Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative"

Jonah Wilcox
5 years ago
Views:

1 Gulf Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative Presented by: Mike Sullivan, Arkansas State Conservationist

2 Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin

4 2008 Action Plan Goals 4 1. Coastal Goal: Strive to reduce or make significant progress towards reducing the fiveyear running average areal extent of the hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers by the year Within Basin Goal: To restore and protect the waters of the 31 States and Tribal lands within the Basin through implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction actions 3. Quality of Life Goal: To improve the communities of the MARB, in particular the agriculture, fisheries, and recreation sectors, through a cooperative, incentive-based approach

11 Key Actions from 2008 Plan Three Actions to Accelerate the Reduction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus will have the most direct effect on the size of the zone Utilize existing programs to enhance protection of Gulf and local water quality Focus on State nutrient strategies Introduce complementary Federal strategies 11

12 Arkansas Strategies Identify nutrient reduction activities and determine funding needs. Develop nutrient reduction strategies, including an analysis of implementation costs. Support federal programs - Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), CRP, CREP, Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Support writing on farm nutrient management plans within designated nutrient surplus watersheds. Complete modification of Illinois River CREP agreement to increase landowner participation.

Objective Federal Strategies Mississippi River

overall health and water quality in small

runoff Restore and enhance wildlife habitat and

Uses a Systems Approach Conservation practices

effectiveness Examples of Conservation Practices

13 Objective Federal Strategies Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative Improve the overall health and water quality in small watersheds MRBI Priorities Reduce nutrient runoff Restore and enhance wildlife habitat and wetlands Maintain agricultural productivity MRBI Uses 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

closely with land users so that the plans for conservation reflect their objectives Through

14 Back to the Future Legacy Principles Assess the resources, problems, and opportunities Draw on various sciences and disciplines and integrate into a plan for the whole property Work closely with land users so that the plans for conservation reflect their objectives Through implementing conservation on individual properties, contribute to the overall quality in the watershed

CEAP: The Conservation Effects Assessment Project Original goals: Quantify and establish the scientific understanding of the effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale, and estimate

15 CEAP: The Conservation Effects Assessment Project Original goals: Quantify and establish the scientific understanding of the effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale, and estimate conservation effects and benefits at regional and national scales. Vision for the future: Enhanced natural resources and healthier ecosystems through improved conservation effectiveness and better management of agricultural landscapes. 15

16 CEAP: Regional Cropland Assessment Reports 16

17 CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments 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 a suite of conservation practices, because no single practice is a universal solution. 17

18 9

Residue and tillage management Drainage Water Management ACT

19 Avoiding, Controlling, Trapping (ACT) Avoiding Nutrient management Rate, Timing, Form, Method Avoiding Controlling Residue and tillage management Drainage Water Management ACT Trapping Buffers Controlling Wetlands designed for nutrient removal Trapping

20 MRBI vs General Conservation Programs MRBI Projects proposed and sponsored by conservation partners Partners choose ranking questions Partners choose conservation practices Funding is provided within a specific project area Water quality monitoring and evaluation is included in conservation practices General Programs Funding provided through NRCS without matching contributions from partners State Technical Committee chooses ranking questions Most available practices can be selected by farmers Funding is statewide Water quality monitoring and evaluation is not available

21 Small Watershed Focus Projects address one or more 12-digit HUC watersheds within a designated 8-digit HUC focus area. 12-digit HUCs list is available on the NRCS MRBI website 21

23 Geographic Area Arkansas-Illinois-Indiana-Iowa-Kentucky-Louisiana-Minnesota-Mississippi- Missouri-Ohio-South Dakota-Tennessee-Wisconsin # Participating States # Focus Areas # CCPI Projects # WREP Projects FY2010 FY2011 FY

123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement Average of 9.

24 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement Average of 9.5 partners per watershed FY10 FY12 funding = $222 million FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement Average of 9.5 partners per watershed FY10 FY12 funding = $222 million FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated

25 Landscape Conservation Initiative Funding MRBI Program for 13 states CCPI WREP CIG Total over the life of agreements Funding $269 million $260 million $26.6 million $555.6 million

Top 5 Practices for the MRBI States Practice Code

478 54,052 $3,473,694 Irrigation Storage Reservoir

313 39 59 $3,289,363 Terrace 600 363 1,705,319

26 Top 5 Practices for the MRBI States Practice Code Count Planned Amount Payment Amount Cover Crop ,052 $3,473,694 Irrigation Storage Reservoir ,561 $3,362,277 Waste Storage Facility $3,289,363 Terrace ,705,319 $3,208,786 Underground Outlet ,011,718 $2,360,685

27 Cover Crop Reduce runoff from water erosion Increase soil organic matter content reducing nutrient inputs. Capture and recycle or redistribute nutrients in the soil profile. Promote biological nitrogen fixation and reduce energy use. Increase water quantity and availability for plant uptake. Suppress Weeds. Manage soil moisture. Minimize and reduce soil compaction. Enhance nutrient use efficiency

28 Nutrient Management Injecting split applications of nitrogen emphasizes the four R s: Right Source of Nutrients, Right Time of Application, Right Rate, and Right Method of Application This practice lines up with the national nutrient management strategy.

29 Expected Water Quality Results Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus loading into waterways Reduced sediment from sheet & rill erosion Reduced sediment from irrigation-induced erosion

30 15 Focus Areas Arkansas Progress Active Projects Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist 24 Projects 19 CCPI 5 WREP > 70 partners $135 m Fed Funding $28 m from producers > $1 m from WREP partners > 1 m acres to be treated

Arkansas Project Funding 2010 CCPI Projects Obligated EQIP funds to date 10/01/12 Total EQIP funding for project 1 - Little River Ditches $1,688,280 $3,093,614 2 - Lower St.

31 Arkansas Project Funding 2010 CCPI Projects Obligated EQIP funds to date 10/01/12 Total EQIP funding for project 1 - Little River Ditches $1,688,280 $3,093, Lower St. Francis River $1,333,009 $2,908,836 3 L Anguille River $1,779,175 $4,182,105 4 Outlet Larkin Creek $1,111,238 $1,320,000 5 Point Remove Wetlands $6,018,346 $6,345, CCPI Projects 7 Cache River NLR $647,572 $1,054,000 8 Lower St. Francis NLR $1,915,590 $4,202,275 9 Middle Bayou Macon $4,600,725 $5,450, Bayou Boeuf $1,361,753 $4,047,000 (AR gets $1,666,317) 11 Lower Bayou Macon $1,181,867 $2,764,200 (AR gets $1,382,100) CCPI Projects 12 Bayou Meto Arkansas Co. $811,024 $6,962, Bayou Meto Middle $729,173 $9,880, Lower Arkansas Upper $601,120 $9,650, Grand Prairie $1,071,866 $9,730, Big $537,740 $3,232, EAEC (L Anguille) $162,677 $1,214,875 WREP Projects Cache River AGFC Cache-L Anguille River Mississippi River Trust The Nature Conservancy 18 Tyronza River $411,614 $4,951, Middle Cache $297,507 $3,022, Wapanocca $85,430 $1,318,286

32 Cache River Watershed WREP Project 2010 goal: Restore 10,000 acres Offers on 4,090 acres, restored 1,862 acres. Sediment load will be reduced by 27,000 tons/yr 8,000 additional acres in 2012 Designated as America s Great Outdoors project Big Woods large stand of bottomland HW Cypress estimated over 500 years old 200,000 acres designated as wetlands of International Importance TNC, USACE, USFWS, NRCS The Nature Conservancy Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist

33 Initiative Modifications in Lower Mississippi River Basin Water management additions/ revisions to current MRBI Multi-state Mississippi River batture lands forestry/wildlife initiative

MRBI in the Lower Mississippi River Valley State # of Contracts Funds obligated Treated acres Arkansas 671 26,478,114 167,595 Louisiana 72 1,837,195 18,775

34 MRBI in the Lower Mississippi River Valley State # of Contracts Funds obligated Treated acres Arkansas ,478, ,595 Louisiana 72 1,837,195 18,775 Mississippi ,898,497 69,853 Missouri ,175,656 80,725 Tennessee 92 1,345,010 5,971 Total 2,022 73,734, ,920 Data Source: ProTracts FY12, Oct. 24, 2012

35 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Voluntary monitoring to determine effects of conservation practice installation Partnering with Universities and other entities 3 tiered approach Edge of Field In Stream Pour Point

36 Typical MRBI Monitoring Partnerships Monitoring Activity Edge-of-Field monitoring partial funding for up to 9 years Edge-of-Field monitoring plan, equipment installation, sampling, analysis for up to 9 years In-stream monitoring above and below implemented conservation practices & edge-of-field sampling site 12-digit HUC outlet monitoring Partnership EQIP funding provided through NRCS to agricultural producer Monitoring partner contracts with landowner for assigned EQIP payment and contributes remaining funds Monitoring partner funds Monitoring partner funds Modeling of monitoring results Monitoring partner funds or funding agreements with NRCS at state level

Adaptive Management Initiative scale Add focus areas Review/modify eligible practices Evaluate and report results Project scale Annual review

37 Adaptive Management Initiative scale Add focus areas Review/modify eligible practices Evaluate and report results Project scale Annual review Review goals and evaluate progress Review/adjust ranking criteria Recommend eligible practices Field/contract scale Implement practices Evaluate results

Assessment of Projects Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist Reviews for 2010/11 Projects Partners are meeting their in-kind contributions. Good communication between all parties.

38 Assessment of Projects Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist Reviews for 2010/11 Projects Partners are meeting their in-kind contributions. Good communication between all parties. Increase landowner participation in all projects. All projects need additional funding beyond projects request. Making progress in planning of core practices. Joint MRBI review meeting with Louisiana and Arkansas. Will adapt ranking questions for FY13 to ensure practices are implemented to proximity of streams.

39 Next Steps Mike Sullivan Arkansas State Conservationist More in depth review for existing projects right practices in right places, sufficient treatment to achieve objective? Monitoring Activity Plan (new guidelines) FY13 Request for Proposals (RFP) Same Focus areas EQIP funding only Share lessoned learned regarding successful projects

40 Questions? Follow-up questions can be sent to: Mike Sullivan State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service or call

41 Non-Discrimination Statement: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives financial assistance from USDA, you may file a complaint with USDA. Information about how to file a discrimination complaint is available from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. To file a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign and mail a program discrimination complaint form, available at any USDA office location or online at or write to: USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C Or call toll free at (866) (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate office or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) or (800) (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD).

42 Easement Funds Obligated WREP Acres Number of Easements Restoration Dollars Obligated Cache River (WREP) 2010 $2,044, $1,051, TNC-FY11 $2,685, $3,913,835 TNC FY12 $4,084, $5,871, MRT-Batture Lands FY12 $989, $1,381,525 AR Game & Fish $810, $1,122,400 Cache/L Anguille (Poinsett Co.) Total $10,614,225 8, $15,384,936

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative A Progress Report for Arkansas Presented by: Mike Sullivan, State Conservationist FY 2010 12 States 41 Focus Areas FY 2011 Added two focus areas: SD/MS