Quality Criteria

1
Quality Criteria National SRC Meeting March 7
10, 2005 Albuquerque, NM Anthony
Burns Technology Specialist East National
Technology Support Center
2
Straw Man A weak or sham argument set up to be
easily refuted The 'Straw Man Argument' is one
which is untenable because of certain dishonest
or erroneous assumptions embedded within them.
When an irrelevant thesis is inaccurately claimed
to be someone's position, it is said to be a
'Straw Man' argument, meaning, it will not stand.
The fallacy of trying to refute someone's view
by misrepresenting it.
3
The Quality Criteria The Quality Criteria
represents the gauge by which NRCS evaluates the
resource sustainability during the conservation
planning process. In conservation planning, if
all resource concerns are address to the Quality
Criteria, then it is assumed to be a Resource
Management System for sustainability. A natural
resource problem by definition is a resource
condition that does not meet quality criteria for
that resource.
4
Im not an expert on the Quality Criteria
5
What I Do Know 79 resource concerns 45 are non
measurable Quality Criteria in a voluntary
approach to conservation planning works very
well. The Quality Criteria is a topic that is
easy to talk about, but a challenge in the
details. Ole how everything runs together. If
it was just voluntary conservation planning, we
probably would not be having this conversation.
6
In a volunteer approach to conservation planning
the criteria represents a benchmark and issues of
consistency, measurability, and subjectivity are
not critical as they are factors weighed against
the environmental objective of the
producer. These issues are critical when using
the Quality Criteria in programmatic activities
and in quantitatively measuring results.
7
The positive side is some resource concerns can
be measured and supported with well adopted
tools, such as sheet erosion, gully erosion, Soil
Conditioning Index, and water savings. The
negative side is that over half of our resource
concerns are not measurable. Some have no tools
and other tools are used to evaluate but not
measure. Tools such as WIN-PST help us evaluate
if an herbicide is a high risk, which may be an
excellent planning tool, but there is no measure
of what we actually accomplish.
8
Issues Is there a need to integrate program and
technical activities? How far do you
go? Changing of the QC for program activities,
such as SCI for soil erosion. Creating a
balance between technical assistance and
programs. Do you use EQIP cost share to assist
an producer to adopt conservation tillage
(residue management) that doesnt generate a
positive value for eligibility for the CSP.
(Addressing one resource concern sheet and rill
and not meeting soil condition) Use of resource
concerns independent of each other. Are we
really addressing water quality if we are not
addressing soil erosion.
9
Issues Water Quality Harmful levels of
Petroleum in Groundwater. Are we really
addressing a groundwater problem or addressing a
potential for a problem. Are we solving a problem
or are we keeping a problem from getting
worse. Maybe a Farm-A-Syst approach might be a
better option or addressed in Other
Considerations. Is this something we need to
measure in a non measurable way or do we even
need it the Quality Criteria?
10
Issues Lets pick on wildlife, from a resource
concern perspective, do we need to have wildlife
resource concerns, inadequate food,
cover/shelter, water, space, plant community
fragmentation, imbalance among population, TE,
and declining species. Could these be combined,
into a smaller number of concerns, we would still
address the actual needs in the planning process
and we would be using the same toolbox of
practices such as early successional habitat,
prescribed burning, upland wildlife habitat
management, etc. We can also pick on
Agronomist. Soil Erosion Streambank, Shoreline,
Mass Movement Soil Erosion Irrigation induced
erosion
11
Quality Criteria for research I propose that
researchers are not interested in our
measurements or our outcomes or even the resource
concerns we address, but they are interested in
the scope and extent of practices that are
applied and their location on the landscape.
12
Questions How do we stabilize the changes in the
Quality Criteria to reduce workload by
states? How do we deal with the changes in
Quality Criteria impacts on policy, practice
standards, CPPEs, and RMS requirements? Example
soil erosion control requirements relative to
the Nutrient Management (590) standard and CNMP
policy, and the Quality Criteria How will or
should Enhancements be incorporated into the
Quality Criteria and the FOTG? How do we deal
with consistency in the Quality Criteria
guideline from state to state? How do we
stabilize the changes in the Quality Criteria to
reduce workload by states?
13
Quality Criteria Questions Is it time to revisit
the Quality Criteria and focus on measurable
components? (Do we need 79 components to evaluate
our planning process?) Do we need new tools for
determining whether the Quality Criteria resource
concerns are being met and can we support the
number of tools needed? How does the Quality
Criteria evolve into components that are
measurable, simple in calculation and are
reflective of our RMS Target Criteria? How does
the Quality Criteria evolve to address new
demands placed upon it for programmatic and
progress reporting requirements?