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

2. Chief Dave White
Welcome
Introductions
Opening Remarks

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 2010 Report is on the NRCS website

12. Success stories from each of the states

13. State-by-State and by program information

14. 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

15. 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!

16. Lessons Learned to Date
Tom Christensen

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. O&E Study Findings and Recommendations

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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).

32. 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

33. Conservation Initiatives Coordinator
Monitoring and Evaluation Collaboration with EPA, USGS, ARS, and Other Partners
Troy Daniell
Conservation Initiatives Coordinator
Washington, DC

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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

40. Application of Agricultural Drainage Water Management
Paul Sweeney Senior Project Leader Office of the Regional Conservationists Bismarck, North Dakota

41. 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.

42. Discussion Questions and Answers

43. Closing
Chief Dave White

44. 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) (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 or call (202) (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.