Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

SERA-46 meeting May 18, 2015 1pm DRAFT notes Rebecca Power introduced the meeting and challenged us to work more effectively as a group than individually. Mike Schmitt presented survey results Two surveys (perception of our group on the issues): 1) How do we view the issues facing Gulf Hypoxia? • Two most important factors in addressing Hypoxia: nutrient mgmt. and drainage • Universities influencing producer behavior – greatest in manure mgmt. and nutrient mgmt., least on drainage o Is this a true reflection of reality? o Separate Iowa surveys reflect co-ops, dealers, CCAs, etc. more influential than universities • Do field practices match what is known scientifically? – undecided on the issues • LGUs have made great progress in the past 20 years? – greatest: nutrient rates and nutrient mgmt.; least: drainage • Without more research and education, we will make progress in the next 20 years? Overall disagreement • With continued research and education, we will make progress in the next 20 years? Overall agree Wordle popped out “research” as dominant word from the open comments 2) Intra-state work with collaborators • How is relationship with these entities: overall good o Dept of Ag o State pollution agency o NRCS o Conservation dists o Farm orgs o Conservation orgs • With respect to LGU mission how important should the relationship be?: verged on Very Important • How frequently do you interact with groups: averaging 2.5-3 (For this question, the responses were on a "continuous" quantitative scale with "4" being "very frequently" and "3" being "frequently" and "2" being "occasionally" and "1" being "rarely." So, depending on the specific group, the average of the respondents’ replies was in the "occasionally" to "frequently" part of the spectrum.) • How productive are interactions of mutual influence? Low for NRCS, higher for farm organizations Wordle result: Nutrient, management Katie Flahive (EPA, co-chair of coordinating committee) – discussion of Priorities for Collaborative Work document • Interaction of HTF with SERA-46 very important for moving forward • Identify Common Attributes and Gaps across State Nutrient Reduction Strategies o Challenge is to get states moving toward implementing their strategies o SERA-46 members role: taking our expertise to identify gaps and providing ways to fill them • Conservation practice systems o What will accumulate as a result of practices implemented? o Growing knowledge and converge them into implemented practices and measurable benefits • Nutrient efficiency o How do you quantify benefits? • Monitoring/calibration/validation o Non-point and point source metrics and measures to represent their work – from modeling? o Large-scale modeling? o Edge –of-field monitoring Challenge: scale. Address via measurement and modeling How do we take what we know now and scale appropriately? Rebecca leading review of DRAFT Priorities for Collaborative Work, gave a brief synopsis of the document: • 3 broad objectives • Identifying gaps across state nutrient reduction strategies (identify opportunities to apply across other states that might have been omitted in some states’ strategy documents) • Conservation Practice Systems o Would like to identify a few practices that could be applied broadly, but is this appropriate? o High priority: cover crops and tile drainage o Extension: ? Focus on people (practitioners) and practices in priority watersheds ? Ag 101 o Serve as a clearinghouse? o Research: ? Core stewardship practices across ecoregions ? Optimization of cover crops ? Social and economic research/need for expansion • Nutrient Use Efficiency o Extension ? Work in partnership with CCAs to train, develop training, how do we facilitate ? Work w/fertilizer industry and markets to support appropriate fertilizer application o Research ? 4Rs ? Identify reasons for different state recommendations for N & P rates for similar soil types and fields • Monitoring, Calibration, Validation o Water quality database integration/exchange (USGS, state env monitoring agency, LGUs, etc) What do you like? What do you not like? • Jason Hubbart: Getting through the groan zone, more synthesis of ideas, making real progress, lots of to-dos, think about what products come from this, what are the specific types of research, what studies do we need (or not), what are the products of those studies, how to synthesize the moving parts to reduce Hypoxia • Mike Schmitt: likes the current form, challenge Extension folks: how do we do better taking the science and changing behavior • Joe Piotrowski: collaboration has come a long way, are there things in research that can make a difference tomorrow, is 45% reduction too big of a bite?, can we take smaller bites (2% + 2%...), prioritize priorities • Ron Cossman: don’t see what is downstream, fishermen should be ally/collaborators, do they have potential clout that we don’t know about, upstream (USACE has different priorities) – targeting ag producers, where are fertilizer manufacturers, coordinating and sharing information – how do we do this on demand, science-driven, easy wins, quick progress, connect ag economists, producers, and the social indicators • Matt Helmers: like the framework, focus on monitoring, examining performance of practices across the regions, believe can have a broader core of practices (floodplain restoration, where are water quality benefits from buying out floodplains), heavily focused on nutrient mgmt. and not sure this can be solved with nutrient mgmt., need to diversify landscape, how to implement when in the short term they don’t make money, what about policy in relation to diversifying the landscape, ecosystem services benefits – expanded economic benefits, who pays for ecosystem services? • Norm Fausey: how do we address risk aversion for producers? • Joe Engeln: early adopters needed for practice implementation • Bob Broz: more realistic, what is our fertilizer use today vs where it’s going, climate variability integration, economics must be addressed, more profit and not production, lot of education upstream, careful with terminology (“sustainable” has negative meaning from early 1980s) • Joe Bonnell: likes connecting farmers and watershed practitioners, need more consultation of farmers, need more focus on human systems (policies and markets), targeting needed • Xiaoqiang Liu: more conservation practice integrity (practice might not be effective across the landscape), question about data • Barry Tonning: looking for commitment • Katie Flahive: pleased with document, how does this work relate/aggregation of benefits result in reduction of hypoxia? • Brian Miller: liked discussion of extension/research priorities, where is the interface on the ground? 1. Taking results/bmp tools to regional/farmer scales; 2. Economics of bmps; 3. Ability for edge-of-field measurements as an education tool; 4. Not one size fits all, extension educator training so that message is carried by local messenger • Jane Frankenberger: likes concrete and concise, agrees w/Matt in terms of matching field practices with the science but need to address profitability – need policy dimension, we maybe shouldn’t develop conservation systems but rather synthesize • Andy Ward: echo others sentiments, connectors are missing (streams, wetlands, ditches) and seems system at a field scale, document is unrealistic ($5m is a low estimate for this committee), doesn’t think we are organized correctly – we should be coordinating and integrating committee, focus on public awareness (general public, Toledo example) • Richard Ingram: very comprehensive, what are the priorities and what is the sequence, what can we leverage, lots of social science, what can be phased, what is low-hanging fruit? • Ken Genskow: lays out a series of issues to leverage other funding sources from an agreed-upon document, overall likes the document, back in divergent part, could frame the first paragraph more openly, not set in stone, open to opportunities, help refine and implement nutrient reduction strategies, list the four priorities we have later in the document, establish policy priorities, need to reflect opportunities for resilience for farm operations, 3rd objective addresses ag and non-ag audiences – maybe should change title to include ag focus • Wes Burger: missing – serve as integrator and communicator of information, diversifying landscapes are overlooked – not a sandbox with a plug – they are complex systems, need to look at multi-function landscapes, economic asymmetry – need to think about profitability from producers’ standpoint, we are asking for a public service (clean water) at a private costs and could we go beyond paying for that with subsidies, • Mike Daniels: like the geographic approach that helps us learn about ag in other regions, likes the opportunities for research/extension but don’t let that keep the ideas separately, monitoring/calibration component needs extension component, monitoring a great learning experience for farmers, need simple risk assessment tools, liked that farmers were put in leadership positions, recommends 12-state farmer committee, how do we track adoption, beyond tracking increased knowledge • Ray Knighton: need to include better nutrient metrics, what is nutrient use efficiencies in various watersheds, counties, etc, state nutrient reduction strategies are remarkably similar yet remarkably different • Forbes Walker: emphasis on fishermen • Amanda Gumbert: economics – save money and save time which equates to making money, comprehensive profitability Social Indicators Sub-committee Ron Cossman – can measure public opinion change in a short period of time compared to stream monitoring, must do some sort of intervention between baseline surveys and follow-up survey, really want to get 3-4 producers in a room discussing what they do and what we do and how we make our efforts palatable to them, identify handful of early adopters, what are driving forces of attitudes and beliefs, would like to get a working group that represents all LGUs to help collect data that proves success of the efforts of this group, recruit social scientists from LGUs (opportunity for collaborative funding, publication) Ken Genskow – 2 posters talking about this Nutrient Reduction Strategy Assessment sub-committee Ken Genskow presented summary, reflected in Appendix B of Atlanta notes • Proposed purpose, scope, and methods to assess NRS documents • Showed example of PushGraph tool that provides a concept map, distribution of concepts via word associations, could be used to analyze states’ NRS documents Research and Monitoring Subcommittee Andy Ward – needs guidance from HTF to determine priorities, if data collected from farmers/producers what will data be used for, edge-of-field: what is confidentiality of data? Farmers concerned about getting themselves in trouble/data used against them, Joe: is there some sort of quick analysis farmer can use to monitor runoff on their own, so farmer knows what they are losing out of their tiles? Matt: Iowa is getting a lot of questions for protocol development for monitoring their own tile drain outlets Jane: low-cost sensors aren’t out there Matt: has a colleague w NIFA grant working to develop low-cost sensor Katie: EPA has received 29 applicants for grant challenge for developing low-cost sensors, also collecting names for testing the sensors Jason: citizen science, working with colleagues at Rolla S&T to develop technologies for testing nitrate on a dissolving (??) sensor that bluetooths with your phone Ag101 Forbes: can provide basics of agriculture, what nutrients are important, how do we grow a crop, why are soil recommendations different across states Joe Piotrowski: what about buyers of commodities that are suggesting suppliers (growers) do certain things Katie: Field to Market group working to develop indicators, Katie has met with science director of this group to let her know about SERA-46 What is our bigger goal? Stay out of the weeds, don’t need to be another multi-state group focused on one particular science topic, but be more of an integrator Need short term action Change “conservation practice systems” to “conservation systems” Adding economics/profitability (cost savings as well)/feasibility May 19, 2015 8:30am Prioritization in 3 small groups (assignment: rank short term and long term actions) Short term Group 1: • Strengthening Networks #2 • Conservation Systems #7 • Monitoring, Calibration, Validation #3 Group 2: • Review state nutrient strategies – Strengthening Networks #5 • Inventory of existing monitoring – NCU #1 • Training and education – Conservation Systems #9 o Identify existing effective materials o Tailor for appropriate transfer Group 3: • Strengthening Networks #1,2,5 – Conservation Systems #1 will be used as part of Strengthening Networks 2, 5 • Conservation Systems #3 • Conservation Systems #8 Long term Group 1: • Conservation Systems #8 • Conservation Systems #1 • Conservation Systems #3 Group 2: • Development of social indicators Conservation Systems #7 • State nutrient reduction strategy implementation • Monitor and track individual and cumulative impacts, tracking effects of multifunctional impacts Group 3: • Conservation Systems #7 • Conservation Systems #10 • Strengthening Networks # 3,4 John Lawrence: What are our outcomes? What will the HTF accept as an outcome? Ex: monitoring conference? Stds developed for monitoring? Three working groups: Strengthening Networks (all) Conservation Systems # 7 Conservation Systems # 8 Tasks: identify overarching goal, Short term/Long term deliverables, Other people needed

SERA-46 has been working with an ad-hoc Hypoxia Task Force (HTF) sub-group over the past six months to develop the priorities document shown below, which we finalized in our SERA-46 meeting on May 18-19. The SERA-46 Executive Committee presented these priorities to the full HTF the next day. The shared priorities document was well received. We got some good questions. Comments ranged from being fully supportive and thanking us for our work (most comments) to wondering if what we’ve outlined is too much business as usual (one comment). While we did not make a specific “resource ask”, we did ask the HTF to help us find and advocate for the resources necessary to get our shared priorities accomplished. There seemed to be general agreement on this approach, but we’ll follow up with Katie Flahive to see what came out of the rest of the HTF meeting. Other important next steps include: - Engage necessary collaborators within and outside of the LGUs - Develop short white papers that can be used as pre-proposals; will include goals, deliverables, costs, anticipated impacts, etc. (Social indicators group is close to having one already) The white papers will set the stage for resource asks where additional resources are needed. A template will be designed for the white papers. Hypoxia Task Force and LGU SERA-46 Priorities for Collaborative Work Working DRAFT May 2015 This document outlines emergent opportunities for potential short- and long-term collaborative work between the Hypoxia Task Force and LGU SERA-46. It is a work in progress, reflecting the most recent thinking of HTF and SERA-46 members about where collaboration will contribute most to state-level nutrient strategies and reducing the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Each item in this summary can be tied to the three broad, proposed objectives: Objective 1: Establish and strengthen relationships that can serve the missions of multiple organizations addressing nutrient movement and environmental quality. Objective 2: Expand the knowledge base through the discovery of new tools and practices as well as the continual validation of recommended practices. Objective 3: Improve the coordination and delivering of educational programming and increase the implementation effectiveness of nutrient management strategies that reduce nutrient movement for agricultural and non-agricultural audiences. Additional information will be necessary to operationalize these ideas, such as: • How will SERA-46 and HFT integrate these ideas with existing efforts? • How will these ideas be resourced (e.g. funded, staffed)? Answering these questions will be important next steps in moving priorities for land-grant HTF collaboration forward. Document Key ? = SERA-46 Priority Items in Bold Italics = Short-term deliverables (May-Dec 2016). Note that some priority items may have short-term deliverables that are not yet developed and that all items will be communicated within the land-grants as being priorities for HTF and LGU collaboration. ? Strengthening Networks 1. ? Refer the pertinent work of other multistate committees and land-grant university researchers and extension educators to the HTF and its member agencies. A specific priority is to communicate to the HTF the reasons for differences in state LGU recommended N/P application rates for similar soil types and fields. 2. ? Work with NIFA and other HTF agencies to identify and share information on latest research being done across university systems with a priority for those being done under federal grants, e.g., the USDA-funded Climate and Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project, commonly known as the Sustainable Corn Project, and others. With sufficient support, SERA-46 could serve a clearing house role. 3. ? Work within LGU’s to develop more consistent messaging across disciplines/specialists. A specific proposal is to convene livestock and crop specialists to discuss how they can work with farmers on nutrient management strategies that address water quality. 4. ? Strengthen communication between SERA-46, HTF, and agriculture and food industry groups such as Field to Market. 5. ? Identify common attributes and gaps across state nutrient reduction strategies - Review the HTF states’ nutrient reduction strategies to identify the state goals, approaches and common attributes. Highlight opportunities for cross state information sharing to enhance other HTF state strategies. Conservation Systems Research and Outreach Overview Develop recommendations for integrated agricultural conservation systems that meet state and basin-wide nutrient management goals, incorporate ecoregional differences, consider the cumulative impacts of practices. Guidelines should include costs and known benefits. Consider hurdles and identify potential future challenges to widespread adoption of systems of conservation practices for water quality improvement. State priority watersheds will be critical to leverage resources and demonstrate innovative and successful approaches to achieving nutrient management goals. While achieving state and basin wide nutrient goals are most critical, design and performance of multifunctional landscapes that address other ecosystems services should be considered. Priority Activities 1. Assist in the optimization of cover crop practice performance as a part of conservation practice systems. Provide analytical and technical assistance for practice design at field and watershed scales, taking into account local and ecoregional conditions and variations; agronomic, economic, soil health, water quality benefits; and validation of results, benefits and challenges. 2. ? Translate science regarding the issues and solutions in tile drained areas into accessible information for states to adopt into policies to address nutrient use and movement, particularly where corn is the main crop and where N movement is the main issue in the broad landscape. This item has been referred to NCERA 217, Drainage design and management practices to improve water quality. NCERA 217 has agreed to accomplish this within 12-18 months. 3. Expand research and outreach on multifunctional agricultural landscapes that provide a broad suite of societal and ecosystem services. Wetted buffers, saturated buffers, prairie strips, and other buffers incorporating native vegetation and embedded in agricultural working lands are examples of practices that address multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. 4. Develop a fertilizer efficiency metric that quantifies nutrient loss to the environment in terms of water quality related to the 4Rs. Improve understanding and translate into adoptable options for quantifying efficiency to improve metrics and accounting for nutrient reduction. a. An example metric: units of nutrients lost (or used by the target crop) per total units made available, including nutrients in the soil pool and atmospheric deposition. Relative to this metric, define reasonable industry average estimates of efficiency currently, by objective and as occurred during the HTF baseline period. 5. Determine how the fertilizer industry and markets can support increased implementation of post-emergence side dressing (split spring application) and minimize fall application. Analyze whether the current infrastructure for delivering fertilizer to the grower is adequate for spring fertilization. 6. ? Consider current social, economic, and public policy research and opportunities/needs for expansion. Examples include: a) Develop and implement a social indicators system that will guide, evaluate and advance implementation of strategies to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural lands across the 12 HTF states. This process would consider the input of numerous stakeholders, as well issues derived from hypoxia- and water resource management-related literature, such as the Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation System (SIPES) Handbook. Once baseline date is collected, it will be used to inform education and outreach in high priority watersheds. “Post-programming” data collection will follow to evaluate program impact and inform the next generation of outreach. i. Form subcommittee including SERA-46, NC1190 (ERS has a member), and others, including a request for HTF participation ii. Develop a social indicators framework strawman and seek funding for a social indicators system development, including identification of needs at state and basin-wide levels b) http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=usarmyresearch and c) https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/fnr-488-w.pdf 8. ? Create a network of watershed practitioners and farmer leaders to strengthen the implementation effectiveness of nutrient management strategies that reduce nutrient movement. a) Organize infrastructure for 12-state leadership team with members from LGUs, agribusiness, NGOs, and state and local conservation agencies. b) Identify common areas and gaps across existing state extension programs so that they can be further developed to enhance cultivating farmer leadership, civic engagement, and other strategies for increasing success of watershed projects. c) Facilitate the development and activities of a network of watershed practitioners and farmers, prioritizing (but not limited to) the tile-drained areas of the corn belt. Extension and other organizations are already facilitating farmer leadership in watershed projects within the 12 HTF states. This effort would connect watershed practitioners and famers working in priority watersheds to increase the pace and quality of learning. Topics could include: o communicating the latest research on conservation practices, including cumulative impact of practices and cost effectiveness, o engaging farmers in watershed leadership, o strategies for increasing adoption of conservation practices, and o effective use of monitoring by citizens, farmers, and agency staff in watershed projects at field and watershed scales. 9. ? Develop training and educational materials that will provide basic information about agriculture and nutrient management to agency staff, conservation NGOs and others who are less familiar with agriculture. Training could be state-specific or regional in nature. Example topics include: a. Nutrients 101 – what are the major nutrients of concern and why, in what forms do they exist in the soil and fertilizers, the” 4 R concept”(right source, rate, timing and placement). b. Development of soil fertility recommendations – why they vary from state to state. c. Agricultural best management practices (BMPs) – what works, why there are barriers to adoption, what consultants recommend and why. d. Row crop production 101 – how do you grow a crop? What decisions are made? Soil testing, variety selection, planting, tillage, weed and pest control etc. 10. ? Work in partnership with ASA’s CCA Program to: a. Identify and summarize pertinent CCA training available in each state. b. Assess the feasibility of more CCAs producing customized whole farm conservation plans c. Where appropriate, develop training that addresses state nutrient-related regulations and policies to strengthen nutrient management and reduce nutrient loss from agricultural lands. d. Facilitate learning among CCAs, agencies, university researchers and extension professionals, and farmers to improve adoption of nutrient management practices that reduce nutrient loss from agricultural lands. ? Monitoring, Calibration and Validation 1. ? Determine the potential for use of comparable edge of field monitoring measures from state to state. 2. ? Building from the work by the Monitoring Collaborative, identify further gaps in data available. 3. ? Conduct a 12-state survey of experts to better understand the scope of both edge-of-field and in-stream monitoring and means to link them for research purposes as well as developing the means to track progress from the field to the watershed to the Gulf, including: a) what research monitoring is being done in the 12 state region; b) where is it being done; c) what is the focus of each study; d) what water quality data are being obtained at different scales; e) what other data are being obtained; f) how is the data being used; g) what is the availability of the data; and h) how is monitoring being funded? 4. ? Conduct a survey of experts within the 12 state region and other regions, such as the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, to determine a) what data are needed at different scales; b) where will it come from; c) how will it be used; d) what will be the data security, confidentiality and ownership; e) who will do the data collection; f) what will it cost; g) how will it be funded; h) what data is already being obtained; and i) how is it being used?