Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) Partner Update

44
Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) Partner Update August 9, 2011 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 1

description

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) Partner Update. August 9, 2011 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Chief Dave White. Welcome Introductions Opening Remarks. MRBI Overview. Tom Christensen Regional Conservationist – Central. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) Partner Update

Slide 1

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) Partner UpdateAugust 9, 201110:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m.

11Chief Dave WhiteWelcomeIntroductionsOpening Remarks2MRBI OverviewTom ChristensenRegional Conservationist Central

3

Mississippi 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 flywaySediments and nutrient loading have contributed to water quality problems throughout river basinNRCS and conservation partners building on past efforts of agricultural producers to address nutrient-loading

4

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeGeographic Area: ArkansasIllinoisIndianaIowaKentuckyLouisianaMinnesotaMississippiMissouriOhioSouth DakotaTennesseeWisconsin

5Current 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 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 runoffRestore and enhance wildlife habitat and wetlandsMaintain agricultural productivity

MRBI Uses a Systems Approach

Examples of Conservation Practices: Nutrient managementConservation TillageErosion control structuresWaste storage facilitiesCover cropsManagement of drainage water

6Funding FY 2010 through FY 2013Based on project requests, dedicating $80 million in financial assistance each yearPlus associated technical assistanceThis is in addition to regular NRCS program funding in the Initiative statesIn FY 2010 and 2011, MRBI used: Conservation Cooperative Partnership Initiative (CCPI):Competitive process through which entities submit project proposalsAllows for certain flexibilities Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP) Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

7Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeWhen the Secretary announced MRBI, he identified that MRBI would provide approximately $320 million in financial assistance from fiscal year 2010 through 2013.

This funding is in addition to regular NRCS program funding in the Initiative states.7

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativePrograms used in MRBI:

All are voluntary NRCS Farm Bill Programs CCPIEnvironmental 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

8

Progress to DateDeena WhebyMRBI CoordinatorLexington, Kentucky9MRBI 2010 Accomplishments700 EQIP, WHIP, and CSP contracts supporting conservation on private lands for more than $25 million18 WREP projects for over $4 million in financial assistance12 CIG projects for about $2.9 million in financial assistanceFirst year of edge-of-field monitoring

10In the first year of MRBI, more than 700 voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and Conservation Stewardship Program contracts were entered with agricultural producers. Additionally, 18 Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program projects were approved. Twelve Conservation Innovation Grants which is a part of EQIP were provided competitively to awardees on a matching basis to implement innovative conservation technologies and approaches in the MRBI states. In 2010, NRCS offered funding for the first time ever for a new Interim Conservation Practice for Monitoring and Evaluation. When all programs and CIG are added together, more than $32 million of financial and technical assistance was provided on over 700 contracts in 2010.

Fiscal year 2011 is on its way to exceeding both the number of contracts as well as the number of dollars obligated in MRBI during 2010. Approximately $52 million in additional funding was provided to last years projects to enter new contracts, and 19 newly approved fiscal year 2011 projects will provide an additional $15 million to producers in MRBI. New CIG projects will also be announced this year.

In addition to the funding to producers, NRCS is entering into contribution agreements with partners to implement Strategic Watershed Action Teams, or SWATs as we call them. NRCS has committed $4 million in MRBI, and partners have committed more than an additional $2.3 million to put boots on the ground. These additional partner employees will assist with conservation planning and implementation throughout the 43 MRBI watersheds, with their focus being in the approved project areas.102010 Report is on the NRCS website 11

Success stories from each of the states12

State-by-State and by program information13

MRBI 2011 ActivitiesNew contracting continues in the 2010 project areas with additional funding of approximately $52 million19 new projects recently approved that will provide approximately $15 million to new project areas in fiscal year 201117 CCPI2 WREPSWAT Technical Assistance of $4 millionPartners matched with $2.4 millionNew CIG projects to be announced soon

14In the first year of MRBI, more than 700 voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and Conservation Stewardship Program contracts were entered with agricultural producers. Additionally, 18 Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program projects were approved. Twelve Conservation Innovation Grants which is a part of EQIP were provided competitively to awardees on a matching basis to implement innovative conservation technologies and approaches in the MRBI states. In 2010, NRCS offered funding for the first time ever for a new Interim Conservation Practice for Monitoring and Evaluation. When all programs and CIG are added together, more than $32 million of financial and technical assistance was provided on over 700 contracts in 2010.

Fiscal year 2011 is on its way to exceeding both the number of contracts as well as the number of dollars obligated in MRBI during 2010. Approximately $52 million in additional funding was provided to last years projects to enter new contracts, and 19 newly approved fiscal year 2011 projects will provide an additional $15 million to producers in MRBI. New CIG projects will also be announced this year.

In addition to the funding to producers, NRCS is entering into contribution agreements with partners to implement Strategic Watershed Action Teams, or SWATs as we call them. NRCS has committed $4 million in MRBI, and partners have committed more than an additional $2.3 million to put boots on the ground. These additional partner employees will assist with conservation planning and implementation throughout the 43 MRBI watersheds, with their focus being in the approved project areas.14PartnershipsProject 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! 15I cant talk about MRBI accomplishments without talking about the partnerships involved in MRBI. I earlier mentioned that there are 95 funded projects.

The 95 project sponsors include conservation districts; watershed coalitions; planning commissions; state departments of agriculture, land stewardship, conservation, and water resources; resource conservation and development councils; and groups including TNC, Ducks Unlimited, American Farmland Trust, American Corn Growers, Land Trusts, and wildlife groups. While these are the submitting partners, nearly all projects show the involvement of many other collaborating partners including those represented in this room. Partners provide technical, and in some cases, financial assistance, as well as assisting with outreach and monitoring and evaluation. You already heard me say that partners have committed more than $2.3 million for technical assistance through the SWAT effort.

Without partners like yourselves, MRBI monitoring and evaluation may not exist. In Missouri, where many of the edge-of-field monitoring and evaluation practices are being implemented, its the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, USGS and USDAs ARS that are working together to help farmers implement this practice to help evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation practices going on the ground. Arkansas monitoring is being conducted in conjunction with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Discovery Farms, and USGS. For monitoring in Mississippi, a number of partners including USGS, US Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, ARS, DELTA FARM, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, and Mississippi State University, are all involved.

EPA and state water quality , ag, and conservation agencies have had input into nearly all approved MRBI projects. But partners do more than just monitoring.

In Kentucky, the State Division of Conservation is using their state cost-share program to complement the federal program and aid farmers interested in precision agriculture. In Minnesota, Ohio, and Iowa, the On-Farm Network is working with land users to reduce nitrogen runoff and improve water quality. I could go on about each state and the relationship that you here in this room have with the 95 MRBI projects, but Ill just say

Its these partnerships the sharing and focusing of talents, knowledge and resources that has helped make MRBI successful in its first two years. And its what were counting on to continue and increase that success.

15Lessons Learned to DateTom Christensen16Lessons LearnedNeed to ensure a focus on the right conservation concerns in the right geographic locationsNeed to address management of drainage water in concert with other conservation practicesNeed to strive for both basic and enhanced nutrient management in the right sequence

17As we finish up the second year of MRBI implementation, weve learned a few lessons. We have seen approved focus areas that arent as active as we had hoped, and other areas that perhaps need to be added. The Upper Mississippi River CEAP report tells us that weve done a good job with surface water runoff, but not as well with drainage water. And while we know were implementing nutrient management, theres always more that we can do.

Weve learned that just because we have a conservation practice standard for monitoring and evaluation, it doesnt mean we cant continue to learn and that we need a great deal of assistance to make this work. We also know we need to have adequate technical assistance available to producers that need our help. We need the right skills in the right places. And we need to promote and do all we can to ensure that producers not only implement practices, but they adopt these changes long-term in the management of their land.

And perhaps the most important lesson of all is that we know NRCS cant do it alone. We need those partnerships I mentioned earlier the talents, knowledge and resources of those of you in this room to help move MRBI forward to reach our shared goals.

17Lessons Learned (continued)Need strategy for and assistance with monitoring and evaluation Need to have the right kind of technical assistance available in the right placesNeed to promote adaptive management after implementation as vital to sustaining system implementationNeed continued growth and refinement of partnerships to address these (and other) issues

18As we finish up the second year of MRBI implementation, weve learned a few lessons. We have seen approved focus areas that arent as active as we had hoped, and other areas that perhaps need to be added. The Upper Mississippi River CEAP report tells us that weve done a good job with surface water runoff, but not as well with drainage water. And while we know were implementing nutrient management, theres always more that we can do.

Weve learned that just because we have a conservation practice standard for monitoring and evaluation, it doesnt mean we cant continue to learn and that we need a great deal of assistance to make this work. We also know we need to have adequate technical assistance available to producers that need our help. We need the right skills in the right places. And we need to promote and do all we can to ensure that producers not only implement practices, but they adopt these changes long-term in the management of their land.

And perhaps the most important lesson of all is that we know NRCS cant do it alone. We need those partnerships I mentioned earlier the talents, knowledge and resources of those of you in this room to help move MRBI forward to reach our shared goals.

18Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI Consistency: Establish greater consistency across states with ranking/funding pools, ranking criteria, payment schedules and conservation practice specifications Focus Areas: 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. Remove focus areas that have shown little or no activity to pursue MRBI projects19Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI (continued)

Management of Agricultural Drainage Water: 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): With partners, establish and implement SWATs to directly assist producers with conservation planning and practice implementationNutrient Management: Promote adaptive nutrient management strategies to achieve enhanced nutrient management results20Response to the Lessons Learned and Next Steps for MRBI (continued)

Monitoring and Evaluation: Seek options for NRCS monitoring and evaluation practice offerings to include simpler, practical edge-of-field techniquesStrategic use of edge-of-field monitoring to support CEAP modeling to 12-digit HUC levelContinue 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 watershedsOutcomes: Establish clear, achievable, and measurable performance expectations and environmental outcome measures for MRBI

21New FY 2011 Approved CCPI and WREP Projects17 CCPI:Arkansas (3)Arkansas/Louisiana (2)Illinois (1)Indiana (1)Iowa (3)Mississippi (1)Missouri (6)2 WREPKentucky (1)Iowa (1)22

New FY 2011 Approved CCPI and WREP Projects

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

23 CCPI $9,219,746 WREP $5,184,37524

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 SummariesNRCSs new webpage!New FY 2011 Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)Gregorio CruzConservation Innovation Grants ManagerWashington, DC

2526O&E Study Findings and RecommendationsNRCS 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 ObjectivesDetermine if monitoring and evaluation practices were consistent with CPS 799 and guidance.Identify monitoring protocols.Determine lessons learned.MethodologyReviewed 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.

27Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyFindingsThe 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.

28Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyFindings (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.

29Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyRecommendations

Deliver training and improved guidance.Ensure adequate documentation is housed in contract case file.Explore alternative forms of monitoring and evaluation.Consider:Policy ModificationsLower cost monitoring systemsCollecting data for longer periodsDevelop a Water Quality Index tool for collection of required management data.

30Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyRecommendations (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).

31Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyActions Less expensive monitoring systems being consideredJob 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

32Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation StudyMonitoring and Evaluation Collaboration with EPA, USGS, ARS, and Other Partners33Troy DaniellConservation Initiatives CoordinatorWashington, DCMRBI Water Quality Monitoring StrategyNeed was identified to be more consistent with protocols and complementary with effortsCollaborate with EPA, USGS, USACOE, and ARS on monitoring a subset of 12-digit HUCsSeek opportunities to work closer at State and Regional levels34Selection of MRBI Watersheds for CollaborationScreening Criteria

Existing monitoring baseline and long term data and reasonable expectation of continued monitoring (Agencies, Universities and Partners)Proximity to USGS gauging stationsNRCS funded projects planned for edge-of-field monitoring per CPS 799 319 projects nutrient relatedNutrient 303d listed watersAreas where high levels of conservation systems are being implementedPotential for comparisons of before and after dataWilling landowner participationPartners able and willing to do monitoring35Selected 15 MRBI 12-digit HUCs

36 Arkansas: LAnguile and Point Remove

Iowa: Boone River

Minnesota: Sauk

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

Mississippi: Big Sunflower

Wisconsin: Upper RockNext 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 modelsWork 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.37Adaptive Nutrient ManagementA 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.

38Adaptive Nutrient ManagementNeeded actions identified during the meeting:

Create adaptive management work team to further flesh out and document work plan, timeline, and goalsDevelop 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 managementIdentify how to advance adaptive management through Conservation Action Plan in addition to 590

39Application of Agricultural Drainage Water ManagementPaul SweeneySenior Project LeaderOffice of the Regional ConservationistsBismarck, North Dakota40Strategic 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 employeesMRBIs $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.41Discussion

Questions and Answers42ClosingChief Dave White43Thank you for your partnership and for your attendance to todays 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