Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeMississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative• Objective

– Improve the health of small watersheds by connecting locally to agricultural producers and land

• Priorities– Reduce off-site movement of sediment and nutrients – Restore and enhance wildlife habitat and wetlands– Maintain agricultural productivity

• Use 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– Management of agricultural drainage water 2

• Currently 73 active projects in 13 states

• $100 million dedicated in Environmental Quality Incentives Program from 2015–2018

• Additional funding opportunities through Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation Easements Program (ACEP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI)

4

102

78

77

6663

52

68

65

67

Number of Partners Reported

NRCS MRBI Watershed Projects (2010-2014)

Key Findings of the CEAP Cropland Regional Assessments

(Upper Mississippi, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Ohio/Tennessee)

• 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 suites of conservation practices because no single practice is a universal solution

Selection of Focus Areas for MRBI• In consultation with State Technical Committees• 8-digit HUCs• Utilized a consistent watershed evaluation process including:

– Information from CEAP– SPARROW model– State-level nutrient

reduction strategies and priorities

– State-level water quality data

– Available monitoring and modeling of nitrogen and phosphorus management

Alignment with State Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Alignment with State Nutrient Reduction Strategies

• NRCS and the state agencies confer on watershed priorities and geographies.

• Leveraging of state and federal funds• Many of the agriculture-related actions recommended in the

strategies fit MRBI Core Practices– Sheet, Rill and Gulley Erosion Control– Wetlands, Drainage Water Management – Cover Crops– 4R Nutrient Management– Grazing Management

8

MRBI: Targeted Approach to ConservationMRBI: Targeted Approach to Conservation

• Concentrate efforts in focus areas (high priority) at the small watershed scale (HUC12)

• Identify critical or vulnerable acres within the watersheds with the greatest need for practice implementation

Focus Area

Focus Area

12-Digit HUC Initiative Areas

12-Digit HUC Initiative Areas

Avoiding Nutrient management

Rate, Timing, Form, Method

Controlling Residue and tillage

management Drainage Water Management

Trapping Buffers Wetlands designed for

nutrient removal

Conservation Systems Targeting: Avoid, Control, Trap (ACT)

Avoiding

TrappingControlling

ACT

Goals for Active MRBI Projects

Outputs and Outcomes – A Work in Progress

– Tracking Implementation– Planning and Assessment Tools– Edge of Field Reductions - modeled (CEAP)– Edge of Field Reductions – monitoring– Load Reductions - modeled– In-Stream monitoring

Measuring Progress-Implementation TrackingState Contracts Treated Acres ObligationArkansas 1,664 389,808 $78,096,762Illinois 114 15,100 $1,525,242Indiana 170 56,399 $8,728,601Iowa 855 145,447 $26,579,189Kentucky 216 38,276 $4,608,607Louisiana 86 23,526 $2,359,240Minnesota 245 71,072 $5,470,356Mississippi 804 122,974 $45,599,488Missouri 1,421 145,863 $41,517,397Ohio 152 14,253 $7,400,028South Dakota 61 23,249 $1,883,999Tennessee 305 33,317 $4,772,743Wisconsin 96 19,963 $1,768,362

2010 - 2015

Practices:Cover cropNutrient managementIrrigation water managementIrrigation system improvementsTillage and residue managementTerraceGrade stabilizationWaste storage facilities

Measuring Progress-Planning Evaluation Tools

• Complete analysis of benchmark condition and planned system

• Metrics associated with planning/evaluation tools to provide anticipated impacts on specific resource concerns –– RUSLE2 – WQIag– Phosphorus/Nitrogen Index – Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP)– Geospatial analysis

Measuring Progress-CEAP Framework

• NRCS used the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) statistical framework and calibrated modeling system to estimate the amount of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus reduced in MRBI small watersheds at the edge of field

• Framework currently applies to cropland only and does not include some edge-of-field and instream practices that have a high conservation benefit

Measuring Progress-CEAP Framework - MRBI

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Nitrogen

 (lbs)

Sedimen

t (tns)/Pho

spho

rus (lbs)

Total Pollutant Reductions 2010‐2015 

Sediment Reduction Phosphorus Reduction Nitrogen Reduction

Tools used in Collaboration with Partners• Step-L/Region 5 spreadsheet• Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)

(USDA-ARS) • annAGNPS (USDA-ARS)• LOADEST (Purdue) – estimates from monitoring data• Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) surveys

EOF monitoring in the MRBI

• It provides direct feedback on what is happening on the farm

• It provides validation for tools and assumptions

• It is confidential• It engages the farmer at a very real level

of “what can I do to improve water quality?”

EOF Monitoring to Date • NRCS has existing AS 201/202

projects in AR, IN, MS, MO, NY, OH, VT, WA, and WI.

• AL, IA and MI will be offering EOF monitoring this FY.

• Since 2013, NRCS has funded 27 projects for approximately $4.2M.

In-Stream Monitoring (Partners)

• NRCS will support edge-of-field monitoring and will rely on other partners for in-stream monitoring and monitoring at the outlet of the HUC12 (or other water body)

• Where possible, EOF sites are located upstream of existing in-stream monitoring sites with available historical flow and water quality record to provide additional insight into water quality improvement

USGS photo

MRBI Project – Upper Birds Point, MO

Targeting within HUC12 • Cropland that received damage during the 2011 flood• Cropland that exceeds 3% slope with soil map units classified as Hydrologic Group B, C, D• Cropland with soil map units exceeding erosion K factor of 0.3• Cropland with rice in rotation

Project Goals/Metrics • Reduce nutrient off-site movement• Increase use of cover crops to 20% of watershed area• Implement IWM and improve system efficiencies to reduce

runoff/leaching• Implement grade stabilization on areas with concentrated flow

Tools • Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) – Calibrated specifically for use in Missouri

• Drop Pipe program

MRBI Project – Upper Birds Point, MO

• Targeting strategies are watershed specific to reflect local conditions

• Identify inherent vulnerabilities of the physical landscape

• Determine existing treatment levels

Project information courtesy of Steve Hefner, Missouri NRCS

MRBI Project – Middle Eel, INTargeting within HUC12 • Conventionally tilled cropland

• Eroding row crop fields• Livestock access to streams• Inadequate waste storage• Cropland without nutrient management plans

Project Goals/Metrics • Reduce nutrient off-site movement• Improve stream ecological integrity• Implement soil health practices• Provide outreach and learning opportunities• Link to other projects in the basin

Tools • Region 5 spreadsheet• Biotic integrity (with partner)• Water quality monitoring (with partner)

MRBI Project – Middle Eel, IN

Project information courtesy of Jill Reinhart, Indiana NRCS

Making Progress – Indian Creek Watershed, IL

• MRBI project through the CCPI

• Many partners involved bringing expertise and funding (CTIC, IL EPA, SWCDs)

• Concentration of practice implementation-- large producer participation, implemented practices on 57% of the watershed area

• Analyses of water samples collected between 2010 and 2015 are showing a positive impact on nutrient losses within the region

Making Progress– St. Francis River, AR

• MRBI project through the CCPI - 2010• Cross County and Poinsett County Conservation

Districts, ANRC, UA, AGFC, TNC, ADEQ

• Targeted approach -partners identified areas of high conservation need and tailored practices, such as nutrient management, residue and tillage management, water control structures, and irrigation pipelines

• In 2014, following years of focused conservation work, two segments of the St. Francis River were removed from the impaired waterway list because water quality had improved

Questions?

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.