Round Table

Notes

Regional Conservation Professional Training

Round Table Agenda
Illinois Beach Resort, Zion IL
Dr
March 13-14 2008
Thursday, March 13th
12:00 pm Lunch available

12:30 pm Registration

1:00 pm Opening Session - Welcome and introductions

Bob Feffer, Assistant Superintendent Illinois Beach State Park,
Ingrid West, Regional Conservation Professional Training Coordinator
af
1:20 Overview and history of Conservation Professional Training Initiative and the Great Lakes
Regional
Water Program
Rebecca Power, Regional Water Quality Liaison - UWEX
Pat Murphy, State Conservationist – Wisconsin NRCS
Kevin Erb, Conservation Training and Development Coordinator - UWEX

2:00 Results of the multi-state needs assessments - a regional perspective - Kevin Erb
t
2:30 State training program overviews
MN, IL, IN, MI, IA, WI

4:00 Presentation of web based course registration and student tracking system - Janice Kepka,
Web Development - UWEX

4:30 Introduction to Roundtable and 6 Hats Thinking - Jennifer Kushner, Evaluation Specialist
- UWEX

6:00 pm Working Dinner Presentation of The Chicago Wilderness Partnership,

John Rogner, Field Supervisor - USFWS Chicago Office
 6 THINKING HATS
By Edward de Bono
White Hat
With this thinking hat you focus on the data available. Look at the information you have, and see what
you can learn from it. Look for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them or take account of
them.

This is where you analyze past trends, and try to extrapolate from historical data.

Red Hat
’Wearing’ the red hat, you look at problems using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. Also try to think
how other people will react emotionally. Try to understand the responses of people who do not fully
know your reasoning.
Dr
Black Hat
Using black hat thinking, look at all the bad points of the decision. Look at it cautiously and defensively.
Try to see why it might not work. This is important because it highlights the weak points in a plan. It
allows you to eliminate them, alter them, or prepare contingency plans to counter them. Black Hat
thinking helps to make your plans ‘tougher’ and more resilient. It can also help you to spot fatal flaws
and risks before you embark on a course of action. Black Hat thinking is one of the real benefits of this
technique, as many successful people get so used to thinking positively that often they cannot see
problems in advance. This leaves them under-prepared for difficulties.

Yellow Hat
af
The yellow hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the
benefits of the decision and the value in it. Yellow Hat thinking helps you to keep going when
everything looks gloomy and difficult.

Green Hat
The Green Hat stands for creativity. This is where you can develop creative solutions to a problem. It is
a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas.

Blue Hat
t
The Blue Hat stands for process control. This is the hat worn by people chairing meetings. When
running into difficulties because ideas are running dry, they may direct activity into Green Hat thinking.
When contingency plans are needed, they will ask for Black Hat thinking, etc.

Nominated for the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2005, Edward de Bono is regarded by many as the leading authority
in the field of creative thinking, innovation and the direct teaching of thinking as a skill. He is equally renowned for
his development of the Six Thinking Hats technique and the Direct Attention Thinking Tools. He is the originator of the
concept of Lateral Thinking, which is now part of language and is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. Dr. de
Bono was born in Malta. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, holds an MA in psychology and physiology from
Oxford, a D. Phil. in Medicine and also a Ph.D. from Cambridge. He has held faculty appointments at the universities
of Oxford, Cambridge, London and Harvard. Dr. de Bono’s background in self-organizing systems led him to derive
an understanding which he then applied to the neural networks of the brain. (www.debonogroup.com)
 ~ Six Hats Group Activity ~
Question: What would an ideal regional
conservation professional training program look like?
Blue: Black
•
Dr
Prioritize needs • Too much work
• Uniform website • Money
• Annual regional CPT meeting • Danger of oversimplifying states have different
• Case study learning needs and cultures
• Web/virtual and on land training • Need to engage farmers/land owners
• State coordinator liaison • Technology – Do people want it?
• Trainer consistency
• Organize existing data/resources in matrix like White
IN inventory of existing skills • Consider State and audience differences
• Lack of data – Uniform gathering tool
Yellow • Established relationship
• Save time and $ • Efficiency and leverage
• Other funding may be available o Avoid overlapping training from
•
af
Strengths of many experts different sources.
• Shared expertise o Financial efficiencies.
• Less turnover o Distance to travel
• Stronger network o Return on investments for TSPs.
• Internal and external audiences • Broaden NRCS/SWCD universe beyond training
• Virtual training 24/7 in house
o Collaborative effort
Red o Compile data how much each state to
• Pride Issues pay for services U.S. regional costs.
• Positive Environment w/ like minded colleagues o Inventory of where skills are where best
t
• Staff satisfaction training can take place
• Perception of more government • Uniform worksheets, outlines, information and
• More speakers – styles, diversity of delivery programs would be helpful.

Green
• Access-multiple formats/media/web/distance/
virtual (D+D)
• Flexibility – Regional w/ personalized local
• Train the trainers
• Consistency across states – materials and
messages
• Fulfills multiple needs Reg and CEU’s
 Complete notes of ideas groups
brainstormed:

Green Hat
• All participants,
• Easy accessible,
• Research based collaborative effort.
• Wine tour format (cheese),
• Balance shared us supported – local basis
(resources available but able to localize).
• 50% farmers as trainers,
• Web based source as basis – Training case studies
conservation training
• Dungeon & Dragons virtual training.
• Flexible with reference to geography relevancy.
• Multifaceted media (online, classroom, etc.).
•
Dr
Affordable.
• Systemized – this make it clear how to do courses link together into a training track. Distance – resistant training.
• Regional broad – train the trainers.
• Coordinator in each state,
• Consistent across state lines.
• Submit to regional disciplines/rules resources to region.
• Find best resource per subject and name to that function.
• Delivery/web.
• Regional-based = personalize it.
• Perhaps a combination of different levels.
• Stakeholder groups – both ends to help identify training and to target training.
• Rich people to donate money.
• Some type of a drawer.
•
af
Constraint elimination (how can we get public funding? Upper level to recognize importance of regional training
– get public support).
• Use train the trainer model – bring mentoring and peer training (incorporate into cost-benefit analysis to show
how this could work).
• Consistent material/message.
• Inexpensive.
• Time efficient.
• Fun!
• State/local component.
• Technically superior to individual state
t
programs.
• Take home skills.
• Fulfills multiple needs (CEUs).
• Accessibility.
• High quality.
• Consistent message.
• Locally adaptable.
• Provides applicable.
• Fulfills multiple requirements.

White Hat
• Lack of on farm training,
• Lack of data – established relationship.
• Practice affects on erosive/production.
• How practices work,
• Evaluation needs role programs vs. technical.
• Build more training providing info PDs (not a prilhy)
• Field based hands on training.
• Respond to demand.
• Determine demand/needs but demand changes.
• Need to ramp up quickly.
• Avoid mixing audiences that need different training.
• Efficiency – avoid overlapping training from different sources.
• Financial efficiencies.
• Return on investments for TSPs.
• Sustainable over by noon.
• SWCD – give up national conference in favor of regional conference?
• CCA’s go less than or equal to 100 miles for CEU’s.
• Is CCA concept sustainable (Yes)?
• Certified soil
• Seniors need for CCA training/CEUs survey work – how many, who, topics, expand the list.
• How to broaden NRCS/SWCD universe beyond training in house: collaborative effort – ext? ASA-hosting?
Dr
• Compile data how much each state to pay for services U.S. regional costs.
• Inventory of where skills are where best training can take place – use this to convince upper management.
• State up database.
• Use surveys.
• Survey data – good to have – need to gather more.
• Survey training topics.
• State to state different.
• Different audiences.
• I don’t have a very good understanding.
• Uniform worksheet would be helpful.
• Survey data.
• Topics.
• Each state has different needs/audiences.
af
• Uniform gathering tool.

Blue Hat
• Virtual, preliminary web reference/templates – pre meeting to localize overview – on site/on land farmers/
practice profit.
• Annual regional training meeting to share success ideas.
• On farm training with real farmers.
• Focus on land/client.
• Case study based learning.
t
• Mixed trainers for consistency.
• Use U researchers for consistency to organize the training system.
• Basic regional structure – varied for each state by trainers, audiences, examples.
• Combine society meetings (e.g. Corn/Soy)
• How do professionals work as a team?
• Some states NRCS do training themselves – others not.
• Who’s going to do the training?
• Who’s keeping the lists and how to access?
• Assessment – program continuum?
• Use technology more effectively.
• Follow up to the on-line training (host workshop forum/discussion forum – have facilitator). Find ways to do
hand-on training.
• Curriculum checkpoints to ensure consistent learning across the region.
• Uniform website.
• Single information of what’s existing, what’s needed.
• Prioritize needs.
• Who can contribute?
• Single source of available (inventory)
knowledge.
• What info is needed (identify needs) -
Prioritize needs. Who will? State
coordinator/liaison.

Black Hat
• Money,
• Timing,
• Priorities,
• Attitudes,
• Localize need cannot be addressed by regional program (methodology/critical adapted to needs)
• Tailoring too rural – not regional.
• Financial Drivers.
• Loss of regional coordination.
• It will be mandated.
• If we put our best people on it, it will happen.
Dr
• Take away ego & ownership – send membership to other states,
• Pay for membership in regional organization.
• Peer pressure from other states.
• Problem of different regions across states.
• Young people are different learners – styles.
• Pod cast trainings?
• Biofuel training lacks commitment – need face to face instruction.
• Adaptive management – put it out there and try it.
• Who will pay – need full time person on this in each state?
• Moving from detailed plan to numbers?
• History – don’t over simplify!
• Engaged farmer/landowners.
• Logistics of doing on-line is difficult.
af
• Do our clients want technology?
• Do we have money to do this?
• Will they even come?
• Will they pay to come?
• No time.
• Not relevant to their work.
• Distance.
• Levels of training.
• Too much work.
•
t
State cultures and needs too different.
• So expensive.
• Hard to coordinate.
• State cultures are too different.
• Too expensive.
• Too much time.
• Training coordination across disciplines.
• Work Load.
• Personality/political issues.

Red Hat
• Bunch at crop training push up to underpaid/under appreciated staff improves satisfaction/success stories.
• Multiple speakers – more interesting.
• Coordinator training,
• More perspective/styles/interest.
• Hands on holds interest/knowledge sticks.
• MN is going to mandate. Earl Butz ns. H.H.H.
• What’s in this for me?
• Why are you putting numbers on my operation?
• Organic farming doesn’t get carbon offsets?
• Most falls back to back.
• Core group of people get fired up and pass it on.
• Can we look at federal funding?
• Improves network.
• Pride
• Another damn government project.
• Pride issues.
• Threatened by other trainings.
• Positive environment with like-minded professionals.

Yellow Hat
• Balanced approach local vs. regional-shared tech/knowledge.
• A time had by all,
• Cooperative outcome.
• Allow to operate with limited resources.
Dr
• Agencies pool money/staff to achieve goal.
• Coordinate.
• Work with SWCD – deliver CEU’s or Soil & Water.
• Virtual training – always available.
• That allows targeting to level.
• Monitoring program.
• Internal and external audience.
• Incentives for training.
• TSP needs motivation – economics.
• New employers.
• Successful examples.
• Pilot projects – text with highly invested stakeholders and refine.
• Bring in some agencies who aren’t’ represented today – including wildlife, sporting, etc. Corn/Soy check offs?
af
• Less turnover by training people and less training needs.
• More qualified workers.
• Conservation benefits.
• Service will improve,
• People happy, legislative people happy, give more money.
• Even with on-line, the materials will be still available.
• Shared expertise.
• We’re all here!
• Can’t wait for plan to be perfect.
t
• Start small.
• Little successes.
• Save time.
• Save money.
• Other funding sources available.
• Obvious interest.
• Start small and build on success.
• Eventually will save time.
• Capitalize on those areas of funding that
will.
• Draws on strengths of different experts.
 Friday, March 14th
Dr
af
7:00 am Breakfast /State meetings (Regional Team)

8:00 am Farm Bill implications for conservation training - Pat Murphy, Jeff St Ores (NRCS)

8:30 am Review outcomes from information gathering session and state breakfast - Jennifer Kushner

9:00 am Creating a shared vision - Ingrid West

t
9:30 am Round Table sessions - Jennifer Kushner Round Table Facilitator
· Conservation Planning
· Conservation Topics
· Emerging Issues

12:15 pm Via Phone - Robin Shepard

12:30 pm Working Lunch

1:30 pm Futures planning Products and next steps

2:30 pm Closing Discussion - Rebecca Power

3:00 pm Safe Journey Home

 t
af
Dr
 Round Table Discussion
Topic Areas
Ideas and Outcomes Sessions 1-3

CNMP Team:
Existing Models
ƒ Each State
ƒ ISU Certification
ƒ State Specific ‘Tweaking’ of CNMP
ƒ Audience of CNMP Development?
-Do we need a CNMP “Lite”?
ƒ Different Regulatory Bodies reviewing/regulating/updating CNMPs
ƒ Regional Farming Organizations
o Changing philosophy of Responsibility for Conservation
Dr
- Levels of Experience/Expertise for CNMP
ƒ Different Levels of Certification Development
ƒ Update Training w/ new ‘Industry Technologies’
-Regional Dynamic encourages support/development of BMPs
-Renewal of Certification needs to be more in depth

Feed Management Plans Team: Pat Murphy, Jeff St Ores, Mary Fleissner, Janice Kepka)
What feed management looks like:
Audience – producer, planners (nutrition, conservation) core-the same
Content- sampling protocols
ƒ Ration mixing
af
ƒ Appropriate Nutrient/nutrition
Partnerships-nutritionists, feed dealers, feed specialists (herd health animal)
Missing links between agri-business/specialists/farmers
What might this look like?
ƒ Reference docs – ‘fast facts’
ƒ Nutrient load balancing/planning tool
Barriers/Influences:
ƒ Changing regulations-air emissions
ƒ ‘tech talk’ – make info understandable
ƒ Quick technology for low bandwidth
t
ƒ More is NOT always better
ƒ $$ - cheap feed is not always appropriate
ƒ Small input changes may = production changes
ƒ Complexity

Grazing Management (Team: Dennis Johnson, Eileen Klavidko, Bill Bond, Dewayne Johnson, and Stan
Solomon)

ƒ Common Principals
ƒ Technical
ƒ Train people who do plans, who do implementation # of people who do plans
ƒ Interpretation of Regulations
ƒ Ext = farmer orientation
ƒ NRCS = Technical Orientation
ƒ TMDL- Watershed Priority for grazing
ƒ Flexible in plan
 ƒ Share what other states are doing-to help guide & develop
ƒ NRCS – suspend moratorium on training
ƒ = Ext umbrella to implement
ƒ = sharing across state lines
ƒ Forage – Regional Variations due to Ecology
ƒ NGO = Pier groups for training grazing clubs= partnerships
ƒ Opportunity to increase training to peer groups
ƒ Research – Translated to GLCI & ARS, SWCS
Farmer/Regulatory Agency
ƒ Distrust
ƒ Unrealistic; subjective, unrealistic
ƒ Standards vs. Goal
ƒ Programmatic vs. Flexibility
ƒ 1/3 Don’t implement & plan
ƒ Funding Drivers-
ƒ Not willing to pay for plan
ƒ i.e. occasional grazing in areas fencing
ƒ Critical Mass of people
Dr
o i.e. working in area (specialists) to have meetings to discuss & plan
ƒ Everyone has a finger in but not a full commitment
ƒ Engineering-Integration
o Watering-(not enough)
o Fencing
ƒ Justification when its not your job priority
ƒ GLCI
ƒ Retirement
ƒ Carbon imprint
ƒ Economist – lack of in the process

Farmstead
af
ƒ Readily accessible introductory session starts from scratch
ƒ -increments, basics for beginners
ƒ Address different types of farms (orchards, dairy, row crops)
ƒ Become more specialized at higher level training
ƒ Highest level=onsite/field mentoring training have list of available mentors
ƒ Learn ability to asses & identify needs not necessary. Implement complex solutions/practices
Drivers
ƒ Can producers see the value in doing cons. Practices
t
ƒ Improve bottom line/economics
ƒ Staying within regulations
ƒ Long term sustainability
ƒ Basic Session Includes: soils, info, use soil survey
ƒ Identify important/sensitive on farm objects
ƒ Hydrology
ƒ Links for state specific info sources
ƒ Independent of programs focus on science; basics
ƒ Reading the landscape
Mentoring
ƒ How to work with producers communication skills
ƒ On site resource assessment
ƒ Show perspectives of many stakeholders/team based approach @ all levels
Barriers
ƒ Time and money
ƒ Team approach complicates the training challenging to integrate various specializations
ƒ Current drivers may not be most effective
Nutrient Management

Barriers & drivers incorporated throughout

- Barriers
ƒ Too state specific
ƒ Every state is a part of Mississippi, Ohio River Basins too
- Drivers
ƒ Some common things will happen at the larger level
-What would it look like?
ƒ Common assessment tool
ƒ MI, OH, IN = these are together
ƒ NM planners:
o Training would help planners understand what soil tests mean & how to apply based upon state???
ƒ Need for wider range of understanding beyond single farm management
ƒ Outside the box land treatments that can be used to be identified
ƒ Regional package for TSPs, landowners, agency that can be adapted
ƒ Share state forms & materials that aid in guiding through he planning process
Dr
o What info is important
o How can producers benefit?
o What can help show benefit on a larger scale and include this
ƒ Develop more systematic approach
ƒ CNMP –light ex: feed management, anything that affects NM/manure content
ƒ Need to involve animal science & facility designers, in addition to soil fertility, crops, people (more than
traditional NM planners)
ƒ Barrier: “nutrients” are defined differently and/or handled differently waste utilization manure, commercial
fertilizer, legumes credits
ƒ Definition is different across states
o Livestock waste = CNMP
o NM Plan = fertilizer & credits
ƒ Process steps can be used to develop training materials application timing, etc.
ƒ Research is done-needs to be simplified & presented to CCAs, others
af
ƒ Lag time exists – change in NM & how it shows up in the environment – so how to convince that is works
ƒ Need real time monitoring on quick resource change
ƒ Need to measure behavior change & how this is result of NM
ƒ Economics can help change paradigm
ƒ Crop yields work against us in terms of success
ƒ VRT(variable rate technology) who is relaying this information in a unbiased way
ƒ VRT training is also needed for those working with the farmers
ƒ Barrier for service providers – the thought that they need to change their business
ƒ Do they need to start to partner with others more? Other expertise
t
ƒ Opportunity- training for crop consulting businesses to learn other things & diversify business
ƒ Barrier: paperwork requirements to show accountability-do the agencies really need these
ƒ Barrier: identify what is absolutely essential & pare it down
ƒ Session could be developed to show the benefits of focusing on environmental component may help
encourage other planners to really incorporate
ƒ Conflict of interest = selling product & planning

Organic Farming (Team: Shannon, Pat Murphy, Rah, Jim Bond, Dennis Johnson, Kim Leizinger, Ingrid
West)

ƒ System/Not product
ƒ Certification protocols (general)
ƒ Resource Concerns/ alternatives
ƒ SARE- Organic Dairy 101
ƒ Involve producers ‘as teachers’
ƒ Target Audiences
ƒ Integrate
ƒ Environmental security programs
ƒ Index ratings
ƒ Understanding impacts systems
ƒ Psychi-of-producers/non traditional motivation to: health, profit, niche market, -model (small scale)
ƒ Ethnic markets
ƒ Amish
ƒ Beginning farmers
ƒ Local foods
ƒ CSAs
ƒ How organic fit into scheme-traditional/organic/other label
ƒ Need for farmers help w/providing
o Info on how
o Marketing
o Delivering systems
o Transportation costs
ƒ Cost sharing for certifiers
ƒ Non-traditional TSPs
Dr
ƒ Currently no TSPs to help
ƒ NGO, University, certifiers
ƒ Barriers: no infrastructure
ƒ NRCS not certifier so not participating in working w/certifiers/work w/erosion…
ƒ Currently course in MN – organic dairy
ƒ Tools are there but haven’t identified the opportunity of the fit
ƒ Assist w/process
ƒ Resource assessment
ƒ Identify – new strategies that underlie??? Good practices GLGN – Economists
ƒ Plug into existing network program opportunities
ƒ Framing good mgmt practices
ƒ Overcoming preserved?? Limitations
ƒ Farming system/not product
af
Drainage (Stanley Solomon Jr. Kevan Klingberg, Kevin Blanchet, Andrew Nesseth, Al Kean, Wayne
Anderson, John Brach)

ƒ Content- Broad Perspective

o WQ
o Production
o Erosion Control
t
o System design for mgt on new retrofits
o 2 – stage ditch design

ƒ Audience-
o Contractors
o Designers
o Producers
o Agency
o Do-it yourself contractors

ƒ Delivery
o Build on current regional network es- public, adm-private

ƒ Barriers
o Fear of regulation
o ‘us vs. them’
o Updating ag infrastructure
o Status of research
Riparian Corridor Management (Team: Tim Larson, Dennis Johnson, Tammy Lawson, Rich
Nichols, Tim Gieseke, Jeff St Ores, and Mary Fleissner)

ƒ Audience; regulators, tech TSP

ƒ Federal Manual
ƒ EPA/TMDL/NRCS fundamental information – suited for web reg. training
ƒ Content
o Multiple disciplines topic areas— resource identification

Erosion Control (Team: Dewayne Johnson, Bill Bond, Coreen Fallat, Duane, Mike R, Angela, Christy, and
Les Everett)

ƒ Video of on site practices- placed on web/blog – use for course

ƒ Improves availability of training opportunities
ƒ General blog for questions
ƒ Inventory potential specialists/teams for doing these videos/courses given resources for
Dr
course development
ƒ Need to do before retirements or contract them after
ƒ Retired soil scientists/classifiers
ƒ Increased availability of high speed internet improves this option but some face/face time
needed
Barrier - complexity of topic
ƒ Needs to be divided into smaller sections
ƒ Farm Bill – being program driven
ƒ Provide advance training in selected topics
ƒ Train/Trainer
ƒ CPESC concerns
ƒ V of MN course certification in sediment /erosion control
ƒ Need standardization of teaching courses
af
ƒ Source of ID needed: workshop/forum
ƒ Hands on training necessary in many cases

Cover Crop (Team: Luther Smith, Eileen K, Ted Funk, Courtney Smith, and Nathan Mueller)
ƒ Economic Components- Never Talk about
o Adds nutrients
o Payoffs
t
o Practicality/hassle
o Added risks
o Another thing to do
o If its not done right
o Improved soil quality
o Holding nutrients –clover/corn
o Input costs = economical
o Opportune time
o Lack research to jump into discussion
ƒ Increase research training
ƒ Cost share incentives; EQIP - $20 A
ƒ “Organic” – cover crops
ƒ * Midwest cover crops council
ƒ Extension Products Training
ƒ CEU’s
ƒ ? Can’t Work on my farm
ƒ Rural Sociologist
ƒ Water Quality
 o Reduces leaching
o Incentive payments
ƒ Intangible benefits
ƒ Carbon offsetting
ƒ ? How to do it?
o Equipment
o Practicality
o How, what, where, when
ƒ Expectations/Realistic
ƒ Risks
ƒ EQIP-is only short term Marketing
ƒ Testimonials
ƒ Researchers
ƒ Field Days/hands on
o Winter training for technical
o Timing for field day – November
o Identify farm locations- more sites, close to group
o Soil types
Dr
o Climate
ƒ Land Tenure – leasing
ƒ Gather information on Barriers
ƒ Create focus groups
ƒ Understand issues

Invasive Species (Team: Pat Murphy, Ann L, Shannon)

ƒ Content
o Step 1: Identify the plants – regional or state defines?
ƒ Teaching identification skills
ƒ Effective management strategies/protocols
af
o Step 2: Identify by ecosystems/threat level
ƒ Impact on non-controlled species
ƒ Plant physiology
ƒ Audience specific
ƒ Information references
ƒ Barriers – cost of mgmt strategies- chemicals labor re-establishment
o Complexity of control strategies — > “not one recipe”
o Regulations –who should mandate?
o Terminology “invasive”
o Politics (inter-agency as well as upper level)
t
o Incentives (long term commitment)/motivation (lack of)
ƒ Drivers
o Environmental interest groups
o “Production” interests
o Programs (WHIP, CRP, etc)

Climate & Energy (Team: Rich, Duane, Dewayne, Courtney, Wayne, Timothy)
ƒ SWCS –planning for extremes
ƒ Need to know carbon footprint basics
ƒ Carbon credits – no till – difference for qualifying for credits compared to other programs
ƒ Clearinghouse for research
ƒ Planning based on current weather (last 20 yr) trends/extremes
ƒ Some training- need basics education
ƒ Trends in climate
ƒ Need basic carbon/cycling training
ƒ Sharing of regional research & economic impacts for clients
Groundwater (Kevan, Eileen, Christy, Nathan, Coreen, Jeff)
ƒ MI has a lot of resources already available (some has restricted access)
ƒ GW may be more open/available as a regional training-not as state specific
ƒ Specifics: soil and relation to water
ƒ Need to increase correlation to surface water quality/quantity
ƒ Training on hydrology
ƒ Might be able to use some existing resources as a model MI – Home –A –Syst
ƒ Web based training for use at anytime – make it interactive
ƒ Identify case studies to highlight/explain hydrologic connections
ƒ Focus on connection of GW to health, more buy in, increase opportunity
ƒ Find ways to catalog existing well water tests
ƒ Compare state averages, take new data and interpret
ƒ Homeland Security issues w/GW
ƒ Is training I&E or training on practices to preserve/conserve quantity/quality?
ƒ Take advantage of existing resources
ƒ Do we need nitrogen management training?
ƒ Nitrogen restrictions in fall?
Dr
ƒ What might be down the road for all of us?
ƒ Audience
o Landowners
o Agency/UWEX, new hires
o Well drillers
ƒ Well logs could be a good tool for technicians (soil layers, location)
ƒ Make state guidance more accessible
ƒ Make vulnerable areas more accessible to aid in scoring?? For EQIP (MN)
ƒ Make something regional that incorporates many different aspects that can then be massaged & addressed (w/a
local perspective)

Professional Development (Team: Ann L, Luther S, Tammy, Tim G, Al Kean, and Kevin Blanchet)
af
What is it?
ƒ Personal on-going learning
ƒ Non-scientific components of continuing ed.
ƒ Generalists vs. specialists
Topics
ƒ Science
ƒ Interpersonal
ƒ Econ
ƒ Computer
t
Benefits—— morale (because there’s no $)
ƒ What has been neglected?
ƒ Providers exist to teach leadership, communication, etc… Neglected: There is no training for
o Scientific generalist, integrators, team leaders
o Attach value to generalists
ƒ Conservation planning multi course track
ƒ NRCS are policy specialists (not technical generalists/integrators)
ƒ Training track need to define this (See Ohio Model)
ƒ Certification standards that can be met by numerous courses
ƒ Resource assessment (including experience implementation)
ƒ Lack of IDP
ƒ Peer review and learning (IN model)
ƒ Support existing professional development organizations
Impacts of Bio Fuels (Stan Solomon, Jon Brach, Mary Fleissner, Angie Williams, Ted Funk, Andrew
Nesseth)

• What does a regional training look like?

o Multi Issue
ƒ Corn Stover VS Grass/Cellulousic
ƒ Drainage mgmt of changing crop production systems
ƒ Nutrient mgmt
o Sustainability of biofuel systems
o Removal of Soil carbon
o Erosion _ Residue removal
o Sources of Bio Fuel
o Long term options/implications of biofuels
ƒ Absentee landowners, etc….
o Biofuels 101 for new agency employees
o Energy sources for conversion process
o System Thinking
• Audiences
Dr
o Policy creators
o Industry people
o Bridge marketing
o Absentee Landowners
• Barriers/Drivers
o Get infrastructure
o Getting production to scale needed
o Wildfires – Switch grass
o Residue removal as immediate threat
af
t
 Taking the time to look at the scene from different
vantage points...Similarly to what we were doing over
the past two days - sharing our ideas and perspectives
getting a feel for and an understanding of the regioanl
conservation professonal training landscape.
Dr
af
t
 Futures Planning Products, Questions and Issues
(Whole Group Activity)

• MOU Aggregate of ideas,

o Common understanding…We can make it work
o Identify common messages
ƒ ? Collaboration on what
ƒ Clarify what we are not
o A loose affiliation that is:
ƒ People focused
ƒ Builds capacity
ƒ Who are the partners: Decision for who participates
• Include other states i.e. Iowa, Missouri
o Have a process in place for conflict resolution and to facilitate discussion
Dr
• Define Audiences for courses
• Process for training
• Knowing our networks
• Inventory
• KISS - What is it we can put together that is already out there
• Scope: Core areas and emerging issues
• Identify easy ways to share curricula

• Access to information: sharing, networking, communication

•
af
Website: what does it deliver and networks
• Broader knowledge across state lines

• Will there be funding? State, Federal, other grants

• Identify Cost/Benefits
• When hiring staff give information and encourage collaboration on appropriate issues
t
Futures Planning and Program Development
• Organizational Framework
o Define Scope of work
o Develop support
o Figure out the nuts and bolts of how this will work funding, priorities, protocols, etc…
o Define the mission and vision of the regional partnership
o Define scope of collaboration, membership/partnership parameters
o MOU development
o Incorporate course development process into national or regional policy goals
o Resource assessment
o Develop priorities for regional training
o Development /revision of interim leadership team/steering committee
o Schedule for continued collaboration – Benchmarks
o Build capacity to meet the educational needs of the next resource issue
Dr
• Sustainability
o Sustainability how will this program continue
o Define funding strategy for regional products and services
o Develop strategies for long term funding sources
o Increase availability of CEU’s in soil and water
o New funding for transitional training /new and old professional
o Refine our model relative to wholesaling vs. retailing training

• Communication
o Ability to coordinate and share resources to develop new sessions
o Awareness of what’s available at any time
af
o Centralized resource Clearinghouse
o Networking

• Partnership
o Identification or key contacts in states (as steering committee and go between for ideas)
o Voluntary commitments from agencies
o Identify member organizations representatives
o Point people for coordination communication and collaboration and roles
t
o Provides measurable tier of expertise of capacity to implement conservation
o Consult w. professional organizations to help develop curricula – industry groups hunting and fishing
etc…
o Build mentoring network of retirees/soon to be retirees to be key players in this effort
o Bring non traditional conservation groups into the membership fold i.e. fishing and hunting, industry
groups, pork producers, corn and soybean growers, forestry, etc…
o id. state differences
o Define and clarify partners and roles
o Establish longer term commitment MOU
o Somehow tap into the experts in each state on different topics, have them meet and say what they think
is needed and what each of them would contribute to regional programs or whether they’ll each do
their own but have learned from others.
o Identify contact people for each program
o Who is going to help support a participant who chooses
o Service providers and partners
o Regional based discovery committee
• Product Development
o Define products and services of regional CPTP
o Develop regional framework for training conservation planning tracks i.e.
o Expanding the diversity of training in the state/region
o Program can evolve – open to changes and tweaks
o Provide regional templates that are tweaked by states
o Available to anyone who’s interested (NRCS, Ext, CCA’s SWCD etc…)
o Development of possible training options to try: choose 1-3 options and work to identify whether
appropriate, and how it might be developed and delivered
o One strong regional pilot program that is being used by multiple states
ƒ Try one… have to start somewhere
o Agree upon a few topic areas to focus on while having enough diversity to keep people involved.
o Agree upon a few short-term outcomes that can be short term successes
o Topics related to specialists, emerging technologies, etc would be a great fit
o States with specific courses are contracted to deliver courses in other states via the CPTP network
o List areas of training
ƒ Develop a priority list of training/information needs
• Land grants, Industry organizations, other agencies
Dr
ƒ Topics related to specialists, emerging technologies, etc would be a great fit.
o Define various student groups and prioritize
ƒ Agency conservation professionals, tech service providers, producers, environmental groups,
producer groups …
o Needs to be written up
o Provide as stand alone courses
o Showcase model for successful training programs
o Build a collection of case studies, both successes, failures for sharing on the ground experiences
o More training programs available for basic conservation training well advertised and available across
the region
o Develop individual topics
o Strategic discussions for each topic
af
o Determine what is needed
o Complete an assessment of areas of expertise and trainings provided by states to coordinate
professional development and eliminate duplication
o Access existing course work and source for each state i.e. MN list
o Assessment training for resource mgmt
o Common curricula standardizing certification
o Determine performance objectives for individual topics what you need to know at three different
levels: (NRCS jargon)
o Awareness
o Advise and provided technical assistance with help
t
o Provide TA without help
o Limit audience at first, focus strictly on training for agency service providers
o Standardize templates that can be modified
ƒ E.g. for this topic
ƒ for this level of training
ƒ for this type of training … “here is what you should cover”…(training outlines fleshed in by
states and trainers)
o General I+E may factor in new and emerging issue, but keep focus on professionals

• Curricula Ideas
o Core topics
o Emerging Issues - An emerging issues track so we stay relevant
o Nutrients as core focus priority
o Materials and curricula for social networking skill building such as in tmdl’s
o Identification of 3-5 topics best suited regional ownership
o 2 new or adapted trainings offered with CEU’s on water quality by spring of 09
 o Develop core curriculum for manure technology
ƒ Regional collaboration assessment of manure storage alternative technologies
ƒ Clean water source reduction
ƒ Solids operation and recycling
ƒ Continue developing farmstead facility (livestock facility Assessment modules and curricula
o Develop regional core curricula for surface water, ground water, hydrologic cycle
o Regional assessment of alternatives to reduce gaseous emissions from livestock operations
o Regional training template on farm energy assessment
o Suggestion: Cover crop training
ƒ Locally led – field plots SWCDs
ƒ Field days - SWCD
ƒ CEUS available
ƒ Regionally organized
ƒ Research specialist across all states lead it
ƒ Audience
ƒ Govt. staff, CCA/TSP, Anyone who influences land operators
ƒ Advantage
ƒ Midwest cover crop council already formed
ƒ Common interest Applicable in some portion of all states
Dr
• Website
o Reach all 79 CD in the state web based training
o Web site for upcoming sessions
o Ability to share materials and get information easily – outlines, content, process
o Web based database for curricula/ what’s available
o Process to share needs
o Access to the database will save money
o Why reinvent the wheel if someone else already did it
o Linking existing training tools via Web
o Livestock & Poultry Education Center Website approach
af
o Type of consortium where course materials are networked, grants are obtained, web presentations
o Development of website so it can be a location for training activities
o Website functions links to state resources
o Communication of training activities between federal, state, land grant inst., and local agencies
o Web based training in some areas where appropriate
o An easy list of what’s available in each state, all over the region and keep it current
o Inventory of all electronic
ƒ Curriculum
ƒ Case study stories
ƒ State media tools
t
ƒ Data commonality i.e. Tillage transect data
ƒ White papers
ƒ Common tools
ƒ Calendar of events
ƒ Registration
o Well known website where trainings are posted and can be seen by people in various states
o This program could be downloaded PowerPoint, narrative information and presented by professionals
in different locations
o Trainings listed by topic area, CEU’s, location
o Begin to build website portal for information sharing
o Groundwater program web based training available w/ the months
 t
af
Dr
 Evaluation of Round Table
from 19 respondents

What are some benefits you gained from attending this working session?

Networking and exposure to what is available in different states.

Networking and hearing about the possibilities for expanding training.
Networking. Ideas for State.
Connections/Network. Time to focus on CPT. Update on Regional CPTP to date. Clarify scope of
opportunities to partner regionally.
Networking. I joined an invalvable opportunity to talk about the issues in conservation planning.
Learned more about what others are doing.
Sharing informationn and challenges with peers. Developing possible solutions.
Networking with others.
The opportunity to think more broadly about professional training - how, what, and who to involve.
Networks. Vision Buy - in.
A letter understanding of the unique institutional/political environment of each state.
Dr
Mailing connections with those with common wording goals. Getting the big picture on this issue.
Networking! Fantastic ideas from others.
Knowledge of what’s already available. Opportunities for addressing future training needs.
That people physically attend the event.
Networking.
Networking in region.
People Networking.
Learning what the needs (training) of other agencies. Also how we can collaborate.
Understanding of what others are working on and ideas where we could cooperate.

What about this working session contributed to the benefits you gained?

Roundtables and mixing/repeating them.

af
Small group discussions.
Commitment of time of many stakeholders, who were willing to speak openly.
The roundtable sessions allow for good discussion and education from those who knows about the
issues that we were presented.
Broadened my thoughts and awareness of what others are doing in NASCA.
Forced us to use our brains.
Fridays roundtable and afternoon sessions.

Well-structured discussions and eager participants.

t
The Chicago wildlife success.
Helped me see what is possible.
Sharing of what’s available.
Motivation that we can get something done!
Good attendees.
Discussion about possibilities.
Diverse Invitation List
Networking and Interactive activities.
Interactive process with high level of member input.

What was the least helpful to you about this working session?
None
The power points on survey and history.
Ohio was not represented.
Power points on creating goals and creatinv vision. I have seen these before and they don’t change
much.
 Too much duplication with other regional/national groups.
Too much presentation on Thursday.
Discussions cut off too early. But I wouldn’t have atned to stay longer.
Website tour presentation.
A lot of talking. Necessary but long at times.
Full Bill Overview
None
?
Web based tracking system.
Breaks? Good content and process.

How useful were each of the following components of this workshop given your reasons for attending?
Presentations Not at all Minimally Generally Very
Opening Session - Welcome and IL Beach State park 0 4 12 3
Overview and History 0 5 9 5
Results of the Multi-State Needs Assessment 0 1 11 7
State Training Overviews 0 0 8 12
Presentation of Web-based Course Tracking System 1 1 8 8
Dr
6 Hats Thinking Exercise 0 2 11 5
Chicago Wilderness Presentation 0 8 6 5
Farm Bill Overview 3 2 15 0
Creating a Shared Vision 1 3 9 6
Round Table Discussions 0 2 2 16
Futures Planning 0 0 8 12
Networking Time/Opportunities. 0 0 4 16

Would you be interested in attending another regional conservation training working session?

Yes No
19 0
af
If yes (#5), what recommendations would you have for future gatherings?
More states. More organizations from those states. State Agencies.
Highlight case studies of what worked and what didn’t.
Keep the focus on discussion. Bring in case studies of successes.
More thorough approach - more time to do some decision making.
Allow more individual networking time.
More time for roundtable and less presentations. More time for state presentations. Clear instructions
to provide more information.
Focus on detail more.
t
Create an outline of this week’s results - identify closed ends and open ends.
More roundtable/group exercises.
Hammer out details of the next steps.
Be organized again, this event was well organized. Good Job.
Progress made. Examples of Regionalization to Date.
Great job. Wondeful place and fantastic food.
Timing, later in year (summer) may allow better attendance.

Who else from your state (individuals or organizations) would you consider engaging in future
discussions about regional approaches to conservation professional training?
That will evolve.
Make sure that we include professional organizations in providing input on curriculum (and TSP too).
Someone who really does curriculum in our state.
Other training coordinators. Program Managers.
Ag Grower Organizations.
NRCS, DEQ, DNR, RC&D, Department Environmental Quality.
NRCS State conservationist and NRCS Straining coordinator.
 We had a good representation!
Assistant State Cons.
Crop consultants.
Kevin, actually I will use the contact list often.
WALCE County Employee Assoc.

Any other thoughts?

Nice job! Great location
Still struggling with this opportunity and how to avoid another group collaboration trap - benefits vs.
meetings/time.
Develop a process that connects retired conservation professionals with new employees for
mentorships.
It’s a start! The biggest step has been taken!
Good Job.
Good Meeting.
Go forth an be dangerous!
Dr
af
t
Individuals Expressing Interested in Future Participation in Developing Aspects of
the Conservation Professional Training Program

Tim Geiseke ContentSpecifically related to Resource Assessment Course

507-359-1889 tgieseke@agresourcestrategies.com Minnesota

Andrew Nesseth Curriculum Development related to TSP training certification and Resource Assessment Training
course
507-841-0943 extag@frontiernet.net Minnesota

Christy Roman Groundwater

231-533-8363 christy.roman@macd.org Michigan

Dennis Johnson GrazingOrganic curriculum

320-589-1711 dairydgj@morris.umn.edu Minnesota
Dr
Kevin Blanchet Manure
651-480-7739 blanc013@umn.edu Minnesota

Eileen Kladivko Cover cropDrainage

765-494-6372 kladivko@purdue.edu Indiana

Angie Williams Website training inventory

765-494-9555 williams@conservationinformation.org Indiana

Nathan Mueller Cover crops

219-869-4630 nmueller@isda.in.gov Indiana
af
Shannon Zezula Data base Website of existing training
317-290-3200 ext 388 shannon.zezula@in.usda.gov Indiana

Pat Murphy Topic content Development and other topics and process if needed
608-662-4422 ext 258 pat.murphy@wi.usda.gov Wisconsin

Jeff St Ores Topic content development

651-602-7869 jeff.st.ores@mn.usda.gov Minnesota

Kevan Klingberg Nutrient/CNMP topical development and Group leadership

t
715-983-2240 kevan.klingberg@ces.uwex.edu Wisconsin

Coreen Fallat Group planning

608-224-4625 coreen.fallat@wisconsin.gov Wisconsin

Ann Lewandowski Web contact for Minnesota

612-624-6765 alewand@umn.edu Minnesota
Thank you for all your input, hard work and support

From left to right back row: Dennis Johnson, John Brach, Al Kean, Kevin Klingberg, Ricard Nichols,
Dr
Duane Friend, Timothy Larson, Bill Bond, Ann Lewandowski, Kim Leizinger, Pat Murphy, Coreen
Fallat, Tim Gieseke, Kevin Blanchet, Les Everett, Jeff St Ores, Eileen Kladivko, Dwayne Johnson,
Tammy Larson, Mary Fleissner, Angela Williams, Mike Rahe, Courtney Schmidt, Luther Smith,
Rebecca Power

Kneeling from left to right: Ingrid West, Janice Kepka, Shannon Zezula, Ted Funk, Kevin Erb, Andrew
Nesseth, Nathan Mueller, Stanely Solomon jr. Wayne Anderson, Christy Roman,

Not pictured: Robin Shepard, Ruth Book, John Rogner, Bob Feffer
af
Thank you to the Environmental Resource Center staff
for all the hard work that went into this event:
Rebecca Power, Kevin Erb, Ingrid West, Jennifer
Kushner, Janice Kepka, Kim Leizinger and Alyssa Daul.

Thank you to the Regional Team for helping to

coordinate state participation: Les Everett, Ann
Lewandowski, Dennis Johnson, Kevin Erb, Richard
t
Proost, Ted Funk, George Czapar, Eileen Kladivko, Brad
Joern, Jon Rausch, Greg LaBarge, Lois Wolfson.

Special Thanks to Pat Murphy of NRCS for all his

encouragement and support and to the Great Lakes
Regional Water Quality Team and CSREES for their
financial support which made the effort a reality.