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

Tom Christensen Regional Conservationist – Central MRBI Overview Tom Christensen Regional Conservationist – Central

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative Mississippi River flows 2,300 miles through the heartland to the Gulf of Mexico Watershed 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 Initiative Geographic Area: Arkansas Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Ohio South Dakota Tennessee Wisconsin 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 Current Total 13 States Participating 43 MRBI Focus Area Watersheds 95 Funded Projects

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative Objective: 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

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative Funding – FY 2010 through FY 2013 Based on project requests, dedicating $80 million in financial assistance each year 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): Competitive process through which entities submit project proposals Allows for certain flexibilities Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP) Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

Mississippi 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

Deena Wheby MRBI Coordinator Lexington, Kentucky Progress to Date Deena Wheby MRBI Coordinator Lexington, Kentucky

MRBI 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 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 2011 17 CCPI 2 WREP SWAT Technical Assistance of $4 million Partners matched with $2.4 million New CIG projects to be announced soon

Partnerships Project proposals submitted by: Conservation Districts Watershed Coalitions Planning Commissions State Departments of Agriculture, Land Stewardship, Conservation, and Water Resources Resource Conservation and Development Councils Entities including TNC, Ducks Unlimited, American Farmland Trust, American Corn Growers, Land Trusts, and wildlife groups Contributing Partners: EPA, USGS, USACOE, ARS, Universities, On-Farm Network, Discovery Farms, and many, many others!

Lessons Learned to Date Tom Christensen

Lessons Learned Need 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 (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 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 projects

Response 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 implementation Nutrient Management: Promote adaptive nutrient management strategies to achieve enhanced nutrient management results

Response 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 techniques Strategic use of edge-of-field monitoring to support CEAP modeling to 12-digit HUC level 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: Establish clear, achievable, and measurable performance expectations and environmental outcome measures for MRBI

New FY 2011 Approved CCPI and WREP Projects Arkansas (3) Arkansas/Louisiana (2) Illinois (1) Indiana (1) Iowa (3) Mississippi (1) Missouri (6) 2 WREP Kentucky (1) Iowa (1)

New 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

NRCS’s new webpage! 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

New FY 2011 Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) Gregorio Cruz Conservation Innovation Grants Manager Washington, DC

O&E Study Findings and Recommendations

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation Study 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 Oversight and Evaluation Study Findings The 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.

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation Study 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.

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation Study 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.

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation Study 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).

Conservation Practice Standard 799 Oversight and Evaluation Study Actions Less expensive monitoring systems being considered Job sheets under development Training has been provided to MRBI states February 11, 2011, memo to clarify use of CPS 590 for nitrate and tissue testing Collaboration with State-level EPA agencies Exploring EQIP policy that limits payments to 3 years Data coordination team to compile data CPS 799 payment schedules will be reviewed

Conservation Initiatives Coordinator Monitoring and Evaluation Collaboration with EPA, USGS, ARS, and Other Partners Troy Daniell Conservation 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 Steps NRCS 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 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 Management Needed 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 management Advance 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 Drainage Water Management Paul Sweeney Senior Project Leader Office of the Regional Conservationists Bismarck, North Dakota

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 funds SWAT staff will not be federal employees MRBI’s $4 million will be matched by almost $2.4 million MRBI will have 126 FTE (over a three year period) – more than 40 full time equivalents per year/each year Account for the most “boots on the ground” from all the initiatives NRCS and partners will have approximately 90 agreements signed for all the initiatives; 23 will be in MRBI.

Discussion Questions and Answers

Closing 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.