Conservation Planning and Technical Assistance Division

1. Conservation Planning and Technical Assistance Division

2. Programs and Activities CTA Conservation, Area-wide planning Wetlands Policy HELC/WC Compliance Appeals Equitable Relief Partnership Initiatives GLCI Watershed Survey & Planning Watershed Planning Floodplain Management Studies Watershed Operations Watershed Rehabilitation EWP ECP Branch Functions Conservation & Watershed Planning Branch Conservation & Area-wide planning Watershed Planning Rapid Watershed Assessment Floodplain Mgt. Studies Conservation Tech. Assistance Branch CTA budget and program mgt. GLC & GLCI Highly Erodible Land Cons. compliance Wetlands Cons. Compliance Appeals (Compliance & Program) Equitable Relief (Compliance & Program) Partnership Initiatives: Coastal America, National Estuaries, Organic Trade Assn. Water Resources Programs Branch Watershed Operations Watershed Rehabilitation Emergency Watershed Program Emergency Conservation Program (Liaison) Division Programs and Responsibilities

3. Unique CWPs National Leadership in Conservation Planning National Leadership in Area-Wide and Watershed Planning, Policy and Procedures Congressional Earmark Management HELC/WC Policy Wetlands Policy Appeals and Equitable Relief Core Work Products (CWPs)

5. Natural Resource Planning Framework A process used regardless of the expected outcome, scope, size of the planning area, complexity of natural resource problems and opportunities, or source of funding to be used for implementation.

6. The Process – A Three Tier Approach • Phase I – Collection and Analysis • Understanding the needs, problems, and opportunities • Phase II – Decision Support • Understanding the solutions • Phase III – Application and Evaluation • Addressing the needs and understanding the results

7. Phase I – Collection and Analysis • Identify Problems and Opportunities • Determine Objectives • Identify Resources • Analyze Resource Data

8. Provides a general picture of resource concerns for a broad area, an estimate of the conservation needs, and an estimate of funding needs as well as potential sources of funding. Rapid Watershed Assessment

9. Assessment Components • Watershed Resource Profile • Summary Matrix

10. Watershed Resource Profile A descriptive set of data portraying the significant natural resource features of the watershed.

11. Summary Matrix An evaluation of watershed resources to determine the size, scope, and value of natural resource needs.

12. Benefits of Rapid Watershed Assessment • Identifies resource needs and set priorities • Provides transparency to stakeholders • Provides useful information for all aspects of planning • Increases partner and stakeholder participation in the planning process • Facilitates assessments of workload and costs • Provides a platform for conservation program implementation

14. CTA Program • Unified, comprehensive national policy • Annual and long-term performance measures • Efficiency measures • National priorities (mirror EQIP national priorities) • CTA Program – vehicle for conservation planning prior to Farm Bill program commitment, and for follow-up after Farm Bill contract expires • Allocation formula • OMB PART (Reassessment)

15. Retirement CTA CRP WRP Stability CTA FRPP GRP RC&D Opportunity CTA CSP CIG RC&D Improvement CTA EQIP WHIP AMA RC&D Linking CTA Program Conservation Planning to NRCS Farm Bill Conservation Programs CP RWA KEY: CP – Conservation Planning RWA – Rapid Watershed Assessment

16. Program Assessment Rating Tool Scores for NRCS Programs

17. CTA Allocation Formula

18. CTA Earmarks

19. GLCI (Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative) • CTA Earmark ($27.2 M in FY-06) • Allocated by formula • Invasive Species grants (FY-06) • GLCI and GLC

20. GLCI Allocation Formula • Resource Factors (grazing land, grazing land needing treatment, Federal grazing permits, grazing livestock, and operations with grazing livestock) • Performance Factors (acres planned, acres applied, and acres of prescribed grazing)

21. Linkage Between State Allocations and Performance • The Deputy Chief for Programs recommends national goals for each program to Deputy for Strategic Planning and Accountability (SPA). • Program Mgrs. develop methodologies to link program $ with performance goals for each state, in consideration of NRCS Strategic Objectives and Mgt. Initiatives. • Performance methodology closely mirrors resource factors, cost of doing business, and other data used in the allocation formula • Methodology is used to project program goals for each state in accordance with program $ recommended • Deputy Chief for SPA approves national goal & methodologies • SPA provides RACs with approved national goals methodology for distribution of performance to each state • RACs use methodologies to assign final performance goals to each state, in consideration of localized regional and state circumstances

22. Conservation Compliance • Highly Erodible Lands Conservation Compliance (HELC) • Wetlands Conservation Compliance (WC)

23. Highly Erodible Land Compliance (Sodbuster) • Affects annually tilled cropland ONLY • Trigger for non-compliance is production of annually tilled commodity crop without a conservation system that meets the soil protection requirements: • With a cropping history prior to 12/23/1985 – “A substantial reduction in soil erosion (two levels – pre and post 7/3/1996) • Sodbuster from native vegetation – “No substantial increase in soil erosion” • Conservation Plans are only required for the following: • Reinstatement from past violation • After good faith has been granted, but prior to reinstatement of benefits • After a “TA” variance has been granted.

24. Wetlands Conservation Compliance (Swampbuster) • NRCS Actions to Align Current Policy with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements • House and Senate Agriculture Committees expressed concern about perceived “regulatory creep” in NRCS’ handling of Swampbuster. • Guidance on the implications of NRCS and COE withdrawal from Wetlands MOA • Joint Memo to the Field from Chief Knight and George Dunlop, COE (Re-focus on compliance-related wetland conservation activities. No authority for Clean Water Act determinations) • Self Certification of normal maintenance (Rev. AD-1026) • Discussions on Certified v. “Official” determinations • Renewed effort to protect “legacy” wetland tools and maintenance of documentation supporting NRCS technical determinations • Overall re-focus of NRCS’ role as that of providing accurate and timely assistance to landowners, who are responsible for compliance.

25. Appeals • “What you always wanted to know about appeals but were afraid to ask” • Newly published rule to provide better accountability and finality of decisions • Reviewable Record Requirements (614.6) • STC Review of Final Technical Determinations (§614.7(c)) • Program Decision Specificity (§614.9) • Establishment of State Coordinators • Appeals Proficiency Enhancement Opportunities

26. Equitable Relief • NRCS STC’s and Chief have authority to grant program participants relief when: • An agency representative provides erroneous information or advice • A participant fails to fully comply with a program requirement

27. Place holder for PL-06

28. PART Efficiency MeasuresWatershed Operations (WF-03 & WF-08) Use of Logic Model (hard copy handout) is the key to understanding how PART efficiency measures were identified: • Program Activities • Work Products (Deliverables in POINTS) • Annual Performance Measures • Efficiency Measures • Long Term Performance Measures

29. Relationship between PART, PRS Performance Goals, & POINTS • PART is where performance and efficiency measures are identified and tracked to measure program performance over multiple years. • PRS Performance Goals and POINTS are NRCS tools to collect performance data that feeds into PART scores

30. Watershed Program Work Products • Work products and “deliverables” are the same thing, and are identified in POINTS when states make funding requests. • Watershed Plan Revisions/Supplements • Long Term Contracts • Investigations/surveys/designs • Contracts and obligating funds • Construction • Easements/Relocations/Land Rights • Wildlife Mitigation • The planned deliverables are evaluated by the National Program Manager for all funding requests:

31. Watershed Program Annual Performance Measures and Progress • Identified in PART • Watershed Program data is transferred to PRS, but • performance data is entered in POINTS • # of flood prevention measures installed • # of completed LTC’s (all measures applied) for Water Quality • # of Multi-Purpose Water Supply Reservoirs

32. Watershed Operations: Efficiency Measures • Listed in PART. This tracks, from year to year, how successfully NRCS directs program dollars to the highest priority • FTE’s per flood mitigation measure • Ratio of funded flood mitigation projects to the total number of funded projects.

33. Watershed Operations:Long Term Performance Measures • Listed in PART as a 10-Year goal • Performance is entered annually into POINTS • Reduce average annual flood damage by ___ million dollars • Improve, protect or enhance ___ miles of streams and corridors, and ___ million acres of lakes and reservoirs • Conserve ___ acre-ft of water

34. Watershed Program Allocation Formula • Technical Assistance (TA) to service legal contractual obligations from prior years • Technical and financial assistance (FA) for emergency remedial repairs • Congressional Earmarks

35. Earmarks Managed by Deputy Chief for Programs • FY 2004 $190,919,800 • FY 2005 $177,300,318 • FY 2006 $190,350,570

36. Priorities for funding Congressional Earmarks • Flood damage reduction in order of least cost to most cost • Water conservation in order of least cost to most cost • Water quality in order of least cost to most cost • Erosion control in order of least cost to most cost

37. Watershed Program Allocation Formulas after Congressional Earmarks • Flood damage reduction in order of least cost to most cost • Water conservation in order of least cost to most cost • Water quality in order of least cost to most cost • Erosion control in order of least cost to most cost

38. Emergency Watershed Protection Program • Another PART review was conducted on the EWP FY 06. • The EWP Program received an adequate rating. • Several performance measures were adopted during this process.

39. Emergency Watershed Protection Program • Performance measures for the EWP Program: • Percent of project sites that require EWP restoration more than twice in a 10-year period. Goal 0 percent by 2015 • Percent of completed EWP measures that require remedial repair. Goal 1 percent by 2010

40. Emergency Watershed Protection Program • Performance measures continued: • Percent of local disaster recovery agreements that are by local sponsors. Goal 30 percent in FY 2007 • Percent of recovery measures for natural disaster events completed within required timeframe. Goal 98 percent in FY 2007

41. Emergency Watershed Protection Program • Performance measures continued: • Percent of NRCS State Office Emergency Recovery Plans that meet national standards. Goal 100 percent in FY 2007 • Acres protected using EWP activities per $1 million (by watershed). Goal 5000 acres per $1 million in 2007

42. Emergency Watershed Protection Program • Performance measures continued: • Average number of days from allocation of EWP Program dollars to state offices and completion of local disaster recovery projects. Goal 330 days in FY 2007 • Information is obtained from the EWP Final Reports to determine performance measure goals.