1

LeadershipforMidwesternWatersheds#6:MeetingProceedingsGettingCreativewithFundingandMessagingtoImplementStateNutrientReduction

Strategies:RCPP,SoilHealthandConservationCroppingSystemsMarch8-9,2016Milan,Illinois

ExecutiveSummaryLeadership for Midwestern Watersheds (LMW) is a forum for watershed project directors and key stakeholders from five Upper Midwestern states to compare notes and share lessons learned about project goals, design and implementation. Begun in 2011 as a partnership among Sand County Foundation, American Farmland Trust, Iowa Soybean Association and the North Central Region Water Network, LMW seeks to develop a “community of practice”—a core group of conservation professionals skilled and experienced at the practical means of improving water quality through improvements in agricultural land management at the watershed scale. McKnight Foundation and Walton Family Foundation provide financial support for LMW. LMWmeetingsuseafacilitateddiscussionformat,withpresentationsfollowedbysmallgroupdiscussions.Inrecognitionofthecloserelationshipbetweenwaterqualityandsoilhealthasenvironmentaloutcomesofwatershedprojects,thefocusofthisyear’smeetingwas“GettingCreativewithFundingandMessagingtoImplementStateNutrientReductionStrategies:RCPP,SoilHealthandConservationCroppingSystems.”ThekeyideasemergingfromthisLMWmeetingwerethatsoilhealthcanbeavaluablecomponentofwatershed-scaleprojectsdirectedatimprovingsurfacewaterquality,andthatwatershedprojects’contributiontostatenutrientreductionstrategiesvarieswidelyamongMidwesternstates.NutrientReductionStrategies:TheparticipantswereupdatedonseveralStateNutrientReductionStrategies(NRS).

• IowareleaseditsstrategyinMay2013withdesignatedprioritywatersheds,somestate-directedresources,awaterqualitycouncilandastatewideprogramprimarilyfocusedonexpandingtheuseofcovercrops.ThreeRegionalConservationPartnershipProgram(RCPP)projects,includingonejustapprovedforfundinginearly2016,bringadditionalNRCSconservationfundingtothestate.

• Minnesotastarteddevelopingitsstrategyin2008andfinisheditin2014.Itidentifieshighandmediumprioritywatersheds,proposingtoreducenitrogenrunoffwithfertilizermanagement,tilewatertreatmentandvegetativecover.Minnesotausesitstaxforcleanwatertoimplementwatershedplanning,andhascommittedtolongtermmonitoringofwaterqualityattheHUC8level.TheyhaveseveralMRBIprojectsinmediumorhighpriorityareas.

2

• TheWisconsinNRShasnostateresourcesassignedtoit.Phosphorus,notnitrogenisthepollutantofgreatestlocalconcern.Astatewidephosphorusrule,adoptedin2010,allowsregulatedpointsourcesofphosphorustopursuepollutionreductionsfromagricultureaspartoftheirpermitcomplianceprogramsundertheCleanWaterAct(theso-calledAdaptiveManagementOption,orAMO).RCPPandMississippiRiverBasinInitiative(MRBI)projectsinWisconsinhavetendedtoberelatedtoactualorplannedAMOprojects.ThethinlyresourcedNRSwasdevelopedlater.Wisconsinbelievesitcanonlyachievea20-25percentreductioninnitrates(N)fromagriculturewithexistingtechnologies.

• IllinoisreleaseditsNutrientLossReductionStrategyin2015.IllinoisCouncilonBestManagementPractices(CBMP),acoalitionoffarmandagribusinessgroups,takesaleadershiproleinmessaging.Stafffromvariousnonprofitorganizationsandagenciesmeetquarterlytocoordinatesmalloutreacheffortsaroundthestate.SeveralRCPPandMRBIprojectsprovidesomefederalresourcesforconservationpracticesinprioritywatersheds;thereisminimalstatesupport.TheIllinoisCornGrowersandILCBMPalsomakeportableNsensormonitorsavailabletofarmerssotheycantesttheirwateranonymously.

SoilHealth:Presentationsaddressedcomponentsofsoilhealth;indicatorsandmetrics;andresourcesavailabletohelpprojectmanagersincorporatesoilhealthinwatershedprojects,particularlythoseavailablethroughthenewSoilHealthPartnership.Groupdiscussions:Thesmallgroupdiscussionsthatfollowedfocusedonwhatsoilhealthmeansinthecontextofwatershedprojectsandhowsoilhealthindicatorscanbeintegratedintooutcomes.Keypointsfromthediscussions:

• ImprovingsoilhealthislinkedmoredirectlytoPreductionthantoNreduction.“IfP,synergy;ifN,controversy.”

• Landowners,notfarmoperators,holdultimatepower.Engagingthemiscrucial,andwillremainsoasownershiptransitionsovernext10-15years.

• Soilhealthmetricsareadifficultsubject,withnocurrentconsensusastowhichmethodologytouse,howtoaccountforchangesovertime,orhowtorelatesoilhealthchangestosurfacewaterquality.

• Agretailersingeneralarereluctanttoengagewithsoilhealth,fearingtheylackadequateinformation,particularlyoneconomicimplicationsforfarmers.

• Discussionsonsoilhealthcanhelpengagefarmers.SoilHealthandFarmers:Apanelonsoilhealthfromthefarmers’perspectivefollowed,bringingtogethertwofarmersandtwowatershedprojectdirectors.Keyideas:

• InoneIowawatershed,farmersdevelopedawatershedplantoincreasesoilorganicmatterratherthansetanNreductiongoal.Theysawthisas

3

benefitingtheirownoperationsasteptowarddevelopingamoreresilientsystem.Improvingtheirsoilshasalreadygottenthemthroughonedrought.

• Bothfarmersonthepanelconfirmedpositivechangesinsoilstructureandhealthasaresultoftheireffortsbutarestillstrugglingwithcovercrops.

• Soilhealthimprovementrequiressystemimprovement,notonechangebutseveral.

• Farmersonthepanelfeltcovercropspaidforthemselves,butnotimmediately.Atleastfiveyearsmaybeneededbeforefarmersseenoticeableincreasesincropyields.

Groupdiscussions:Thegroupdiscussionsthatfollowedwentintogreaterdepthontheneedfor:

• clearerdefinitionsandmetricsforsoilhealth,• betterinformationontheeconomicsofsoilhealthanditsimprovement• awaytoengagenon-residentlandowners,includingspousesandrelationsof

farmersandinvestorsinland.

• Onegroupfeltthatsoilhealthshouldbepackagedasastate-leveleconomicstrategytomakethestatesmorecompetitiveandcreatebusinessopportunities(equipment,seeds),aswellasagreenerlandscapeandbetterwaterquality.

• Coordinationwithstatenutrientreductionstrategieswillvaryamongstates.

InstateslikeIowathathavedevotedresourcestotheirs,theNRScanhelpwithprioritizationandfocusactionatthewatershedscale.

• Improvingsoilhealthisapositivemessagetofarmers,andcanbepresented

asaneffectiveriskreductionstrategytoincreasetheefficiencyofnutrientuseandmakeoperationsmoreresilient.However,thereneedstobemoretrainingfortechnicalserviceproviders,abroaderdiscussiononsoilhealthandmoreofanemphasisonsystemapproachesasopposedtopromotionofindividualpractices.

UpdateontheUSDANRCSResourceConservationPartnershipProgramandtheMississippiRiverBasinInitiative:Lastyear,$372millionfunded115projectsandnonewerefullyfunded.Thisyear,265pre-proposalsweresubmittedand84projectswerefunded($220million).TheFY2017RCPPpre-proposalsaredueMay10,2016.NRCShaschangedtheAnnouncementforProgramFunding(APF)tohelpeachapplicantrelatethe“story”oftheirprojecttoattainablegoalsandobjectives.Climatechangeandenergyhavebeenaddedasresourceconcerns.ProposalssubmittedtotheStatefundingpoolsarerequiredtoaddressatleastonenationallevelresourceconcernalongwiththe

4

stateconcern(s).WithbothRCPPandMRBI,innovationandtakingsomethingtoahigherlevelwillbeimportant.ApplicantswereencouragedtodiscussoptionswiththeirStateConservationistearlyintheprocess,butitemergedduringdiscussionthatnotallstateNRCSofficesviewtheirroleasthepartnertoapplicantsNRCSinWashingtonwouldlikethemtobe.NRCSregardsevaluationasRCPPprojects’weakestcomponent.Groupdiscussions:Inthesubsequentgroupdiscussions,participantstalkedabouttheopportunitiesofferedbytheRCPPandMRBIprojects,whatwasworking,whattheyhadlearnedandwhatimprovementstheywouldliketosee.Theseincluded:

• moretimetodevelopprojects• moreguidanceonmetrics• reducedpaperworkloadforindividuallandowners• bettertrainingatthelocallevelsopeopleknowhowcost-shareprograms

workandaredelivered• clearerexplanationsofthetechnicalassistancecomponent,and• guidanceondistributingthelessonslearned.

• Iowahasbenefitedfromhavinga“coach”atthestateleveltohelppeople

getpreparedtodevelopproposals;thisseemstobeclosetowhatNRCSinWashingtonislookingforfromstateoffices.

• TimingoftheRCPPfundingcycleisanissue.TheAFPcomesoutinthespring,

makingfarmerengagementwithproposedprojectsdifficult.Aswell,thecycleisnotcoordinatedwithotherpublicorprivatefundingsources’cycles,complicatingthetaskofsecuringmatchingfunds.

CoordinatingRCPPandMRBIwiththeStateNutrientReductionStrategies:Conservationshouldreallybepartofthefarmbusinessplanbecauseresourceissuesareinterconnected.Makingtheseconnectionsrequiresmulti-scale,multi-objectiveplanningtoconsiderthewholepictureandavoidendingupwithsinglepracticesthattendnottosurvive.RCPPandMRBIprojectsbringadditionalstakeholders,resources,networks,efficiencies,dollarsandmomentsofopportunities,andarethereforerelevanttoeachstate’sNRS.Theyarenot,however,alwayscoordinatedwitheachstate’sNRS.Groupdiscussion:TheparticipantswereaskedabouttheconnectionsbetweenthevariousfundingpoolsandthestateNRS.

• InIllinois,projectswerealreadyoperatinginwatershedsthathadrun-offproblems.

5

• BothinIllinoisandIowa,RCPPandMRBIprojectsarebasedinprioritywatershedsidentifiedbythestateNRS.

• IowanutrientmanagementstandardsrequiredintheRCPPsaremoreproduction-driventhanreduction-driven.TheymaynotbesufficienttomeettheNRSreductiongoals.

• TheWisconsinRCPP/MRBIprojectsdonothaveastrongconnectiontotheNRS.Itdoesn’tprovideenoughdatatoinformlocalprojects.

• IndianaRCPP/MRBIprojectslackastrongconnectionbecauseofthelackofoverallgoalsintheNRS.

• RegardingtheincorporationofsoilhealthintoprojectsandintotheNRS,thequestionofhowtovaluesoilhealthimprovementswasraised.SomeoftheIndianaprojectsuseEPASec.319fundstorelatesoilhealth(organicmatter)totheflashinessofstreams,floodwatersandimpactsondrought.