March 1, 2011
To:
Woody Loftis (NRCS)
From:
Zach Hymanson (TSC)
Alan C. Heyvaert (DRI)
Maureen McCarthy (TSC)
Wally Miller (UNR)
Re:
Science Review of the NRCS Lake Tahoe Basin Area Wide Conservation
Planning Program
The Tahoe Science Consortium (TSC) has provided selected assistance to the Lake Tahoe
SNPLMA capital proposal review in past years through the technical review of
individually proposed projects. The goal of these reviews has been to determine the
adequacy of the proposal’s planned environmental monitoring and effectiveness
evaluation, as well as to identify opportunities for learning through adaptive management
and points of intersection with existing or proposed scientific activities in the Tahoe
basin. In a series of meetings between the TSC, the Federal Interagency Partnership and
the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee, it was decided that these project-level
reviews were not as effective as initially intended and that a modified approach was
needed. Ultimately, all parties agreed that considering monitoring and program
evaluation needs at the programmatic level would be a more productive approach. NRCS
subsequently offered to have its Area Wide Conservation Planning Program for the Lake
Tahoe basin undergo a programmatic review as part of the SNPLMA Round 12 capital
program review. The TSC members identified above met with you, Mr. Chuck Taylor,
Ms. Rachel Kozloski, and Mr. Steve Hill on February 11, 2011 in order to obtain input
necessary to complete such a review. We discussed the origin and evolution of the
planning program and the sources of information used to implement program
adjustments, including past interactions with the science community. We then conducted
a review of the NRCS’s SNPLMA Round 12 proposal for the Area Wide Conservation
Planning program. The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate our findings and
recommendations, based on those discussions and review.
General Comments
Overall, the TSC review committee believes that the proposed NRCS Area Wide
Conservation Planning Program would make a positive contribution to the conservation
and restoration of natural resources in the Lake Tahoe basin. We believe that clarifying
the program goals and objectives, combined with immediate implementation of a modest
and focused evaluation program, are the primary changes needed to improve program
delivery and accomplishments.
The remainder of this memorandum communicates important details associated with our
specific findings and recommendations. Please feel free to contact Maureen McCarthy at
(775) 881-7561 or mimccarthy@unr.edu if you have any questions.
Review Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1. Our understanding is that the Area Wide Conservation Planning Program
intends to provide staff and resources necessary to complete a series of exemplary
watershed level conservation plans in the Tahoe basin. The planning approach will
follow NRCS’s national model for watershed scale planning, while working in
collaboration with government and stakeholder representatives, including private
property owners. The Tahoe basin conservation plans will address four primary issues:
(1) water quality best management practices, (2) fire prevention defensible space, (3)
invasive plants/noxious weeds, and (4) sensitive species and species of concern such as
Tahoe yellowcress.
We commend the Tahoe NRCS team for pursuing the proposed Area Wide Conservation
Planning Program. To our knowledge this is the only program in the Tahoe basin that is
funded to support watershed-scale planning across multiple resource issues within several
watersheds. We also endorse your efforts to develop a watershed ranking strategy for
community watershed planning. Although this ranking strategy is still under
development, the expected product would be of great value and utility. We believe the
outcome will provide a valuable near-term product that your program should highlight.
Finally, there is no other SNPLMA program working at this scale to pursue coordination
and communication (among project proponents, landowners, and types of projects) as
central functions of the program effort. We recognize the challenges and costs of
ongoing coordination at multiple levels, but such an approach is essential to effective
basin-wide restoration plans that consider both public and private lands. Cross-program
coordination (and possibly even integration) is a function that more of the EIP partners
will need to pursue, especially as funding sources decline. Overall, we believe that
Tahoe basin agencies have not fully utilized the coordination and communication
services offered by NRCS and the resource conservation districts to help achieve EIP
goals.
Recommendation: We recommend you add a series of overlays to your watershed
ranking base map that include relevant Environmental Improvement Program
(EIP) priority projects. Combining this EIP information with your site evaluation
criteria would facilitate prioritization and coordination opportunities across
multiple agencies and interrelated programs.
Finding 2. As stated in your SNPLMA Round 12 proposal, the program goal is to
accomplish three main purposes:
• Coordination and improved efficiency and effectiveness of conservation efforts.
• Increase participation in conservation efforts by area landowner/stakeholders.
2
• Create opportunities for better quantification of project and scientific evaluation,
which could provide data for the TMDL and PLRM.
Although some information on objectives is provided, we do not believe they convey
“specific measurable statements of actions”, as requested in the SNPLMA proposal
response form.
Recommendation:
We recommend revising the program goal and objectives statements as follows.
Goal 1: Complete area wide conservation planning in high priority Lake Tahoe
basin watersheds to motivate measurable improvements in specific resource
objectives.
Objective 1.1: Measurably increase the total number of private properties
receiving a Certificate of Completion for water quality BMP’s in the
watersheds with area wide conservation plans.
Objective 1.2: Measurably increase the total number of private properties
that have completed defensible space work for fire protection in the
watersheds with area wide conservation plans.
Objective 1.3: Measurably decrease the total area of invasive
plants/noxious weeds on private lands in watersheds with area wide
conservation plans.
Objective 1.4: Measurably increase the beach-front habitat that contains
or is suitable for establishment of Tahoe yellowcress in watersheds with
area wide conservation plans.
Goal 2: Complete area wide conservation planning in high priority Lake Tahoe
basin watersheds to enhance the completion of Environmental Improvement
Program projects, and to enhance implementation of the Lake Tahoe TMDL.
Objective 2.1: Measurably increase the efficiency (i.e., reduce the time
and cost) of implementing EIP projects in watersheds with area wide
conservation plans.
Objective 2.2: Create new opportunities for scientific studies to inform the
implementation of conservation efforts, and generate technical tools to aid
implementation of the Lake Tahoe TMDL.
Finding 3. The NRCS Round 12 proposal does not describe any efforts to evaluate the
effects and effectiveness of the Area Wide Conservation Planning program. We
understand that you and your staff have engaged in internal discussions to qualitatively
evaluate the program, and to guide internal adjustments. These discussions should
continue, but we believe the NRCS should do more to evaluate its program.
Recommendation: We recommend the NRCS incorporate several evaluation
techniques into its program as the primary tools needed to regularly evaluate
program performance, relative to the objectives stated above. These tools aim to
provide quantitative data, which we believe will be more useful to informing
3
programmatic evaluations over the long-term. The resulting information can and
should be shared with others.
Recommendation: We also recommend the NRCS fund these evaluation efforts
within the existing proposed Round 12 budget by reducing the total number of
watershed plans completed over two years from 10 to 8 plans. This reduction
would generate approximately $150,000/year to support the program evaluation
efforts described below.
Four activities should be pursued as the foundation of the NRCS program evaluation
strategy:
1. On-the-ground sampling within a subset of the watersheds selected for area wide
conservation plans to provide quantitative data that will inform objectives 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4. Approximately the same sampling effort should be applied in both
California and Nevada. Sample sizes should be large enough to support the
development of summary statistics (e.g., estimates of means and variability).
Sampling will likely need to be repeated over time (e.g., one, two, and five years
after completion of the watershed plan) to allow NRCS to understand how
implementation of the plans perform over time. The NRCS may need initial help
to develop and document sampling and reporting protocols, but it is expected that
NRCS or Resource Conservation District staff would complete the data
collection, analysis, and reporting.
2. Standardized surveys of residents within a subset of the watersheds selected for
area wide conservation plans. These surveys would serve to inform objectives
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 as to success or failure. Survey results also would inform NRCS
about its effectiveness in public education and outreach, and could be useful input
for identifying strategies to improve future planning efforts in the context of
adaptive management. These surveys should be repeated on some recurring basis
(e.g., once every three years). The NRCS should consider working with CA and
NV Cooperative Extension representatives regarding survey design and
implementation. NRCS staff could analyze and report the survey results, or
contract out for this work.
3. One-on-one interviews with agency representatives implementing EIP projects
could be used to evaluate the NRCS Area Wide Conservation Planning Program
relative to objective 2.1.
4. Establish a standing Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG could increase
interaction between the science and planning communities, help to frame key
management questions, provide advice on program direction, and provide advice
on emerging issues. This would provide an immediate and cost effective way to
make progress on objective 2.2. We would suggest a TAG of about six members
total: four members with expertise in the core topic areas of primary interest to
NRCS, plus one or two individuals with recognized expertise in watershed
planning and social sciences. It is reasonable for the NRCS to expect to cover the
costs of travel expenses for the TAG members, and some members may need
funding for their participation time. We can recommend appropriate individuals
if that would be helpful to you.
4
The TAG would provide an immediate and cost effective way to make progress on
objective 2.2 through identification and framing of specific questions the NRCS could
pursue in collaboration with the science community through the Lake Tahoe SNPLMA
capital and science programs. You and your colleagues have already identified some
potential studies of interest to the NRCS:
a. Studies that aim to validate and refine the Pollutant Load Reduction
Model (PLRM).
b. Studies to understand and quantify infiltration rates and processes.
c. Studies to determine if parcel scale water quality BMP’s can result in
pollutant load reductions at the catchment scale.
The results from these four recommended activities would be used to evaluate the NRCS
program relative to its stated goals and performance objectives. However, these results
also could be leveraged to address other needs. For example, the results from these kinds
of studies and the other evaluation efforts could be integrated into the TRPA updates of
its best management practices handbook. Results from the NRCS evaluation also could
be used to further incentivize private property owners; e.g., results from BMP compliance
and defensible space treatments could be shared with landowners in different watersheds
to inspire friendly competition among the communities to meet performance targets that
the communities have set for themselves. Other possibilities undoubtedly exist.
5