Rebecca PowerBrian Adams
Kevin ErbAndrew Meyers
University of Wisconsin-Extension
The Conservation Reserve Program Readiness Initiative:
Training Impacts and Resources
• History and charge• Addressing the challenge• Conservation workforce outcomes/training
developed
Conservation Reserve Program Readiness Initiative
• Started in 2003 in Wisconsin
• Address the need to fill gaps left by experienced, retiring conservation staff
• Private Sector TSPs need for technical training
Conservation Professional Training Program
Conservation Professional Training Program
• “Core” Conservation• Conservation Planning• IPM/PMP• RUSLE2 / WEPS• Ag Drainage • Nutrient and manure management• Wetland delineation – hydric soils• Forestry/agroforestry
• Team approach
• Cost-effective, time-consciouso Classroom, field and hands-ono Online – “synchronous” and self-pacedo CCA CEUs
Conservation Professional Training Program
• Quality assurance integration into training
• Robust evaluation of investment
• Multi-state history/partnershipso CNMPso RMS Conservation Planningo Cover Crops
Conservation Professional Training Program
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Acres
Year
Conservation Reserve Program Readiness Initiative
Source: Data.gov ‐ http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/expirestate0310.xls
CRP Enrollment by Year of Contract Expiration (as of 2010)
• Declining federal workforce
• Government interest in growing the private sector conservation workforce
• Support creation of first non-EQIP TSP certification
Conservation Reserve Program Readiness Initiative
• Develop and deploy training in 20 states on CRP conservation planning, implementation and management
• Provide mentoring of new planners and take active steps for quality assurance of their work
CRPRI Deliverables
• Provide training documentation to USDA-NRCS to aid in contracting of CRP planners (either as TSPs or through cooperative agreements)
• Create specific recommendations to help ensure the quality of work on CRP projects
CRPRI Deliverables
CRPRI DeliverablesCore Courses
Core Training Workshops:
• 298 participants at 22 in‐person workshops in 20 states
• 134 participants have completed online Core training since launch in October, 2012
• CRP Planning Start to Finish
• CPA 52 / Resource Assessment
• Mid-Contract Management
• CRP Plant Identification
CRPRI DeliverablesSupplemental Courses
• Developing Wildlife Habitat
• RUSLE2
• WEPS
• Online Tools for Conservation
CRPRI DeliverablesSupplemental Courses
• Apps for Conservation (Webinar)
• Comet Model (Webinar)
• WinPST
CRPRI DeliverablesSupplemental Courses
• Traditional TSPs (private sector) (15% f2f/10% online)
• Partners with Agreements (SWCDs, NGOs) (76% f2f / 83% online)
o Alabama Forestry Commission (40+)
• NRCS/FSA Staffo Indiana, Maryland
CRPRI DeliverablesTraining Audiences
CRPRI DeliverablesSupplemental Courses
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Rusle 2 WEPS Online Tools MCM NEPA/CPA52 Plant ID CRP S2F Forestry DWH
• Engaged NRCS staff• Core/regional team structure• Experienced advisors and mentors
o NRCS staff at national, state, and local levelso External partners
• Innovative instructional design
Addressing the Training Challenge
Addressing the Training Challenge
Conservation Workforce OutcomesIn-Person Core Training
1.69
1.81
1.83
1.84
1.98
2.13
2.17
2.38
2.50
2.70
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
GIS options for CRP plan map such as Toolkit, CPlanner…
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) and its purpose (n=205)
Various required NRCS forms (n=204)
CRP planning related resources such as CRP notes, cost…
Eligibility criteria for general and continuous sign‐up (n=204)
Field Office Technical Guides (FOTG) (n=202)
The two kinds of CRP contracts: continuous and general…
The role of Farm Service Administration (FSA) in CRP (n=205)
The role of NRCS in CRP (n=205)
Purpose/goals of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)…
Mean Knowledge(4‐Point Scale of 1= Very Low, 4 = Very High)
Mean Knowledge of CRP Elements(Before In‐person Course)
Conservation Workforce OutcomesIn-Person Core Training
74%
78%
90%
92%
93%
98%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Eligibility criteria for general and continuous sign up (n=190)
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) and its purpose (n=191)
The role of Farm Service Administration (FSA) in CRP (n=191)
The role of NRCS in CRP (n=191)
The two kinds of CRP contracts: continuous and general(n=191)
Purpose/goals of CRP (n=192)
% that can explain
Ability to Explain the Following to a Landowner(After In‐person Course)
Conservation Workforce OutcomesOnline Core Training
95%
97%
97%
99%
100%
100%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Eligibility criteria for general and continuous sign up (n=75)
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) and its purpose (n=76)
The role of Farm Service Administration (FSA) in CRP (n=76)
The two kinds of CRP contracts: continuous and general(n=75)
Purpose/goals of CRP (n=76)
The role of NRCS in CRP (n=75)
% that can explain
Ability to Explain the Following to a Landowner(After Online Course)
Conservation Workforce OutcomesSupplemental Courses
3.34
4.07
2.63
3.83
3.37
4.31
3.433.62
2.97
3.45
3.02
3.89
3.34
3.86
1
2
3
4
5
Pre(n=47)
Post(n=12)
Pre(n=23)
Post(n=7)
Pre(n=22)
Post(n=7)
Pre(n=12)
Post(n=7)
Pre(n=15)
Post(n=9)
Pre(n=42)
Post(n=35)
Pre(n=31)
Post(n=41)
RUSLE2 WEPS Online Tools MCM CPA52 Planning Start toFinish
Plant ID
Mean Kn
owledge
(1=V
ery Low, 5=V
ery High)
Mean Knowledge Before and After Courses
Conservation Workforce OutcomesSupplemental Courses
92%
86% 86%
100%
67%
77%
98%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RUSLE2 (n=12) WEPS (n=7) Online Tools (n=7) MCM (n=7) CPA52 (n=9) Planning Start toFinish (n=35)
Plant ID (n=40)
Percen
t Likely
Likelihood of using course materials/ideas with landowners
• Mentors helped new CRP planners through the development of their first plans (2012)
• “Cohort” support for Montana pilot group (2014)
Conservation Training Quality Assurance
• Four quality assurance workshops allowed new planners to get additional feedback on their plans and to see other examples of completed plans
• Review process at national level (NRCS) for all planners
Conservation Training Quality Assurance
• 11 of 20 target states used CRPRI-trained TSPs
• Assistance ranged from specific components to full planso Some states used TSPs for plan
updates/revisions/mid contract changes
CRPRI Impacts
• Twelve Alabama Forestry Commission staff assisted with 540 plans
• MN SWCD: 530 Plans (53 general, 273 CREP, 194 Revisions)
• Georgia Forestry Commission: 413 plans
CRPRI Impacts
• Montana: 4 Private TSPs/one business: 364 plans
• Illinois: Pheasants Forever and IL DNR: 344 plans
• South Carolina DNR: 341 plans
CRPRI Impacts
• 81% of Conservation Professionals surveyed had a positive or neutral opinion of TSP’s skills and ability. (n=522)
CRPRI Impacts
47
34
6
14
Positive Neutral Negative Don't Know
• 66% of Conservation Professionals surveyed had a positive or neutral opinion of TSP’s skills and ability to work in CRP. (n=84)
• States that said “Never Again” to TSPs are actively using them for CRP.
CRPRI Impacts
• CRPRI Online Courses/Webinars will be available in the future (fee)
o Core CRPo WEPSo Rusle2o WinPSTo Recorded webinars: Comet, Apps for Conservation
Future Directions
• CRPRI hybrid/face to face courses available• Local funding/support necessary
o Developing Wildlife Habitato CPA 52o CRP Plan Start to Finisho Mid-Contract Managemento CRP Plant ID
Future Directions
• Well trained workforce means greater efficiency and higher quality conservation
• Those trained in CRP planning are better prepared to address conservation workload associated with other Farm Bill programs
Take-Away Points
• Distance learning technologies can increase access to quality training . . . when done right
Take-Away Points
This material is based upon work supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under agency number 68‐3A75‐11‐268, CDFA number 10.902. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. University of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin counties cooperating.
Recommended
