OEEF Grant Application Clermont … · managing watershed and stormwater GIS databases. He has substantial programming experience and is leading the effort to develop the fertilizer

OEEF Grant Application

Application Type: GeneralGrant Application #: F-19G016Revision from previous application:

Previous grant received: S-14G-040, F-09G-018

Organization InformationName: Clermont Soil and Water Conservation District

Web Address: www.clermontswcd.orgAddress: P.O. Box 549, 1000 Locust Street, Owensville, OH 45160County: Clermont

Project InformationProject Title: Southwest Ohio Agricultural Conservation Menu

Educational Priority: Education on Reducing Nutrient Loadingsto Rivers and Streams

Requested Grant Amount: $17,141.00

Target Audience: General Public - Secondary, Regulated Community - Primary

Project Description:Area SWCDs will collaborate to develop a web-based platform to communicate information on conservation programs and to helplocal farmers understand the connection between, nutrient management, watershed health and Harmful Algal Blooms. The platformwill be an extension of the Montana SWCD Conservation Menu, which is a highly organized, user-friendly clearinghouse ofinformation on conservation programs. The SW Ohio Conservation Menu will provide additional features, including access to alocally-developed web application that provides fertilizer recommendations based on soil quality test results. The platform will alsoprovide interactive modules for local farmers to share information and discuss various issues relating to agricultural BMPs. Waterquality and soil quality kits and training will also be incorporated, based on Minnesota's Discovery Farms Program. This platform hasthe potential for widespread replication throughout Ohio.

Anticipated List of Collaborators:Clermont SWCD, Brown SWCD, Highland SWCD, Clinton SWCD, Clermont County Office of Environmental Quality, NRCS-Brownand Clermont County Offices

Additional InformationHave you ever attended an OEEF grant-writing workshop? No Proposed Start Date: 01/14/2019

Will this project have statewide impact? No Proposed Completion Date: 12/17/2019Which Ohio counties will the activities take place in? Brown, Clermont, Clinton, Highland

Audience Category

General Public Education: Adults Generally, Property Owners

Governmental Entities: Local Government Agencies

Regulated Community: Farmers, Agricultural Producers

Project Issues

Water Issues: Surface Water/Watersheds, Non-point Source Pollution, Water Quality Monitoring

Executive SummaryAudience Need:Area SWCDs and NRCS partners regularly receive calls from producers looking for assistance with conservation programs and manyhave expressed a need for the streamlining of relevant information. This is a critical need, as more conservation practices are neededto reduce nutrient loadings and occurrences of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in East Fork Lake. Nonpoint source runoff from the upperwatershed, which is 70% agricultural, is contributing excess nutrients to the watershed, intensifying the problems with HABs. As anexample, modeling conducted by the East Fork Watershed Cooperative estimates 43,000 acres of cover crops are needed to meetphosphorus reduction targets, and there are only an estimated 7,000 acres in cover crops currently. Area farmers have a need foradditional information about the benefits of different practices, how to apply for assistance, and a means to discuss issues with otherfarmers.

Key Personnel:Becky McClatchey, Natural Resources Specialist for Clermont SWCD, will serve as project lead. Ms. McClatchey has led the EastFork watershed program since 2008, working with area partners to implement watershed projects, including low-head dam removals,stream restoration, edge-of field monitoring, and urban storm water BMPs. John McManus, District Administrator for Clermont SWCD,will assist Ms. McCatchey in managing the project. Mr. McManus has woprked for Clermont COunty since 2000 and has experienceleading three successful OEEF projects. Other key personnel include Lori Lenhart, NRCS District Conservationist for Brown andClermont Counties, Hannah Lubbers, Project Manager for the Clermont County Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), and BillMellman, Program Manager for Clermont OEQ. Staff from other SWCDs in the East Fork Watershed will help with farmer outreach andconducting training sessions.

Overall Project Objectives:The intent of the SW Ohio Conservation Menu is to help local farmers understand the connection between nutrient management andwatershed health, while also streamlining information on conservation programs, technology, and services available to encourageimplementation of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Menu will also include a platform designed to encourage farmer-farmer interaction, and an on-line calculator which can be used to recommend fertilizer application rates based on soil test data. Topromote the use of this tool, soil and water quality test kits will be provided to area farmers. The project will take less than a year tocomplete. The project's goal is to reach 200 farmers in the East Fork watershed during the project, with this number increasingannually as the partners continue to promote and improve the Menu. Increased adoption of Agricultural BMPs will lead to a decreasein nutrient runoff rates and a reduction in the extent of harmful algal blooms.

Major Activities:Clermont SWCD will contract with a web developer to create the Conservation Menu, which will include information on multiple BMPsand their relation to water quality, details on assistance programs, the fertilizer rate recommendation app, and an online platform thatarea farmers can use to share information and converse with each other. In spring 2019, two focus group meetings will be held togather ideas on useful content to include in Conservation Menu. The platform will be live by Nov. 2019, at which time area SWCDs willhold a minimum of 4 meetings (1 meeting per county) to present the Menu and associated tools. Soil and water quality test kits will bedistributed during two fertilizer app training sessions to be held in winter 2019. A survey will be sent to all platform participants whenthey initially register to measure knowledge and attitudes toward nutrient management. A 2nd survey will be sent to registered users 6months after the site goes live to measure any changes.

Overall Cost:The total project cost is $21,247. Of this, we are requesting $17,141 in OEEF grant funds and providing $4,106 in match ($3,011salary, $1,095 fringe). Match funds amount to 24% of the grant funds and 19% of the total project costs. Of the $17,141 in OEEFfunds, $4,000 will be used to enter into a contract with a web designer to develop the Conservation Menu, $11,237 will be used topurchase soil quality and water quality test kits, and $1,904 for personnel.

Project DescriptionAudience Need:The intent of the SW Ohio Conservation Menu is to help local farmers understand the connection between nutrient management andwatershed health, while also streamlining information on conservation programs, technology and services available to encourageimplementation of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Ohio Farm Bureau estimates a potential audience of 3,500active members in the region, including Brown, Clermont, Clinton and Highland counties. This platform will be a unique resource forarea producers and has the potential for widespread replication and implementation throughout the state.

Local farmers have voiced frustration over the myriad of federal, state, and local conservation programs and have expressed a needfor one place where current information can be made available in a clear and understandable fashion. Farmers have also expressedinterest in gaining a better understanding of agricultural BMP effectiveness and watershed health. In addition, several farmers activein conservation programs have indicated a need for independent resources and more opportunities for farmer-farmer interactions.Local NRCS staff report that while there is more interest these days in agricultural BMPs, like cover crops and nutrient management,widespread implementation is lacking and more support is needed for interested farmers. NRCS staff also report many fields arefarmed to the stream edge and lack nutrient management plans. Based on SWAT modeling conducted by US EPA's Office ofResearch and Development, the East Fork Watershed Cooperative estimated that of the 100,000 farmable acres in the East Fork Lakewatershed, cover crops are needed on 43,000 acres and 2,600 acres of filter strips are needed to reduce phosphorous loads to meetthe inflow target for the lake. To date, there are approximately 7,000 acres of fields in cover crops, and minimal acreage in filter strips.

It is critical that nutrient loads are reduced in the East Fork Lake watershed because, similar to other lakes across Ohio, the lake hasseen a steady increase in the occurrence of Harmful Algal Blooms. Since 2011, HABs have led to beach closures, public healthadvisories and the cancellation of public events. Harsha Lake is the source of drinking water for 100,000 Clermont County residents,and algal toxins have been detected at the water intake (though none have been detected in the finished drinking water). Therecurrence of HAB events has resulted in substantial increased costs for drinking water treatment. Runoff from agricultural fields is thedominant source of nutrient loading, as agricultural land use dominates, representing 70% the East Fork Lake watershed. USEPASWAT modeling predicts that row crops are responsible for 70% of the nitrogen loading and 73 % of phosphorus loading to the lake(increases to 77% and 89%, respectively, when pasture is included).

The SW Ohio Conservation Menu will be modeled after the Montana Conservation Menu (http://mtconservationmenu.org/). MontanaSWCDs have indicated their platform has been useful for increasing participation in conservation programs and helping farmers makeinformed land use decisions for their operations. By providing a user-friendly, interactive platform in SW Ohio, project partners aim toincrease the number of applications for NRCS programs, increase the acreage of conservation practices, reduce the influx of nutrientloads into nearby streams, mitigate the occurrence of HABs, and improve water quality in the watershed.

Qualification:Becky McClatchey, Natural Resources Specialist, Clermont SWCD: Ms. McClatchey works regularly with local communities,producers, landowners, and other public/private partners to facilitate and implement SWCD programs. Since 2008, Ms. McClatcheyhas led the East Fork watershed program and worked with EFWC members to implement watershed projects, including low-head damremovals, stream restoration, edge-of field monitoring, land use planning, and urban storm water BMPs.John McManus, Administrator, Clermont SWCD: Prior to joining SWCD in 2013, John worked 13 years for the County's Office ofEnvironmental Quality and managed the County's Storm Water Department. Before coming to Clermont, John worked seven yearswith ORSANCO. John has considerable experience managing OEEF grants, including a 2004 grant for a low impact developmentworkshop, a 2009 grant that involved building rain gardens in each of Clermont County's school districts, and a 2014 grant whereClermont SWCD and the SW Ohio Regional Storm Water Collaborative hosted a "Fostering Sustainable Behavior" workshop.Jacob Hahn, Clermont SWCD District Technician: For nine years, Jake has provided conservation engineering guidance tolandowners and contractors for district and USDA cost share programs. Jacob has also designed multiple water quality grant fundedprojects.Lori Lenhart, NRCS District Conservationist: 17 years with NRCS and 11 of these years as District Conservationist, covering Brownand Clermont Counties. Primary duties include conservation planning on farmland and property to address natural resource concerns,and administering financial programs in the two counties for implementing conservation practices under the EQIP, CSP, and CRPprograms in particular.Hannah Lubbers, Project Manager, Clermont Office of Environmental Quality: Ms. Lubbers has directed monitoring and samplingactivities in the East Fork watershed for Clermont County for 10 years, and has assisted SWCD with numerous training sessions andfield days.Bill Mellman, Program Manager, Clermont Office of Environmental Quality: Mr. Mellman has worked with Clermont OEQ since 2008,managing watershed and stormwater GIS databases. He has substantial programming experience and is leading the effort to developthe fertilizer app.Robert Frost, web designer: Mr Frost has been designing, building, and maintaining WordPress websites for over four years, both forClermont County and for external customers. To date, he has designed over 50 websites for local governments, churches, schoolsand other organizations. For each website, Robert builds custom page templates, plugins, and functionalities to meet the needs of thecustomer. He is also a professional photographer and graphic designer, and takes pride in using high quality images and graphics onevery site he builds.

Continuation and Replication Plan:The OEEF grant, if awarded, would serve as much needed seed money for the Agricultural Conservation Menu effort. The Menu,which will include information on agricultural BMPs, technical and financial assistance programs, the fertilzer recommendation app,and an online farmers blog, will serve farmers in southwest Ohio for many years, and will be maintained and updated long-term byClermont SWCD. As part of this project, SWCD staff will be trained in WordPress and, working together with NRCS and other localpartners, will review the site annually (at a minimum) and update relevant information. The Conservation Menu will be promotedduring the project and beyond through SWCD newsletter articles, press releases, social media outlets and during field days.Partnering agencies will also be encourage to promote the Conservation Menu to their broader audiences through presentations andnewsletter articles. Project partners will also seek opportunities to promote the Conservation Menu at local, state and/or regionalworkshops and conferences.

The SW Ohio Conservation Menu will be a unique resource for the region. The comprehensive listing of federal, state and localconservation programs, and general information on nutrient management and watershed health, is applicable for conservationorganizations across the state. Clermont SWCD and its project partners will commit to sharing information and working with otherdistricts and agencies interested in constructing a similar product for their region.

It is expected that the Agricultural Conservation Menu will lead to increased inquiries about different conservation practices, anincrease in the number of applications for such assistance programs as EQIP and CRP, and an increase in acreage in differentagricultural BMPs. Increased adoption of conservation BMPs in turn will result in a reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to localstreams, rivers and lakes, including East Fork Lake. The project team is well situated to track water quality improvements resultingfrom this project through the East Fork Watershed Cooperative. The Cooperative is group comprised of water quality professionalsfrom U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, Farm Services Agency, Ohio EPA, the Clermont County Water Resources Department, and Clermont Soil &Water Conservation District, among others. Since 2008, Cooperative partners have been combining resources and efforts to monitorthe East Fork of the Little Miami River watershed, including East Fork Lake. Two of the primary interests of the group are the annualharmful algal blooms that have been occurring on the lake, and the relationships between watershed activities and the quality of waterentering the Bob McEwan Drinking Water Treatment Plant from East Fork Lake.

Budget Narrative:Clermont SWCD and other project team members are requesting a total of $17,141 in grant funding to develop the SW OhioConservation Menu, provide soil and water quality test kits to area farmers, and conduct the outreach activities described under theObjectives and Activities section. An independent contractor will be paid $4,000 to develop the platform for the Conservation Menuand provide WordPress training for SWCD staff. This includes $1,250 for the concept phase (architectural design), $1,800 for thedesign phase (visual design and HTML/CSS template), $700 for the technical phase (server/domain name setup and programming),and $250 for the test phase and training.

A total of $11,237 is needed to purchase and distribute Soil Quality and Water Quality test kits to area producers. This includes 200Soil1TM Soil Quality Field Test Kits at $45 each ($9,000 total), 50 Hach phosphorus test strips at $22.55 each ($1,127.50 total), and50 Hach nitrate-nitrite test strips at $22.19 each ($1,109.50 total).

Clermont SWCD will be the lead agency for the project and is requesting $1,904 to cover the salary and fringe benefits for the DistrictTechnician and Administrative Assistant. A total of $4,106 will be provided in match through the NRCS District Conservationist, theClermont County Office of Environmental Quality, and SWCDs in the East Fork watershed. Please note that the time spent by theClermont SWCD Administrator and Natural Resources Specialist will be covered by an Ohio Department of Agriculture watershedgrant, and as such, will not require OEEF grant funds or be used as match.

Project Objectives and Associated Activities & Outcome MeasurementsObjective Title: Development of SW Ohio Agricultural Conservation Menu Web Site

Objective Description:Many farmers in the East Fork Little Miami River (EFLMR) watershed and neighboring counties, who have adopted conservationpractices, understand the connection between land management and watershed health. Still, a fair number of those who haveadopted such practices remain skeptical of agriculture's role in issues related to stream degradation and Harmful Algal Blooms(HABs). Those farmers who have not yet adopted BMPs remain even more skeptical. Those that are committed to conservation areunaware or have trouble understanding the various financial aid programs available to them, or how they apply. Previous discussionswith local farmers indicate a need to simplify the myriad of federal, state, and local programs into a consolidated, user-friendly format.

The objective of the Agricultural Conservation Menu is to help producers better understand how their farming practices, includingtillage, fertilization, weed and pest control, winter land management and other practices, impact stream quality, and how modificationsin some of these practices can result in improvements. The Conservation Menu also seeks to provide comprehensive information onthe different technical and financial assistance programs that are available to farmers and directions on how to apply for theseprograms in a clear and understandable fashion. The Conservation Menu will also guide farmers on recommended fertilizer applicationrates via a fertilizer application calculator based on the Tri-State Fertility Guide. Finally, the Conservation Menu will provide an avenuefor farmers to share information and discuss conservation strategies through an online blog.

Activity Title: Develop Nutrient Management and Watershed Health Web Page

Start Date: 01/14/2019 End Date: 10/25/2019 % of Budget: 6.0%

Activity Description:Under the conservation menu, the project team will develop web pages with information pertaining to nutrient management andagricultural BMPs. The pages will reference material provided by USDA-NRCS, OSU Extension, and other organizations,including 4R Nutrient Stewardship (incorporate the Right fertilizer source at the Right rate, at the Right time and in the Rightplace). This section of the Conservation Menu will also link land use and farming practices to watershed health, and will includelinks to . The web page will include links to local and state water quality data and reports, including the information generated bythe East Fork Watershed Cooperative (a cooperative effort of local, state and federal organizations that have been monitoringconditions and providing management recommendations in the East Fork watershed since 2008).

Outcome Title: Nutrient Management and Watershed Health Web Page

Initial Outcome:Area producers with an increased knowledge of agricultural best management practices and how these practices impactstream and lake quality; to be measured by web based survey (see Evaluation objective).

Long-Term Effects:Increased interest in agricultural conservation practices, measured by number of inquiries to SWCD and NRCS offices; anincrease in the number of applications for NRCS programs; and an increase in the total acreage of farmland inconservation practices.

Activity Title: Develop Web Page for Technical and Financial Assistance Programs


Activity Description:Local SWCD and NRCS staff have had many discussions with local farmers in the past that indicate a need to simplify themyriad of federal, state, and local programs into a consolidated, user-friendly format. One intent of the SW Ohio AgriculturalConservation Menu is to provide streamlined information for a comprehensive list of programs which provide technological andfinancial assistance to encourage implementation of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Conservation Menu willdevelop a simplified, user-friendly webpage with programs and services organized by categories, such as type of farmingpractice (e.g., row crops, livestock), benefits (e.g., soil quality, water quality, pollinator habitat), agencies (e.g., NRCS, ODNR,OSU Extension), and other categories. Program information and contact information will be updated on an annual basis at aminimum. As much of this information applies throughout Ohio, this platform has the potential for widespread use andimplementation throughout the state.

Outcome Title: Web Page for Technical and Financial Assistance Programs

Initial Outcome:Increases awareness and understanding of area producers of technical and financial resource programs available at thefederal, state and local levels (including Farm Bill programs such as EQIP and CRP).

Long-Term Effects:Increased number of inquiries to SWCD and NRCS offices about conservation practices; increased acreage in theseconservation practices; reduced nutrient loadings to the EFLMR and Lake Harsha, to be measured by ongoing East ForkWatershed Cooperative monitoring and sampling program.

Activity Title: Develop Online Fertilizer Application Calculator


Activity Description:Under a Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) grant, Clermont SWCD and the Office of Environmental Quality(OEQ) are developing a mobile phone app that would provide fertilizer rate recommendations to farmers based on the Tri-StateFertility Guide. All farmers need to do is input data that would be derived from a typical soil test. Currently the app has beencompleted for Android phones, and the project partners are in the process of making updates to allow the app to operate onApple phones. After a quality control check, the fertilizer app will be promoted across the area. Under the OEEF grant,Clermont SWCD and OEQ would also make this app available on the Conservation Menu web site.

Outcome Title: Online Fertilizer Application Calulator

Initial Outcome:Production of a tool that allows farmers to generate fertilizer rate recommendations based on simple soil test data for theirindividual fields; initial use by SWCD cooperators, rather than relying on fertilizer tests and recommendations provided byfertilizer companies.

Long-Term Effects:Widespread use of the fertilizer application app, resulting in less nitrogen and phosphorus applied to fields, and asubsequent reduction in nutrient loadings to area streams, rivers and lakes.

Activity Title: Develop Discussion Blog for SW Ohio Producers


Activity Description:In an effort to provide opportunities for farmers to lead and participation in discussions relative to farm operations and watershedmanagement, the Project Team will develop a blog subpage on the Conservation Menu that allows users to submit questions,answers, share information and facilitate active discussion. Producers will have to register to participate. Participation guidelineswill be developed by the Project Team. The blog will be maintained and monitored by Clermont SWCD.

Outcome Title: Discussion Blog for SW Ohio Producers

Initial Outcome:The Project Team's goal is to have 100 registered users within the first year of the blog.

Long-Term Effects:While NRCS and SWCD staff are able to provide valuable information and resources to area producers, it is clear thatfarmers rely more on each other for information than any government representative. Farmers are much more likely toadopt a management practice, be it conservation related or otherwise, if they see it working for another farmer. The blogwill allow farmers to share their successes, problems and methods for adapting to any implementation challenges, and asa result, will lead to a greater adoption of conservation practices that are effective in southwest Ohio.

Objective Title: Provide Soil and Water Quality Test Kits to Area Farmers

Objective Description:Under this objective, the Project team will provide 200 soil quality test kits and 100 Hach water quality test kits (50 nitrate-nitrite and 50phosphorus) to interested farmers. This will allow farmers to collect their own data (rather than the fertilizer companies that doapplications for them), and input these data into the fertilizer recommendation app described in Objective 1. Farmers will beencouraged to share water quality data and fertilizer recommendations through the interactive blog on the Conservation Menu website.

Activity Title: Provide Soil and Water Quality Test Kits to Area Farmers


Activity Description:The Project Team will provide 200 Soil1TM Soil Quality Field Test Kits that allow farmers to test their soil in real time in the fieldfor four variables: active soil organic matter, available nitrogen, microbial biomass and aggregate stability. The Soil1TM test kitwas developed by the Soil, Water and Bioenergy Resources Program at the Ohio State University South Centers in Piketon,Ohio. This one-step field test kit contains enough reagent and testing supplies for 25 field soil tests that will help farmers makedecisions about their soil's health and potential agricultural productivity. The Project team will also provide 50 water quality teststrips for both nitrate-nitrite and total phosphorus (www.hach.com/test-strips/test-strips/family?productCategoryId=35547009709). These will be provided to farmers during training sessions described below,during which they will also be instructed on how to use the fertilizer recommendation app to gain an independentrecommendation for fertilizer application rates. They can then compare these recommendations with those provided by thefertilizer companies. Farmers will be encouraged to share their results on the blog page.

Outcome Title: Soil and Water Quality Test Kits Provided to Area Farmers

Initial Outcome:Farmers will receive 200 soil quality test kits and 100 water quality test kits (50 nitrogen, 50 phosphorus) which will enablethem to generate data for use in the fertilizer recommendation app, which is based on the Tri-State Fertility Guide. It isanticipated that the application rates recommended by the app will be less than those suggested by the fertilizercompanies. This should result in less nitrogen and phosphorus applied to local fields, and therefore, reduced nutrientloadings to area streams.

Long-Term Effects:We anticipate that "early adopter" farmers will be able to reduce fertilizer use while still maintaining yields, as the app isbased on the Tri-State Fertility Guide, and share this success with other local farmers, who in turn will be encouraged touse the fertilizer app. Over time, this should result in a significant reduction in both nitrogen and phosphorus applicationsand runoff rates.

Objective Title: Provide Training for Conservation Menu and Test Kits

Objective Description:The Project Team will provide training sessions for area farmers on the use of the Agricultural Conservation Menu. Training sessionswill include an overview of material on the Conservation Menu, including information on conservation practices and technical andfinancial assistance programs and the online discussion blog. Training will also be provided on the use of the soil and water quality testkits and the fertilizer recommendation app.

Activity Title: Agricultural Conservation Menu Training


Activity Description:Prior to development of the Conservation Menu, the Project Team will host two farmer focus group meetings to gather thoughtsand ideas on items to be included and layout. After completion, each of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the EastFork Little Miami River Watershed, including Brown, Clermont, Clinton and Highland SWCDs, will conduct a minimum of onetraining session in each of the four counties, during which SWCD staff will review the different aspects of the ConservationMenu with area farmers. Training sessions will include a review of all material on the menu, including: information on differentconservation practices; technical and financial assistance programs available at the local, state and federal level; information onhow to apply for assistance programs; the fertilizer recommendation app; and the online farmers blog.

Outcome Title: Agricultural Conservation Menu Training

Initial Outcome:Agricultural Menu training sessions will be held in Brown, Clermont, Clinton and Highland Counties, with a goal ofreaching 200 farmers total. The training sessions will serve to introduce the Conservation Menu and generate use.

Long-Term Effects:Increased use of the Conservation Menu will lead to increased inquiries about conservation practices and assistanceprograms to SWCD and NRCS offices, an increase in the number of applications for assistance programs such as EQIPand CRP, increased acreage of conservation practices in the East Fork watershed, and a reduction in nitrogen andphosphorus loadings to streams and lakes in the watershed, which will be documented by ongoing monitoring andsampling activities conducted by the East Fork Watershed Cooperative.

Activity Title: Soil and Water Quality Test Kit Training


Activity Description:Area SWCDs and NRCS offices, along with the Clermont County Office of Environmental Quality, will conduct a minimum of twotraining sessions for farmers on both the soil and water quality test kits, and the use of the fertilizer recommendation app. A totalof 200 soil test kits and 50 test strips for both nitrate-nitrite and phosphorus will be distributed during these training events.

Outcome Title: Distribution and Use of Soil and Water Quality Test Kits

Initial Outcome:Farmers will receive 200 soil quality test kits, 50 nitrate-nitrite test strips, and 50 phosphorus test strips which will enablethem to generate data for use in the fertilizer recommendation app. It is anticipated that the application ratesrecommended by the app will be less than those suggested by the fertilizer companies. This should result in less nitrogenand phosphorus applied to local fields, and therefore, reduced nutrient loadings to area streams.

Long-Term Effects:"Early adopter" farmers will share their successes via the Conservation Menu's online discussion blog, which willencourage other farmers to use the fertilizer recommendation app. The SWCDs participating in the project will evaluatethe possibility of providing test kits to farmers on an annual basis, depending upon the success of our initial efforts.

Budget SummaryCategory OEEF Grant % Total OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Match Total

A.1. Salary or Wages 8.0 $1,310.60 $3,011.70 $4,322.30

A.2. Benefits 3.0 $593.40 $1,094.78 $1,688.18

A.3. Substitute Teachers 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B.1. Supplies 66.0 $11,237.00 $0.00 $11,237.00

B.2. Equipment 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B.3. Printing 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

B.4. Other Costs 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

C.1. Contractual 23.0 $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00

D.1. Administrative 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Budget $17,141.00 $4,106.48 $21,247.48

A.1. Salary or Wages

Employee Name Title Grant # ofHours

GrantHourlyRate

Matching #of Hours

MatchingHourlyRate

GrantAnnualSalary

Grant % ofSalary

MatchingAnnualSalary

Matching% of

Salary

OEEFGrant

Amount

ApplicantMatchingAmount

Jacob Hahn SWCD Technician 40 $21.84 0 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $873.60 $0.00

Bill Mellman OEQ ProgramManager

0 $0.00 10 $19.94 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $199.40

Jason Sneed Clinton SWCDAdministrator

0 $0.00 16 $28.75 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $460.00

Chris Rogers Brown SWCDAdministrator

0 $0.00 10 $25.25 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $252.50

Chuck Williams Highland SWCDTechnician

0 $0.00 12 $19.30 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $231.60

Susie Steffensen SWCD AdministrativeAssistant

20 $21.85 0 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $437.00 $0.00

Lori Lenhart NRCS DistrictConservationist

0 $0.00 40 $40.18 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $1,607.20

Hannah Lubbers OEQ Project Manager 0 $0.00 10 $26.10 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 $261.00

Subtotal: $1,310.60 $3,011.70

A.2. BenefitsBenefits Description Rate or % of Salary OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Lori Lenhart Fringe Benefits 16.68 $0.00 $667.20

Susie Steffensen Fringe Benefits 9.23 $184.60 $0.00

Hannah Lubbers Fringe Benefits 4.41 $0.00 $44.10

Chris Rogers Fringe Benefits 7.4 $0.00 $74.00

Chuck Williams Fringe Benefits 8.11 $0.00 $97.32

Jason Sneed Fringe Benefits 9.86 $0.00 $157.76

Bill Mellman Fringe Benefits 5.44 $0.00 $54.40

Jacon Hahn Fringe Benefits 10.22 $408.80 $0.00

Subtotal: $593.40 $1,094.78

B.1. SuppliesSupplies Description Quantity Unit Price OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Phosphorus Water Quality Test Strips 50 $22.55 $1,127.50 $0.00

Soil Quality Test Kits 200 $45.00 $9,000.00 $0.00

Nitrate-Nitrite Water Quality Test Strips 50 $22.19 $1,109.50 $0.00

Subtotal: $11,237.00 $0.00

C.1. ContractualContractual Description Contractor Name OEEF Grant Amount Applicant Matching Amount

Conservation Menu Web Site Development Robert Frost $4,000.00 $0.00

Subtotal: $4,000.00 $0.00

Applicant ContactContact Type: Project Director Job Title: Clermont SWCD Natural Resources

SpecialistName: Becky McClatchey

Primary Phone: (513) 732-7075 Primary Fax:Primary Email: [email protected]

Primary Address:Alternate Phone: Alternate Fax:Alternate Email:

Alternate Address:Alternate Start Date: Alternate End Date:

Contact Type: Fiscal Agent Job Title:Name: Susie Steffensen


Primary Address: 1000 Locust Street, PO Box 549, Owensville, OH 45160Alternate Phone: Alternate Fax:Alternate Email:


Contact Type: Authorizing Agent Job Title:Name: John McManus


Primary Address: 1000 Locust Street, PO Box 549, Owensville, OH 45160Alternate Phone: Alternate Fax:Alternate Email:


BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

EDWIN H. HUMPHREY • DAVID H. UIBLE • DAVID L. PAINTER

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

513-732-7894 ext .3 4400 Haskel l Lane Ba tav ia , OH 45103 www.ClermontCountyOhio .gov

July 12, 2018 Office of Environmental Education Lazarus Government Center P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216‐1049 Dear Colleagues: The Clermont Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) is pleased to support the Clermont Soil & Water Conservation District’s (SWCD) application for funding under Ohio EPA’s Environmental Education Fund (OEEF) to develop the SW Ohio Conservation Menu. Since 2001, Clermont OEQ has been a proud and active member Clermont SWCD’s East Fork Little Miami River Watershed Program. We have worked closely with Clermont SWCD and our other partners on numerous efforts, including watershed plan development, water quality sampling, stream and wetland projects, innovative agricultural management practices and more. We look forward to assisting with this current project and believe there is much potential for this platform to facilitate implementation of effective conservation practices. Specifically, Clermont OEQ has agreed to assist with the development of interactive modules that will include information on nutrient pollution and watershed health. Clermont OEQ has developed a robust water quality monitoring program (certified by Ohio EPA as Level III) and works closely with Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA to monitor stream conditions and identify watershed trends. The prevalence of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in Harsha Lake has intensified local monitoring efforts in the upper portions of the East Fork watershed. The Conservation Menu will provide an opportunity for Clermont OEQ to share information and data directly with interested landowners/producers. In addition, Clermont OEQ will assist with the water quality training sessions to instruct interested landowners and producers on the proper use of Hach water quality test strips. The purpose of these tests is to provide a hands‐on learning experience for local producers to help strengthen the connection between nutrient management and watershed health. We look forward to contributing to the continued successes of watershed management efforts in the region. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or via phone. Sincerely, Hannah Lubbers Project Manager

1

Clinton Soil & Water Conservation District

111 South Nelson Avenue, Suite 5 Wilmington, Ohio 45177-2731 Phone 937-382-2461

The Clinton Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) is pleased to support Clermont

SWCD’s Ohio Environmental Education Fund (OEEF) grant application to develop the SW Ohio

Conservation Menu. The proposed project will improve the quality of lakes and streams by

facilitating education about nutrient management and implementation of effective best

management practices (BMPs).

Clinton SWCD will provide assistance by contributing staff time and resources to aid

development of the web platform. Clinton SWCD will also reach out to the faculty at

Wilmington College to engage students enrolled in agricultural and technology programs. We

will also help promote any program sign-ups or activities to Clinton County landowners and

contribute staff time to the annual review and updates to the conservation menu.

Clinton SWCD is pleased to be a part of this multi-district watershed management

project. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at (937) 382-

2461.

Sincerely,

Jason Sneed

Designer Robert Frost

Conservation Collaboration Website

Prepared For: July 11, 2018 Becky McClatchey Clermont SWCD 1000 Locust St Owensville, OH 45160

Prepared By: Robert Frost 7022 Greenstone Trce Loveland, OH 45140 513.312.9226 [email protected]

Project Proposal #00014, July 11, 2018

Scope of Work I will develop a completely custom website for Clermont SWCD. The goal of this website is to provide farmers in the area a consolidated place for funding and grant options related to conservation. The website will be a multi-page site designed around featuring all of the programs available to local farmers. It will feature a category search listing for farmers to drill down to their specific needs, as well as a home, about, contact and local office search pages. The site will be built on the WordPress Content Management System. The design process consists of four (4) phases: Concept, Design, Technical, and Testing. In the concept phase, I begin work by outlining the basic flow and gathering text and images for the website. In the design phase, I create digital artwork for the outlined webpages and integrate the images and text. In the technical phase, I enable the website server, domains and add interactive functionality like forms and emails. In the testing phase, I check the entire website to make sure it is operating as expected. This website will work in all Grade-A browsers. It will also feature a mobile first design to ensure functionality across all devices and screen sizes. On the following pages, you will find a more detailed description of the project phases, timeline, due dates, deliverables and fees.


Work Plan & Milestones The table below outlines the work process phases, milestones, due dates, deliverables and fees needed to complete this project. This four-phase process begins at the concept phase where everything is planned, then the design phase where look and feel (artwork) is produced, next is the technical phase where design is given life, and finally the testing phase where everything is thoroughly tested and reviewed. This process is designed to ensure project efficiency and your complete satisfaction.

Concept Phase

Milestone Due Date Deliverables Fee

Work Begins When Received • Signed Contract $1,250

Information Architecture Week 1 • Site map • Info Layout

Design Phase


Visual Design Week 2 • Photoshop Design Template • Program Listing Design • Contact Form Design • Email Format

$1,000**

HTML / CSS Template Week 3 • Design in html/CSS • Contact form in html/css • Email in plaintext and html

$800**

Technical Phase


Hosting Server Week 4 • Server Setup • Domain Name Setup

$200**

Programming Week 5 • Search Form JavaScript and PHP $500**

Test Phase / Training


Initial Test Week 6 • Upload website to server with test credentials

• Tested Interface • Tested form and email

$250**

Site Launch Week 7 • Move site to live status

Total: $4,000*


Detail Thank you for this opportunity. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project proposal or included terms & conditions, please do not hesitate to call 513.312.9226.

Concept Elements

Consulting

Research

Site Outline

Design Elements

Site Template Design

Contact Form Design

Site Domain Name and Logo Development

Photography and Graphics – royalty free

Technical Elements

Server & Domain Setup

Program Search Functions

Contact Form Functions

HTML / CSS Development

Training – To be conducted at $250 per session not to exceed $1000. (You may have more than 4 trainings, however, I know that some will be minor and there will be no additional fee for those.)

Annual Maintenance – backups, WordPress updates, theme and plugin updates - $300 after the first year.


Next Steps To proceed with this project, Clermont SWCD is required take the following steps:

1. Accept the proposal as is or discuss desired changes. Please note that changes to the scope of the project can be made at any time, but additional charges may apply.

2. Finalize and sign contract. 3. Submit initial payment of $1,250.

Once payment is received, I will start work on Phase 1.

*The total amount for building this website does not include the price listed above for training sessions, nor does it include the cost of purchasing a domain name and hosting package. I can provide recommendations on hosting solutions at your request. **All fees (except Phase 1/Concept Phase) are due at project completion.


Signatures Client's signature below authorizes designer to begin work. If the information and terms in this proposal are to Clients satisfaction and approval, kindly return a signed copy of this Project Proposal to Designer.

Designer Signature

Print Designer Name Date

Client Signature

Print Client Name Date


Thank You! Robert Frost Tel: 513.312.9226 [email protected]

OEEF Grant Staff ChecklistApplication #: F-19G016 Organization Name: Clermont Soil and Water Conservation District

Application Type: GeneralGrant Project Title: Southwest Ohio Agricultural Conservation Menu

A. Overall

1. Yes Project eligible?

2. Yes Project meets which of OEEF's Educational Priorities: Education on Reducing Nutrient Loadings to Rivers and Streams

3. Yes Organization eligible?

4. JM Initials of staff member who provided pre-review, if any

Overall Comments:

OEEF Points were awarded for audience, collaboration, support and activities taking place in Clinton County.

B. Application Cover Sheet

5. Yes Collaborators identified on cover sheet appear to be correct based on their role as described in the proposal

Comments: Not entered

6. Yes Time lines and start date are realistic and consistent with OEEF Guidelines


7. Yes Grant duration 30 months or less

8. Yes Audience identified by applicant is correct for the project. If not, re-assign to audience: Not selected

9. 10 points Under-served Audience: Award 10 extra points if the proposed project targets a regulated community primary audience.

10. Yes List of counties identified by applicant appears correct based on activities in project description


11. 3 points Under-served Counties: Award 5 points if the applicant organization is located in (OR all the proposed activities will take

place in) a county/counties that OEEF has defined as under-served (i.e., where fewer than two grants have been

awarded). Award 3 points if some of the proposed activities will take place in counties that OEEF has defined as under-

served.

12. No Is this a revision of a previous application? (check last 2 cycles) If yes, OEEF ID#: Not entered

13. Yes Has applicant previously received OEEF grant(s)? If yes, OEEF ID#: 09G-018, 14G-040, 05M-034

14. No Was previous grant awarded in the past twelve months?

15. No Is any previous grant still open?

Not selected If yes, is previous grant likely to close before the Council meeting for this current grant cycle?

C. Audience Categories and Project Issues

16. Comment if applicant appears to have made assignments in error


D. Contact Information

17. Yes One person is not serving in all 3 roles (director, fiscal, authorizing)


E. Project Description - Overall

18. Yes Project does not include political advocacy

19. Not selected Project includes adequate safeguards for any potentially dangerous activities

20. Not selected If this is a K-12 formal education project, it includes specific examples or a satisfactory explanation of the process that will

be used to align student learning activities with New Learning Standards


F. Budget Narrative

21. Yes Itemized detail is provided

22. Yes Figures are accurate

G. Budget Spreadsheet

Personnel

23. Yes Salary

24. Not selected Benefits: Explanation of how calculated and % used for fringe.

25. Not selected Stipends or Substitute: OEEF is not asked to pay for both for the same teacher for the same day

Comments on Personnel section of budget:

Not entered

Non-Personnel

26. Yes Supplies: Identified, grouped, unit priced, and totaled

27. Not selected Equipment: Itemized, grouped, unit priced and totaled

28. Not selected Printing: Itemized, # of copies, unit price, and totaled

29. Not selected Other: Categorized, method of calculation, and totaled

Comments on Non-Personnel section of budget:

Not entered

Contractual

30. Yes Name of party, organization, # of hours, hourly wage, total

31. Yes The combination of Personnel and Contractual costs does not exceed 35% of the budget. (If it does, add comment and

note percentage)

Comments on Contractual section of budget:

Not entered

32. Yes There are no ineligible expenses

33. Yes There is no unacceptable pass-through of grant funds to a third party

34. Yes Overall, expenses are reasonable (if questionable, add comment)


35. 0 points Award five extra points if the applicant (with their collaborators) has provided a strong, well-documented cash or in-kind

match that greatly exceeds 10% of the funds requested from OEEF. (Do not assign extra points for less than a 50% match)


H. Letters of Collaboration and Support

36. Yes Collaboration does not appear to be needed for this project to succeed


37. Yes If the project is collaborative, documentation letters have been received from all, partial or none of the collaborators

38. 5 points Award five extra points for projects with very strong, well-documented collaboration


39. 5 points Award five extra points if the applicant has provided documentation of support for the project from members or appropriate

representatives of the target audience. (Letters or applications from teachers of the targeted grade level will meet this

criteria for the pre-school to university audience. Letters or applications from an established trade or professional

association will meet this criteria for the regulated community audience.)


40. Not selected Attachments, if any, are relevant to the applicant's ability to successfully complete the proposed project

41. Not selected Other


Checklist completed: Yes Total Points Awarded: 23 out of 30

OEEF Grant Reviewer Score Sheet with CommentsApplication #: F-19G016 Organization Name: Clermont Soil and Water Conservation District

Grant Type: GeneralGrant Project Title: Southwest Ohio Agricultural Conservation Menu

Primary Target Audience: Regulated Community Application Status: Scoring Complete

Reviewer 1

A. Audience Need (up to 20 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The target audience is well-described. 3 5

2. The project is directed at environmental compliance needs identified by the regulated community, or by an appropriate

environmental regulatory agency such as Ohio EPA or a local health department.

3 5

3. The need for the project was determined in a valid way. 3 5

4. Meeting this need will yield substantial benefits to the target audience, community and environment. 3 5

12 20

Reviewer Comments on Need Statement:

The East Fork Watershed Cooperative has estimated that they need 43,000 acres of cover crops to meet phosphorus reduction goals but only have

7,000 acres. Why then isn't the goal of this project to educate the farmers about the need for more cover crops instead of soil tests? Clermont

SWCD already has a nice web page on Cover Crops. So the proposed grant activity of creating a web page that lists all funding sources (for all

BMPs) is not rational.

B. Organizational Qualifications (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The applicant organization and/or its collaborators are experienced and well-qualified to work with this audience. 5 5

2. The applicant organization and/or its collaborators have appropriate expertise to conduct this project and ensure that the

regulatory information presented is accurate.

5 5

10 10

Reviewer Comments on Organizational Qualifications:

The experience and expertise of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts is well known.

C. Project Objectives (up to 35 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The objectives define specifically who will benefit and what will be learned. 3 5

2. The objectives address the need of the target audience as presented in the Statement of Need. 0 5

3. The project is likely to have regional, sector-wide or statewide impact in Ohio. 3 5

4. The objectives meet one of OEEF's educational priorities. 3 5

5. The objectives are measurable. 0 5

6. The objectives are realistic for the segment of the regulated community being targeted as the audience. 3 5

7. The project does not appear to duplicate other available environmental education resources and programs. 3 5

15 35

Reviewer Comments on Objectives:

I found nothing compelling in the grant application that ensures any success in reaching the skeptical farmers in the East Fork Watershed. How will

these holdouts be recruited? My experience is the only way to reach farmers (as other business men) is to demonstrate how much money that they

can save and still get the same or better product. Problems with high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in Runoff have been known in Ohio since

before 2008. How will this project convince those that have resisted since then? Only one objective has a numerical target and this is for 100

registered blog users. I did not find this compelling.

D. Project Activities (up to 35 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The project activities are specific, and the sequence of activities is appropriate. 3 5

2. The project activities are appropriate for meeting the stated project objectives. 3 5

3. Reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the project information is scientifically valid and unbiased. 3 5

4. The project activities are relevant to real-world environmental issues affecting, or affected by, the regulated community. 3 5

5. The project activities are tailored to the interests and abilities of the particular segment of the regulated community being

targeted.

3 5

6. The project does more than disseminate information: learners will engage in hands-on activities, problem solving, and/or

skill-building.

5 5

7. The project makes good use of existing environmental education materials, or provides good justification for the decision

to develop new materials.

3 5

23 35

Reviewer Comments on Activities:

Of most concern after reading this application, is that NRCS is aware that many fields in this area are farmed to the stream edge and lack nutrient

management plans. Why not focus on the cover crops and filter strips (2,600 acres) needed? It is not clear why the Soil and Water Districts should

take the lead on explaining to farmers how to apply for federal program funding. Or why creating another web site for farmers to look at will be what

changes their minds in adopting conservation. Although, the Minnesota Dairy page showing the same fields before and after conservation was

compelling to me can we be assured that this will be compelling to Ohio Farmers. Also, don;t we already have all this data someplace? I did not see

how farmers were going to be recruited or how many farmers would be needed to address the 100,000 acres of Ag in the East Fork watershed. The

Development of on the online fertilizer application calculator is slated for 2% of the budget but for 10 months.

E. Timetable (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The start and end dates are realistic for completion of the activities. 3 5

2. The start and end dates show that activities will be carried out in a logical sequence. 3 5

6 10

Reviewer Comments on Timetable:

This major grant has a timespan of less than one year. The activity for developing the web page is listed from Jan 14th till October 25th but the

scope of work indicates it will only take 8 weeks to develop. My concern is that if the web page is not developed until Oct 25th, how can people have

a chance to react to it and how will the applicants be able to get feedback on its usefullness in only 2 months?

F. Outcome Measurement (up to 15 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The outcome measurements are scientifically valid for determining if the project objectives were achieved. 3 5

2. The measurements describe success indicators, tools being used to measure, methods of analyzing the data, and who

will be conducting the evaluation.

0 5

3. If appropriate, the measurement attempts to determine whether regulatory compliance improved as a result of the

project. (If not appropriate, score 5 points.)

3 5

6 15

Reviewer Comments on Outcome Measurements:

Nothing in the grant application gives me comfort that they can recruit and reach "skeptical farmers" or educate them on the need for cover crops or

to reduce the amount of fertilizer to apply. Do farmers really use smart phone apps to determine what amount of fertilizer to apply? There is no

indication in the outcome language on what target levels of phosphorus loading are needed to reduce the current amount of Harmful Algal Blooms in

Harsha Lake. The only quantifiable outcome measure is the goal of 100 blog registered users during the first year. Aren't there already mechanisms

for farmers to share information?

G. Continuation/Replication Plan (up to 15 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The project includes a realistic plan for sharing the results with the wider regulated community. 0 5

2. The plan describes how the project can continue once OEEF funding ends. 3 5

3. The plan describes how the project can serve as a model for replication in other regulated sectors or regions. 3 5

6 15

Reviewer Comments on Continuation/Replication Plan:

I gave zero points since this is not a regulated community. The cost to continue the web page (per the scope of work) is $300 annually. No mention

is made about the ability to continue this subscription. Will additional amounts be needed to update the Montana Like Listing of Conservation

Programs? I did not find another list of programs to be personally helpful. How many farmers will benefit from an Apple Smart Phone app for

fertilizer application?

H. Budget (up to 20 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

1. The budget table and narrative clearly explain all expenditures to be funded by the OEEF. 3 5

2. The budget is appropriate for this type of project 3 5

3. Salary costs are reasonable as a proportion of the overall budget. (In general, salary costs should not exceed 50% of

the total OEEF budget for the project. Higher amounts should be very well justified by the applicant)

5 5

4. Equipment costs are reasonable as a proportion of the overall budget. (In general, equipment costs should not exceed

50% of the total OEEF budget for the project. Higher amounts should be very well justified by the applicant)

5 5

16 20

Reviewer Comments on Budget:

It is not clear how the farmers will use the phosphorus and water quality test strips. Will they be using water quality test strips to test the levels of TP

and TN in soil or their drain tiles? It in not clear how the 200 soil test kits (25 tests each) and the 50 water quality TP (25 tests each) and TN (25

tests each) can be distributed. Is the real benefit that the farmers may reduce their nutrient applications if they test the soil themselves instead of

depending on fertilizer companies? Will farmers really test their soil and tile runoff between October 1st and Dec 13th? I think that the grant should

be extended to a second year to allow time for followup with farmers and to evaluate success.

I. Discretionary Points (up to 10 points)Points

Awarded

Maximum

Score

Up to 10 discretionary points may be awarded by the peer reviewer in cases where the applicant has demonstrated that the

project has unique characteristics and excellent overall quality, where this distinction does not appropriately fit into the

categories previously listed. The reviewer must explain in the comment section why the discretionary points were awarded.

3 10

3 10

Reviewer Comments on Awarding of Discretionary Points:

I am supportive of collaboration of soil and water conservation districts and especially their agricultural education programs, but I am frustrated by the

delays in progress with farmers. How can these programs realistically reach the skeptical farmers? They have adapted to smart phone technology

but resist any additional information on the environmental front.

Total points awarded by reviewer 1: 97 out of 170

Reviewer 2


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5



20 20


Covering a 4 county area will provide larger impact and benefit the entire watershed. This is an under served audience with potential for improved

water quality.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


There are numerous agencies providing input with most individuals having 10 years or more experience.


Awarded

Maximum

Score








35 35


Specific goals are measurable such as involving 200 landowners. With success in this 4 county area, this has the potential for being adapted for the

other 84 counties. It is making information more easily available to landowners with the intent of getting them involved in more BMPs.


Awarded

Maximum

Score






targeted.

5 5


skill-building.

5 5



3 5

33 35


Well-defined steps with testing on a handful of landowners before implementation. Addressed to some extent the accuracy of the information, but with

the agencies involved this will most likely be successful. Workshops for landowners get them in the field doing testing. The blog is an excellent way to

keep the learning going after the workshops. Using some materials that already exsist.


Awarded

Maximum

Score



10 10


Reviewer impressed that the web design is being handled by outside expert so that the agency staff can spend time doing what they do best and that

should keep the project on task and timely.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5



5 5

15 15


Using already established and valid monitoring standards and procedures to measure overall success.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




15 15


With numerous and appropriate agencies involved, the information will be disseminated. The blog will provide information to the landowners and

feedback on how landowners are using the program. Application mentions plans for sharing with the rest of the state which would be replicable in

other locations.


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

20 20


Budget seems appropriate and expenses reasonable.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10 10

10 10


This is a novel way of getting landowners to find out about BMPs that can reduce nonpoint source pollution and nutrient overloading. Individuals will

learn at workshops, but have lots of information to explore on their own how these BMPs might benefit their own property. The blog can provide

information sharing and encourage others to explore BMPs for their land.


Reviewer 3


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5



20 20


Educating the target audience and inspiring behavior change can have a substantial impact on water quality in the East Fork Watershed.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score








31 35


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score






targeted.

3 5


skill-building.

5 5



5 5

31 35


Including the soil and water quality testing as part of the project is a great idea. It's a good way to ensure farmer involvement and show the impact of

the project. Are there any guarantees farmers will used the website?


Awarded

Maximum

Score



10 10


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score




3 5



5 5

13 15


The success indicators for the soil and water quality test indicators are good. Measuring the number of registered users on the blog may not be the

best method to determine success. Farmers may register, but may not be repeat visitors.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




15 15


Not entered


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

20 20


The budget is modest. There is lots of potential impact for a small investment.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




10

10


Not entered


Reviewer 4


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5



20 20


I can confirm that one of the most common complaints that grantmaking agencies hear from residents and businesses is how difficult it is to find

information about all the available local, state, and federal programs and grant opportunities. The application shows good understanding of the

needs of a watershed-specific target audience.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




5 5

10 10


Strong, well documented collaboration of four county soil and water conservation districts and the regional NRCS office. These partners are very well

qualified and experienced at working with farmers in the watershed.


Awarded

Maximum

Score








35 35


Well designed overall. Project builds on a similar web-based menu of conservation programs in Montana, and proposes some good additional

features like a farmer-to-farmer blog, and a way to upload the user's own soil and water testing results. The concept is good, but the Montana

website is not a great example of effective web design. For example, the user must individually select eight different screens in the water programs

section alone, and most users are unlikely to get to the programs with names in the second half of the alphabet. Objectives like "develop a web

page" and "provide test kits" could be much stronger if they were rewritten as specific learning objectives for the participants, rather than tasks for the

grant recipient to check off on a to-do list.


Awarded

Maximum

Score






targeted.

5 5


skill-building.

5 5



5 5

31 35


The application mentions reviewing the website at least once yearly, but it would have been reassuring to see a clear commitment to update it more

frequently, for example as listed programs announce new grant cycles. The State of Ohio tried to develop a one-stop shop for grant program

information a few years ago, but the statewide website and many state agency grant landing pages were not kept up to date. ODNR's at

http://ohiodnr.gov/grants and Ohio EPA's at http://epa.ohio.gov/Do-Business/Get-Help/Financial-Assistance are a little hard to find but easy to use

examples. Don't just rely on blog, website would be more engaging with some local success stories, interviews and results when local farmers

implement BMPs - as well as stories illustrating potential problems and what-I-would-do-differently-next time perspective. Is there a way to

incorporate some real hand-holding assistance in applying for various grants, not just a link to the grant program website?


Awarded

Maximum

Score



10 10


Timing of workshops in winter, outside the growing season, is appropriate for this audience.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




3 5



3 5

11 15


Very good use of farmer focus groups on website design. I really like the test kit component, and would encourage some stronger follow-up with the

farmers who use them, to see what works. You may be missing an opportunity to more strongly incorporate information about the drinking water

treatment costs and the possibility of reducing them as more BMPs are adopted. I was very glad to see the drinking water issue included as one of

the justifications for this project.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




15 15


If this project is initially successful, the web resources could be easily publicized in other Ohio counties, with funding for additional test kits from some

of those grant programs. One of the strengths of this proposal is the specific focus on the East Fork watershed. I hope that focus could include other

local watersheds if the project expands.


Awarded

Maximum

Score





5 5



5 5

20 20


Very reasonable and well detailed, with strong match.


Awarded

Maximum

Score




3 10

3 10


Awarded points for good use of new technology, which will appeal to younger farmers. Would like to have seen a little more detailed discussion of

how to drive older farmers to the new web-based resource. Overall, a solid proposal aimed at a somewhat difficult to reach audience.


Documents

OEEF Grant Application Clermont … · managing watershed and stormwater GIS databases. He has substantial programming experience and is leading the effort to develop the fertilizer