Implementation of Priority CRP Conservation Practices and Estimated Nutrient Load Reductions

Similar documents
Appendix F: Program Metadata Worksheets

CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (CREP) SUMMARY OF THE WISCONSIN S PROJECT

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

ANALYSIS OF CCRP S RECORD BREAKING ENROLLMENT NSAC SPECIAL REPORTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION AND STATE OF NEW YORK

COST SHARE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR IMPLEMENTING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

Government Conservation Programs

Don t Mow. Let it Grow!

Saturated Buffer. Subsurface Drainage PURPOSE N REDUCTION LOCATION COST BARRIERS

Conservation Practices for Water Quality: Sediment & Nutrient Control. Trap Sediments/Trap Nutrients on the Field. Improve Soil Health.

Northeastern Forest and Conservation Nursery Association

IA NRS Cost Tool Overview Tyndall & Bowman, 2016 Draft

Modeling the Impacts of Agricultural Conservation Strategies on Water Quality in the Des Moines Watershed

Appendix 12. Pollutant Load Estimates and Reductions

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Highlights of various programs. Wetlands Reserve program (WRP)

Reservoir age, increasing human population,

NRCS Programs and Practices for Riparian Areas in Hawaii

Modeling the Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest Basin

Riparian Buffers and Stream Restoration

The Fight against Soil Erosion in Minnesota-the Conservation Reserve Program at the Front Line

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

orking Trees for Water Quality

Vegetative Buffer Regulations to Protect Water quality

A Brief Overview of U.S. Agricultural Conservation Policy

Agricultural/Rural Riparian Buffer Analysis

Nutrient Management in. A presentation to the West Metro Water Alliance

GLASI GLASI. Priority Subwatershed Project. Great Lakes Agricultural Stewardship Initiative

C. Staffing Needs Approximately 150 staff days TSA #3 staff time will also be utilized.

CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Bob Broz University of Missouri Extension

BWSR PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS NUTRIENT LOSS

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT of RUNOFF. Sarah A. White, Ph.D. 27 July 2017

BMP 5.4.2: Protect /Conserve/Enhance Riparian Areas

New Practices for Nutrient Reduction: STRIPs and Saturated Buffers. Matthew Helmers and Tom Isenhart Iowa State University

Site Condition Evaluation & Environmental Benefits Report

USDA and other Government Agency efforts to Enhance Soil and Water Conservation

Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Gregg J. Cassidy RI DEM, Sustainable Watersheds Office

Crow Wing Soil and Water Conservation District Annual Plan

USC BMP Definitions - Agricultural Best Management Practices (including NEIEN Code Id)

CLMP+ Report on Fleming Lake (Aitkin County)

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative

4. Ponds and infiltration BMPs can achieve 60 to 100% removal efficiencies for sediment.

Wisconsin Wastewater Operators Association. Protecting Our Water Resources: The Future Bill Hafs - NEW Water 10/2014

Rappahannock County Riparian Buffer Study. Submitted by: Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

NRCS s Soil Health Initiative and its Relationship to Water Quality

Narragansett Bay and Watershed Restoration Bond Fund

Project Priority List scoring worksheet - stormwater Guidance document

Hydrology 101. Impacts of the Urban Environment. Nokomis Knolls Pond Summer June 2008

BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER

Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Incentive Programs)

The Conservation Reserve Program

Modeling Sediment and Nutrient Loads Input to Great Lakes and Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water Quality

Watershed BMPs. Notes from NRCS online site on BMPs. Focus on key BMPs

Growing Crops for Biofuels Has Spillover Effects

Lake Creek Watershed Management Plan Public Meeting. Arrowhead Lake May 3, :00 PM

Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Best Management Practices

A Landowner s Guide to C o n s e rvation Buffer Incentive Pro g r a m s in Pennsylvania

CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

BIOLOGICAL WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. Sarah A. White, Ph.D. 25 Oct 2016

Rice SWCD 2018 Annual Plan of Work

The Purpose and Scope of this Guidance

MGWA Spring Conference April 19, 2012

USDA NRCS GRP WHIP CSP

AGRICULTURAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS

Agricultural NPS Measures. Kevin Wagner Aaron Wendt

Conservation Corner. Announcements. New Website

Clallam County DCD Update to Critical Area Ordinance for Existing & On-Going Agriculture

Kittitas County Voluntary Stewardship Plan

Maintaining Riparian Areas and Wetlands

The USDA. Farm Bill:

Ohio Lake Erie CREP Program: Annual Report on Water Quality

Fire Management CONTENTS. The Benefits of Guidelines...3 Considerations...4

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: GRAZING MANAGEMENT

How is Water Quality Affected by Land Use?

Modeling Sediment and Nutrient Loads Input to Chesapeake Bay and Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water Quality

Surface Water Management

Appendix X: Non-Point Source Pollution

Small-Scale Farmers and the Environment: How to be a Good Steward

Leveraging Resources for Implementing a Successful Nonpoint Source Grant Project

2nd Bulletin of the Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program and Assessment Tool

Edge-of-Field Monitoring

Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Monarch. Buffer Strips. Habitat Restoration Planning using Riparian

Municipal Stormwater Management Planning

COTTONWOOD CREEK RECLAMATION PHASE I & II

Minnesota River Basin Interagency Study

DRAFT Budget and Outcomes Committee FY18-19 Clean Water Fund recommendations (July 8, 2016)

NUTRIENT TRACKING TOOL (NTT: 2 ND GEN.): AN APEX INTERFACE & A TOOL TO EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FARM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

LPES Small Farms Fact Sheets* Small-Scale Farmers and the Environment: How to be a Good Steward. By Mark Rice, North Carolina State University

Programmatic Environmental Assessment Forest-Wide Erosion Abatement USDA Forest Service Shawnee National Forest

Stormwater BMP Maintenance

National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution

Clean Water Optimization Tool Case Study: Queen Anne s County

Analysis of Effectiveness of Ohio NRCS Practice Standards in Addressing Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment

INTRODUCTION TO HOBBY FARMING AND WATER QUALITY

WDNR - Using Snap-Plus to Quantify Phosphorus Trading Credits ( )

CLMP+ Report on Grass Lake (Anoka County) Lake ID# CLMP+ Data Summary

awetlands aprairie aforests ahabitat for Fish, Game & Wildlife

Statement of Basis. LG Everist, Inc., County Highway 17 Ortonville, Minnesota 56278, Big Stone County NPDES/SDS Permit No: MN May 2018

Maps for Nutrient Management Planning

Hawaii Forest Legacy Program

Transcription:

1 Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy Agricultural Sector/FSA CRP Program Measures Implementation of Priority CRP Conservation Practices and Estimated Nutrient Load Reductions Measure Background Visual Depiction The bar graphs below show the acreage and number of occurrences for two conservation practices funded through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Minnesota administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA). The two highlighted management practices (filter strips and riparian buffers) are considered priority water quality practices. Figure 2. Number of occurrences and acres of application for filter strips funded by CRP from 1999-2013 Figure 1. Number of occurrences and acres of application for riparian forested buffers funding by CRP from 1999-2013 Measure Description This measure focuses on implementation trends for two key conservation practices funded by through CRP administered by FSA, as well as the estimated associated reduction in nutrients through implementation. It is an indirect or surrogate measure for the overall CRP program in Minnesota, focusing on conservation practices identified by FSA as key to reducing nutrient contributions from agricultural land eligible to receive funding through CRP. Figure 1 shows the number and acreage of filter strips implemented through CRP in Minnesota from 1999-20013. As shown in Figure 1, the number and acreage associated with filter strips from 1999-2013 peaked in 2002, with a decline until 2006. In 2007, the number and acreage declined again, but rose in 2008. The number and acreage of filter strips declined during 2009-2011, with small gains made in 2012. During 2013, the number and acreage of filter strips exceeded 2008 levels, but have not achieved the 2002 peak year quantities. Figure 2 shows the number and acreage of riparian forested buffers implemented through CRP in Minnesota. According to Figure 2, the number and acreage of riparian forested buffers peaked in 2002 and steadily declined until a slight uptick in 2008, with further decline in 2009 and 2010. The number and wq-s1-80n4

2 Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy Agricultural Sector/FSA CRP Program Measures acreage of riparian forested buffers funded through CRP increased slightly in 2011 and 2012, with a return to 2005 levels in 2013. Table 1 below shows the estimated percent nitrogen and phosphorus removal associated with these practices. Table 1. Estimated nutrient removal efficiencies for two key CRP practices Best Management Practice Phosphorus Removal (%) Nitrogen Removal (%) Filter Strips 1 65 27 Riparian Buffers 2 95 58 1 Miller et al., 2012 MPCA 2013; Iowa State, 2013 Associated Terms and Phrases To better understand this measure, it is necessary to understand a few specific terms and phrases. Definitions used in this measure are as follows: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The longterm goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. Filter strips: an area of permanent herbaceous vegetation used to reduce sediment, organics, nutrients, pesticides, and other contaminant loadings in runoff. Filter strips provide a buffer between fields and water bodies and allow for settling out of suspended soil particles, infiltration of runoff and soluble pollutants, adsorption of pollutants on soil and plant surfaces, and uptake of soluble pollutants by plants. Conservation Practice 21/Minn. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (393). More information on the design standards is available at http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/mn/393mn.pdf Riparian buffers: an area of trees and shrubs located adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, or wetlands. Riparian forest buffers of sufficient width intercept sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other materials in surface runoff and reduce nutrients and other pollutants in shallow subsurface water flow. Buffers are located along or around permanent or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, or seeps. Conservation Practice 22/Minn. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (391). More information on the design standards is available at http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/mn/391mn.pdf Target There is no specific numeric target for this measure to date. Baseline Covers 1999-2013 (through May) Geographical Coverage Statewide

3 Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy Agricultural Sector/FSA CRP Program Measures Data and Methodology Methodology for Measure Calculation FSA tracks specific information related to CRP implementation and sign-ups over time. A variety of CRP reports are made available on the FSA CRP website https://arcticocean.sc.egov.usda.gov/crpreport/monthly_report.do?method=selectmonthlyreport&report =May-2013 To calculate this measure, information on annual practice acres and practice occurrences for CP-21 and CP-22 were extracted from FSA s CRP report entitled SUMMARY OF ACTIVE CONTRACTS BY PROGRAM YEAR BY STATE CRP - MONTHLY CONTRACTS REPORT for Minnesota. This information was placed into an Excel spreadsheet to generate the bar graphs shown in Figures 1 and 2. Data Source USDA-FSA Minnesota State Office Data Collection Period 1999 through 2013 Data Collection Methodology and Frequency FSA is in the process of transferring to a new data management system for CRP information. Information from October 2012 to present is contained in the new data management system. Information prior to October 2012 remains in the old system. Eventually, all data will be housed in the new data management system. Supporting Data Set Table 2 provided below contains practice acreage and number of occurrences for filter strips (CP-21) and riparian buffers (CP-22) from 1999-2013 as available in FSA s CRP report entitled SUMMARY OF ACTIVE CONTRACTS BY PROGRAM YEAR BY STATE CRP - MONTHLY CONTRACTS REPORT for Minnesota.

4 Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy Agricultural Sector/FSA CRP Program Measures Table 2. Practice acreage and number of occurrences for filter strips (CP-21) and riparian buffers (CP-22) funded by FSA through the CRP program by year Year Practice Acres Number of Occurrences 1999 Filter strips 8,275.10 991 2000 Filter strips 8,775.50 998 2001 Filter strips 13,500.20 1547 2002 Filter strips 23,433.90 2884 2003 Filter strips 10,442.40 1374 2004 Filter strips 6,756.10 958 2005 Filter strips 2,996.50 442 2006 Filter strips 7,869.60 1034 2007 Filter strips 4,990.30 665 2008 Filter strips 12,740.10 1435 2009 Filter strips 6,535.70 920 2010 Filter strips 4,609.20 634 2011 Filter strips 3,166.00 518 2012 Filter strips 5,105.60 698 2013 Filter strips 14,071.10 1700 1999 Riparian buffers 2,394.60 178 2000 Riparian buffers 3,545.50 253 2001 Riparian buffers 6,789.10 586 2002 Riparian buffers 12,811.50 1116 2003 Riparian buffers 4,600.70 442 2004 Riparian buffers 3,510.20 308 2005 Riparian buffers 2,246.10 221 2006 Riparian buffers 1,492.00 140 2007 Riparian buffers 1,391.70 118 2008 Riparian buffers 1,295.80 137 2009 Riparian buffers 418.7 51 2010 Riparian buffers 207.6 35 2011 Riparian buffers 470.4 57 2012 Riparian buffers 814.9 84 2013 Riparian buffers 1,968.20 204 Caveats and Limitations This measure only tracks two priority management practices funded by FSA through CRP conservation payments. Implementation of these management practices are largely determined by the amount of funding available annually through Minnesota s CRP program. FSA does not track nutrient load reductions associated with management activities implemented under CRP. Land enrolled in other conservation programs is eligible under CRP provided CRP does not pay for the same practice on the same land as any other USDA program. As a result, acreage captured under this measure might also be captured under other program indicators. The use of two data management systems creates challenges for easily reporting practice information by county. Current county-specific CRP reports provided by FSA do not specify individual practice acreages and occurrences. Lack of county-specific information for each practice over time does not allow the acreage information to be incorporated into the Strategy s 8- digit HUC analysis of implementation.

5 Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy Agricultural Sector/FSA CRP Program Measures Future Improvements Improvements to this measure will be made over time. Ideally this measure will be able to report on implementation of the two key practices by 8-digit HUC, as well as compare estimated nutrient load reductions. It would be helpful for FSA to incorporate a mechanism for estimated nutrient load reductions associated with CRP practices as part of programmatic tracking, possibly through CRP reporting requirements. However, this would require a national change in approach because CRP is a federal program. Financial Considerations Contributing Agencies and Funding Sources This measure only tracks the two priority management practices identified by FSA funded using CRP to make conservation payments. Payment rates for each management practice vary annually. References Iowa State University. 2013. Iowa Science Assessment of Nonpoint Source Practices to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus Transport in the Mississippi River Basin. May 2013. Section 2 of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy developed by Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Miller, T.P., J.R. Peterson, C.F. Lenhart, and Y. Nomura. 2012. The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Accessed June 2013. http://www.eorinc.com/documents/ag-bmphandbookformn_09_2012.pdf MPCA. 2013. D1 Nitrogen Sources to Land and Waters - Results Overview. DRAFT 2013 (Dave Wall, David J. Mulla, and Steve Weiss, MPCA). Waidler, D., M. White, E. Steglich, S. Wang, J. Williams, C.A. Jones, and R. Srinivasan. 2009. Conservation Practice Modeling Guide for SWAT and APEX. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Blackland, TX. Measure Points of Contact Agency Information Wanda Garry, Chief Conservation-Price Support Program Specialist USDA Farm Service Agency, Minnesota State Office 375 Jackson Street, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55101-1852 651-602-7712 Wanda.Garry@mn.usda.gov