IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of...
Transcript of IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of...
![Page 1: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
THROUGH BETTER TARGETING
wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting
July 16, 2014 TOWG Presentation
![Page 2: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TARGETING DISCUSSION
1. Improving Water Quality: A National Modeling Analysis on
Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of
U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to Better
Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
3. Preliminary Review of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative
Michelle Perez and Sara Walker
![Page 3: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
EXCESS ALGAE BLOOMS
![Page 4: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
FISH KILLS
![Page 5: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
MAJOR SOURCE:
FARM NUTRIENT & SEDIMENT RUNOFF
![Page 6: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
COASTAL EUTROPHICATION & HYPOXIA WORLDWIDE
![Page 7: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting – Prioritizing areas: a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions
c. Greatest change in environmental conditions possible
• Benefit-cost targeting –
Identifying acres and practices that can produce the most environmental benefits per dollar spent (e.g., most pounds of N reductions/$)
![Page 8: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
AUTHORS
Bruce Knight Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC
& former chief of USDA’s NRCS, ‘02–‘06
John Stierna American Farmland Trust
& former senior economist, NRCS, ’95-’04
Michelle Perez Senior Associate
Mindy Selman Senior Associate
Sara Walker Associate
Katie Reytar Research Associate
PANELISTS
![Page 9: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
MICHELLE PEREZ, PHD
IMPROVING WATER
QUALITY A National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
![Page 10: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How cost effective is the current (BAU) approach?
– BAU=spending on nutrient & erosion control practices: ’06-’11
2. How much more effective could it be with targeting?
– 3 targeting approaches
3. How do results change depending on what
environmental benefit is being optimized?
– N, P, & sediment reduction & soil C sequestration
4. If programs were designed to achieve the most cost-
effective benefits, where would the funds be spent?
![Page 11: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DATA & MODELS
• Farmer survey data
from Natural Resources
Inventory-Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (NRI-CEAP)
• Agricultural Policy
Extender (APEX) model
• Economic optimization
model
![Page 12: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
MODELING LIMITATIONS
• Geographic targeting - Prioritizing areas with greatest change possible
• Model analysis is at edge-of-field
• Doesn’t account for where acres are vis a vis impaired water bodies
• Prioritizes acres that offer the biggest edge-of-field pollution reduction opportunities
![Page 13: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
201 4-DIGIT WATERSHEDS
& ESTIMATING BAU COST EFFECTIVENESS
BAU $ spent in each watershed on average
# lbs. N reduced at edge-field in each watershed
$/# lbs. N reduced = level of cost effectiveness in each watershed
![Page 14: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
3 TARGETING APPROACHES IN MODEL
![Page 15: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
DUAL TARGETING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN BAU
12 x
8 x
8 x
7.5 x
![Page 16: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
DUAL TARGETING IS MOST COST EFFECTIVE
• Geographic + benefit-cost targeting could
result in 7 to 12 times more environmental
benefits per dollar spent than BAU
• Benefit-cost targeting alone could achieve 4 to
9 times the benefits as BAU
• Geographic targeting alone could be better or
worse than BAU
![Page 17: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CHOOSING WHAT TO TARGET
• Optimizing for
multiple benefits
(N, P, & soil C) yields
more co-benefits &
fewer trade-offs than
optimizing for
individual benefits
• If only 1 benefit can
be targeted,
optimizing for
phosphorus
reductions is best
![Page 18: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
TARGETING MAY MEAN MORE ACRES
16.8
12.8
8.7
Benefit-Cost Targeting for
Sediment
Dual Targeting for Nitrogen
BAU
1.5 times more acres
(Millions of acres)
![Page 19: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
![Page 20: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
MULTIPLE BENEFITS OPTIMIZATION (N, P, C)
![Page 21: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
PHOSPHORUS OPTIMIZATION
![Page 22: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
NITROGEN OPTIMIZATION
![Page 23: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SEDIMENT OPTIMIZATION
![Page 24: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SOIL CARBON OPTIMIZATION
![Page 25: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
WHAT THIS STUDY IS & IS NOT
• Not an analysis of what NRCS could have
done in past due to
– Scientific & technical barriers
– Institutional & implementation barriers
– Social & political barriers
• Is an analysis of what NRCS could be
doing in the future
![Page 26: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Track environmental benefits
2. Rank applications according to
benefit-cost ratios
3. Conduct pilot projects
4. Improve state funding allocation
formulas
![Page 28: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
SARA WALKER AND MICHELLE PEREZ
OVERCOMING
BARRIERS TO
TARGETING
![Page 29: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
POLICY PROBLEM BUSINESS-AS-USUAL CONSERVATION
Solves individual water quality problems on individual farms
![Page 30: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
POLICY SOLUTION: TARGETING
![Page 31: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
3 MAJOR TYPES OF BARRIERS
1. Scientific and
Technical
2. Social and Political
3. Institutional and
Implementation
Image: Nicholas A. Tonelli
![Page 32: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: LIMITED DATA AND TOOLS
Source: U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW Model, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Phosphorus Hot Spots in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
![Page 33: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Better employ existing tools and metrics
• Transfer tools
• Advance modeling capabilities
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts
![Page 34: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and Political
Funding allocation under
business as usual
![Page 35: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and Political
Funding allocation under
targeting
![Page 36: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Set aside portion of
funds for geographic
targeting
• Focus on costs and
benefits
Image: NRCS/Tim McCabe
Social and Political
![Page 37: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: LIMITED AGENCY CAPACITY AND
TARGETING EXPERIENCE
Image: NRCS/Bob Nichols
Social and Political
Institutional and Implementation
![Page 38: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Strengthen leadership
and oversight
• Involve producers and
local community
• Use effective
mechanisms to educate
producers
Image: NRCS South Dakota
Social and Political
Institutional and Implementation
![Page 39: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
THANK YOU!
Sara Walker
202-729-7824
Michelle Perez
202-729-7908
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts
![Page 40: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
SARA WALKER AND MICHELLE PEREZ
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
INITIATIVE-COOPERATIVE
CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
INITIATIVE
![Page 41: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
CBWI-CCPI OVERVIEW
• Authorized in 2008 Farm Bill
• $4.8M over 2010-2011 for targeted
watershed projects
• Priority river basins: Susquehanna,
Potomac, and Patuxent
![Page 42: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
REVIEWING CBWI
6 Factors of Good Targeting
1. Stakeholder & producer buy-in
2. Policy-oriented SMART-Q goals
3. Geographic targeting
4. Monitoring & evaluation
5. Cost effectiveness
6. Adaptive management
![Page 43: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
METHODS
• Reviewed CBWI literature
• Reviewed all CBWI projects from 2010 & 2011
• Interviewed USDA staff and project leaders
![Page 44: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
1. STAKEHOLDER & PRODUCER BUY-IN
Image: NRCS/Jeff Vanuga
Rating: Fair
Good • Diversity of
partners
• Designed to
leverage funds
Bad • Projects aren’t
leveraging funds
• Landowners not
involved in
planning
![Page 45: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
2. POLICY-ORIENTED SMART-Q GOALS
Image: Chesapeake Bay Program
Rating: Fair
Good • Environmental
outcome-
oriented goals
• Mention of
policy drivers
Bad • General CBWI
goal
• Lack of SMART-
Q components
![Page 46: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
3. GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Good • 10 priority
areas
• Rationale
behind project
watersheds
Rating: Good
Bad • Lack of
geographic
focus in 2010
![Page 47: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
4. MEASUREMENT & EVALUATION
Image: NRCS/Tim McCabe
Rating: Poor
Good • M&E
requirement
Bad • Lack of monitoring
specifics
• Lack of protocol to collect and evaluate data
• Few projects have M&E plan
![Page 48: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
5. COST EFFECTIVENESS
Treatment Costs
• $ to implement conservation practices
Environmental Benefits
• Lbs. TN reduced • Lbs. TP reduced • Lbs. TSS reduced • Lbs. Soil C
sequestered
÷
Cost Effectiveness
• $/lb. N reduced • $/lb. TP reduced • $/lb. TSS reduced • $/lb. Soil C
sequestered
= Rating: Very Poor
Good • Minimum
element in
ranking system
Bad • Largely
unaddressed
![Page 49: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
6. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Assess Problem
Design
Implement
Monitor
Evaluate
Adjust
Rating: Fair
Good • Sharing results
• Unofficial plans
Bad • No formal plan
in place
• Few projects
adaptively
managing
![Page 50: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
CBWI RATED “FAIR” OVERALL
![Page 51: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Enable agricultural producers to participate in planning
• Write clear and landscape-scale SMART-Q goal statements
• Improve leadership and accountability for M&E
• Strive for cost effectiveness
Image: Chesapeake Bay Program
![Page 52: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
QUESTIONS?
Image: Chesapeake Bay Program
Sara Walker
202-729-7824
Michelle Perez
202-729-7908
![Page 53: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY · 2017-08-01 · Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds 2. Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022050421/5f901cc96da009122442be8a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
VISIT WATER QUALITY TARGETING PAGE
wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting