Voluntary Conservation Works,

and Further Water Quality Gains Can Be Achieved

Minnesota Water Resources Conference

Minneapolis, Minnesota Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Tom Christensen Regional Conservationist, Central Region Natural Resources Conservation Service

2

“Since the achievement of our independence, he is the greatest patriot who stops the most gullies.”

Patrick Henry (1736–1799) Attorney, planter, and politician remembered for “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death” speech

3

“Most of what needs doing must be done by the farmer himself. . . . All the non-farming public can do is to provide information and build incentives on which farmers may act.” —Aldo Leopold, 1933

Aldo Leopold

“In this democracy, national action to conserve soil must be generated by these millions of land users. If they are active and willing participants in such a movement, it will endure; otherwise it will fail.” —Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1939

Hugh H. Bennett

4

Despite all the changes since 1935, and Hugh Hammond Bennett’s passing 52 years ago, many of his ideas and principles have withstood

the test of time and still greatly inform our work today . . .

1. We can’t do conservation work from behind a desk or truck windshield.

2. Good science must be the foundation for conservation.

3. Natural resource concerns cannot be treated in isolation.

4. Coordinated action must be focused on a watershed or landscape scale.

5. Local leadership is critical to success.

Hugh H. Bennett

5

Peter C. Myers, Chief Soil Conservation Service “50 Years of Soil and Water Conservation: Symposium Proceedings,” April 1985

“But fifty years have taught us that no single program, no single agency, no single organization can solve the nation’s soil and water resource problems alone. No single approach—federal, state, or local—has all the answers.”

6

“Seventy percent of the land in the lower forty-eight states is owned by private landowners. “The quality of our environment depends on the millions of individual decisions those men and women make every day.” Chief Dave White

7

Emphasis on sedimentation and impacts on flooding

New focus on fertilizers/pesticides and impacts on water quality

Efforts designed to connect benefits of conservation practices with improved water quality

Growth in Farm Bill conservation programs and funding; innovation grants

Farm Bill geographic targeting and NRCS Landscape Conservation Initiatives

1930s–1950s

NRCS and Water Quality Through History (1935–2012)

1960s–1970s

1980s–1990s

2000–2008

2009–present

Partnership Between NRCS and Landowners

û 97 million acres of land are currently enrolled in NRCS programs

û 182,958 landowners currently participate in NRCS programs

û Over 2.6 million acres of land are enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program

û Every hour, 11 acres of wetlands are restored by private landowners.

8

9

Energy

Climate Change

Plants

Soil Water

Animals Air

Conservation Planning

The Conservation Planning Process

At its core, the focus of conservation planning is on increasing voluntary adoption of:

ó Right conservation systems ó Right position on landscape ó Right amount ó Right timing and sequencing of practice/system

implementation (progressive implementation)

Focus of Conservation Planning— Conservation Systems

11

Avoiding ó Nutrient management ó Rate, Timing, Form, Method

Controlling ó Residue and tillage

management ó Drainage water management

Trapping ó Buffers ó Wetlands designed for nutrient

removal

Systems Approach to Nutrients: Avoiding, Controlling, Trapping (ACT)

Avoiding

Trapping Controlling

ACT

û Economics of agriculture: Increased competition for natural resources; economics increasingly dominant in decision-making; continued decrease in number of mid-size farms

û Environment and public health: Intensifying dissatisfaction with slow progress in improving water quality; keen interest in food safety and quality

û Changing climate: Increasing temperature and more severe droughts, floods, and storms; more pressure on farms to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy efficiency

û Demographic trends: Population growth leading to increased demand for food, fiber, and water

Domestic and Global Issues

û By 2050 there will be 2.4 billion more people to feed.

û U.S. cropland acreage dropped by 63 million acres between 1982 and 2007, from 420 to 357 million acres.

û To meet future food demand, food output will need to increase by 70 percent over the next 40 years.

û Challenge: Increased and safe food production that safeguards conservation values: healthy soil, clean air and water, quality wildlife habitat . . .

13

Partnership Challenge

Loss of Agricultural Land: 1982

14

15

Loss of Agricultural Land: 2007

Highest Priority Natural Resource Concerns Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) 2010 Listening Sessions

Water: Sediment & Nutrients, 28%

Water: Insufficient,

20%

Soil Erosion, 31%

Fish or Wildlife Habitat

Condition, 9%

Plants: Invasive Species, 11%

Other, 26%

17

18

Soil Erosion on Cropland: 2007 Natural Resources Inventory

Soil erosion on cropland decreased 43 percent between 1982 and 2007.

Wind erosion (billions of tons per year)

1.68 .96 .72

1.38 .77 .58

Water (sheet and rill) erosion (billions of tons per year)

1982 2007 Annual Reduction (billions of tons per year)

42.9% reduction

44.2% reduction

û Costs avoided per year because of reduction in sheet and rill erosion (using 2009 values):

19

Soil Erosion on Cropland: 2007 Natural Resources Inventory (cont.)

On-site $1.1 billion

Off-site $3.3 billion

Total $4.4 billion Note: USDA estimates the cost of eroded soil at $6.10 per ton.

20

• Voluntary, incentives-based conservation approach is achieving results.

• Opportunities to further reduce sediment and nutrient losses from cropland.

• Comprehensive conservation planning and implementation are essential.

• Targeting enhances effectiveness and efficiency.

• Full treatment of most vulnerable acres will require a suite of conservation practices, because no single practice is a universal solution.

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments Upper Mississippi, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Ohio/Tennessee, Missouri

21

River Sub-Basin Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Reports Published (in yellow)

○ Chesapeake Bay ○ Upper Mississippi ○ Great Lakes ○ Ohio-Tennessee ○ Missouri

Scheduled for release in 2012 ○ Arkansas-White-Red ○ Lower Mississippi

Scheduled for release in 2013 ○ South/Atlantic/Gulf ○ Northeast ○ Texas Gulf ○ Pacific Northwest

CEAP: Regional Cropland Assessments

22

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments

15% 19% 19% 24%

1%

45%

61%

34%

46%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Upper MississippiRiver Basin

Chesapeake BayWatershed

Great LakesRegion

Ohio-TennesseeRiver Basin

Missouri RiverBasin

Moderate treatment need High treatment need

Acres Needing Conservation Treatment

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cro

pped

Acr

es

23

CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments Acres Needing Conservation Treatment for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss

Note: Percentages include cropped acres with a high or moderate need for additional conservation treatment.

Per

cent

age

of C

ropp

ed A

cres

53%

64%

40% 37%

5%

22%

51%

12%

63%

1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

UpperMississippi River

Basin

Chesapeake BayWatershed

Great LakesRegion

Ohio-TennesseeRiver Basin

Missouri RiverBasin

Nitrogen loss(runoff andsubsurface)

Phosphorusloss (surfacewater)

24

Initiatives have national significance and focus on critical resource concerns at the landscape level.

• Build on existing locally-led efforts and are partnership driven

• Dedicated funding to accelerate implementation • Science-based • Assessment of performance and environmental outcomes

Landscape Conservation Initiatives

25

26

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative Goals: • To promote conservation

systems in focused watersheds in order to avoid, control, and trap nutrient and sediment runoff, while maintaining agricultural productivity.

• To improve wildlife habitat in concert with agricultural production

• To restore wetlands in agricultural settings.

27

Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

ó 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds ó More than 577,508 acres of

targeted conservation under contract or agreement

ó Average of 9.5 partners per watershed ó FY10 – FY12 funding = $222

million ó FY13 funding = up to an

additional $80 million anticipated

ó 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds

ó More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement

ó Average of 9.5 partners per watershed

ó FY10 – FY12 funding = $222 million

ó FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated

28

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)

29

û Goal: Remove streams and other water bodies from 303d list, from threatened status, or from contributing to impairments, or to adequately address a TMDL plan.

û NWQI addresses agricultural sources of pollution that NRCS can effectively address through voluntary action of producers:

Priority Pollutants Nutrients Sediment Bacteria (new for FY13)

30

Progress Through NWQI (2012)

û More than 750 agreements with landowners in 154 small (12-digit HUC) watersheds ó 128 have water quality monitoring stations ó 82 have 319 projects ó 68 are within Landscape Conservation Initiatives (e.g.,

MRBI and GoMI) û Approximately 160,000 acres of targeted conservation

under contract or agreement û More than $38 million in funding for FY12

2012 NWQI Minnesota Watersheds: Chippewa River, Sevenmile Creek, and Elm Creek

• Three watersheds with 46,145 acres of agricultural land (80 percent of total acreage)

• 13 contracts • More than $550,000 and

7,500 acres (16 percent of total ag land in the three watersheds)

• Impairments: sediment and turbidity

FY 2013 NWQI Improvements

Ø Earlier and consistent coordination with state water quality agencies.

Ø Strengthen outreach to farmers/ranchers in selected watersheds.

Ø Selection of FY2013 watersheds—allow states the flexibility to use FY2012 watersheds and/or add new ones.

Ø Encourage states to choose contiguous watersheds.

32

FY 2013 NWQI Improvements (cont.)

33

Ø Establish realistic expectations for outcomes.

Ø Establish incremental measures of success—it may be many years before delistings.

Ø Need to be very strategic about where to add monitoring.

FY 2013 NWQI: Timeline

Late October: Issue guidance to states.

Mid-January: States’ watershed selections are due.

Application and ranking period through July 2013.

34

35

Conservation in the New Farm Bill Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) • Consolidates four programs:

o Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) o Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP) o Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and o Great Lakes Basin Program (GLBP)

• Funding set at $100 million per year and uses the funds and acres from EQIP, CSP, and ACEP.

• 6 percent (House) or 8 percent (Senate) of covered programs will be available each fiscal year to supplement baseline funding.

• House has authority to use Watershed Operations and Flood Prevention authorities in Critical Conservation Areas.

Leveraging Partnerships to Enhance Small Watershed Approach

û Keystone Field-to-Market Fieldprint Calculator ó Use pilot watersheds to determine potential for use in

NRCS’s resource assessment and conservation planning process ó Incorporate WQIag into Fieldprint Calculator

û World Resources Institute (WRI)—MRBI Assessment û Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)—Comprehensive

small watershed water quality approach

37

Agricultural Drainage Water Management (ADWM)

û Not about draining new acres û Focus is managing drainage water for improved environmental

outcomes and sustaining crop production û Use a conservation systems approach—ADWM with nutrient

management, conservation tillage, crop rotations, cover crops, and other practices

û Consideration must be given to watershed/landscape context—downstream flow, flooding, groundwater

û Partnerships and collaboration will be essential—research, demonstration, technical and financial assistance, assessment and evaluation

38

Drainage Water Management: Water Control Structure

39

Outlet raised after planting

Bioreactors

40

Drainage Water Management

FY 12 Progress – Drainage Water Management Practices

Three-Tiered Monitoring:

43

û To assess environmental outcomes and facilitate producer use of adaptive management, a three-tiered monitoring and evaluation approach is desired:

1. Edge-of-field 2. In-stream 3. Watershed level (Pour point)

û NRCS can cost-share with producers on edge-of-field monitoring but needs partners to assist producers with managing monitoring stations and covering the producers’ share of the cost.

û NRCS also relies on partners to perform the in-stream and watershed-level monitoring and evaluation.

Edge-of-Field Monitoring in the Context of Three-Tier Approach to Water Quality Monitoring

44

Potential sub-watershed approach to edge-of-field monitoring

NRCS Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation

Purposes of Practice 1. Provide site-specific field data

for input into models to predict practice/system performance and to validate the models

2. Sample and measure practice/system performance

3. Collect and evaluate data for adaptive management by producer

45

Status of NRCS Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation in MRBI

46

Interagency collaboration watersheds

MRBI focus area watersheds

û Forty-nine existing contracts with the original Monitoring and Evaluation Interim Practice constructed with producers

û Over $800,000 in payments to producers so far

Collaboration on Water Quality Monitoring in MRBI

47

Targeted water quality monitoring in 15 small watersheds (12-digit HUCs) in six states in partnership with USGS, EPA, ARS, and USACE ØMinnesota: Sauk ØWisconsin: Upper Rock Ø Iowa: Boone River ØMissouri: South Fork Salt,

North Fork Salt, and Lower Grand

Ø Arkansas: L’Anguile and Point Remove

ØMississippi: Big Sunflower

48

Number of MRBI projects monitoring each water quality

indicator

World Resources Institute’s Review of MRBI (Michelle Perez, Senior Associate, Water Quality Team)

World Resources Institute’s Review of MRBI (Michelle Perez, Senior Associate, Water Quality Team)

49

Various water quality indicators exist under each major category

50

Certainty is a partnership tool to:

1. Foster accelerated and increased voluntary conservation

2. Provide reasonable assurance that conservation systems will satisfy current or future regulations for a prescribed timeframe

3. Recognize sound environmental stewardship

4. Foster innovation 5. Afford protection against nuisance and

civil lawsuits (Michigan)

51

Why focus certainty on priority small watersheds?

1. Prioritize and optimize use of limited technical and financial assistance

2. Produce greater environmental results in shorter time span

3. Avoid the inefficiency of “random acts of certainty” 4. Serve as fertile ground for lessons learned 5. Graduated approach where lessons learned can be applied

in other watersheds

How would certainty benefit the producer?

û Natural resource sustainability (on-and off-farm) û Constant expectation for fixed period—piece of

mind û Priority access to technical and financial assistance û Recognition û Marketability (labeling) û Environmental services opportunities û Reduced insurance rates? Improved access to

loans?

Soil Is Alive! Soil: û Has structure û Breathes (exchanging air up to eight times per hour) û Captures, holds, and releases water û Filters and cleanses both water and air û Breaks down and degrades pollutants û Processes and cycles nutrients û Sequesters and cycles carbon and other GHGs û Provides the foundation for the water cycle and for

plants, wildlife, and humans 54

Soil Health: A Landscape Example

By increasing the water absorption of all of the cropland in the Mississippi River Basin by just one-half inch (through improved soil quality), that water retention would be the equivalent of . . .

55

56

The amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in 83 days!

Soil Health: A Landscape Example

Neighboring farms in Ohio, very different responses to the 2012 drought.

NRCS Promotes Soil Health to Improve Water Quality, Combat Drought, Mitigate Flooding, and Improve Productivity

57

Farm that uses conventional practices, such as tilling the soil.

Farm that has used no-till for four decades.

NRCS Goals for Soil Health 1. Integrate Soil Health Management System planning

and implementation into NRCS’s conservation programs and service delivery.

2. Increase employee and customer awareness and understanding of healthy soil ecosystems and biology, and healthy soil’s role in natural resource protection and sustainable agricultural production; and

3. Increase the number of producers implementing Soil Health Management Systems.

Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts

û Increased commitment to a systems approach to conservation, with soil health as the foundation

û Improved and expanded technical assistance to foster systems approach

û Greater focus on the economics and sustainability of conservation systems

û Greater commitment to adaptive management and the tools/technical assistance to support it

û Approaches to foster and sustain conservation innovation with regards to both technologies and approaches

59

Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts (cont.)

û Further refinement of targeting efforts—greater focus on high treatment need/vulnerable acres

û Greater collaborative commitment to monitoring, modeling, and assessment of environmental outcomes on a long-term basis

û Development and implementation of recognition and certainty “programs” by states or added incentives to support voluntary approaches

û Continued development of environmental service economic opportunities

60

û In 1960, one farmer fed 25 people. Today, one farmer can feed 129 people. û We’ll need farming systems that are: ü Even more productive, ü More environmentally friendly, and ü Capable of producing safe food from field to table. û Targeting conservation resources generates 3 to 5 times

the benefits of more general approaches.

61

Sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe food production

Partnership Opportunity

62

“Everything we do, all we share, even whatever we

amount to as a great enduring people, begins

and rests on the sustained productivity of our agricultural land.”

—Hugh Hammond Bennett, 1959

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 63

More than 77 Years of Helping People Help the Land