strategies,...