Water quality targeting success stories perez
-
Upload
soil-and-water-conservation-society -
Category
Environment
-
view
92 -
download
1
Transcript of Water quality targeting success stories perez
Water Quality Targeting Success StoriesACHIEVING CLEANER WATER THROUGH
FARM CONSERVATION WATERSHED PROJECTS
Michelle Perez, PhDSenior Policy Specialist
July 26, 2008Soil and Water Conservation Society Symposium
Agenda Introduce the new report
Background, key findings, & recommendations
Hear from leaders of 3 of the 6 case studies
Q&A; Discussion
Traditional conservation program approach
• USDA financial conservation programs solves water quality problems on individual farms
Traditional & recent measures of success
• NRCS reports on administrative metrics: dollars spent, contracts signed, & acres or units of conservation practices implemented
• NRCS CEAP modeling estimates nutrient & sediment reduction effects of practices & further reductions if treat “high and medium” priority areas
Recent landscape-scale approaches
Emphasizing watershed-based projects: • Demonstration – Conservation
Innovation Grant (CIG)• Programs – Landscape
Conservation Initiatives (LCIs) (e.g., MRBI)
• Research – National Institute of Food & Agriculture (NIFA-CEAP)
Recent ways to quantify success
MRBI encouraged projects to monitor water quality at edge-of-field, instream, and watershed outlet (Tier 1, 2, & 3)
RCPP calls for projects that achieve and measure “environmental, social, & economic outcomes”
”Outcomes-oriented conservation”
Research questions & methods• Impetus questions: Have recent watershed projects achieved
instream monitored success? How did they achieve that success?
• Methods • Literature reviews • Interviews with NRCS staff, farm conservation & water quality experts• Emails to conservation community • In-depth interviews with 2 to 5 leaders per case study & review of their
project documents
• Overarching questions: How can the agency’s federal conservation programs be more successful in improving water quality and how can those positive impacts be measured?
First major finding It was really hard to find any watershed projects with instream monitored success:
1. Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) – published two write-ups about 3 successes
2. Great Lakes Partnership Initiative (GLRI) 3. Gulf of Mexico Initiative (GOMI) 4. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI) 5. Illinois River Eucha-Spavinaw Initiative
(IRESI) 6. Bay Delta Initiative (BDI) in California – Walker
Creek Project featured in the report 7. National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)
Likely challenges with watershed project approach & why we don’t know
• Monitoring programs not in place? Or is it a natural lag time problem? 87% of reviewed MRBI projects said they’d do instream water quality monitoring
• Monitoring program design or implementation challenges? Some project leaders at Leadership in Midwestern Watersheds meetings struggling with monitoring & many don’t know what quantifying outcomes means & want more guidance
• Is it a reporting challenge? Projects aren’t reporting to NRCS & NRCS isn’t asking for results?
• If past is prologue, this stuff is hard - Gale et al (1993) & Osmond et al (2012) reveal how difficult it is to achieve & detect instream improvements
Found 6 projects with monitored water quality success
Watershed size (ac)
HUC size Topography Major crops / land uses
CaliforniaWalker Creek
27,000 ~HUC12 + several other HUC12s
Rolling hills to flat flood plains
Almond, walnut, alfalfa,
OklahomaHoney Creek
55,000 or 79,000 in OK
3 of 4 HUC12s in OK
Rolling hills Beef pasture & poultry
IowaHewitt Creek
25,000 HUC12 Rolling hills, some tile drains
CS; beef, dairy, & swine confined
Wisconsin Pleasant Valley 1 & 2
12,300 ~1/2 a HUC12 Ridge tops, steep slopes, valley bottoms
CS, alfalfa, pasture
IndianaShatto Ditch
3,300 A fraction of a HUC12
Relatively flat, all tile drained
CS
Eleven lessons from case studies Why and how projects might be
initiated and financed (5)
Achieving pollution reductions through targeted conservation practice adoption (2)
Detecting outcomes through chemical, biological, and physical water quality monitoring (2)
Detecting field- and project-scale outcomes through in-field assessments (2)
Targeted Watershed
Projects
Stakeholders & changes
needed to achieve &
detect improvements in water quality
• Many project functions needed • Many financial resources can be
harnessed to cover project costs• Sustained funding needed over a long
time
Six projects highlights1. California’s Walker Creek Project
• State regulatory compliance project by Colusa Glenn Subwatershed Program, Glenn County RC&D, & Larry Walker Associates
• AWEP & BDI EQIP funds for pesticide, irrigation, & nutrient mgt practices• Representative & long-term monitoring program• 3 yrs no Chlorpyrifos pesticide exceedance & 5 yrs no Ceriodaphnia toxicity
2. Oklahoma’s Honey Creek Project• 319 Project by OK Conservation Commission & Watershed Advisory Group• 319 funds for livestock fencing & alternative watering, poultry litter practices, etc.• Paired watershed with upstream/downstream monitoring design• 51% reduction in E.coli = Proposed delisting for E. coli. Also: 35% reduction in
nitrate, 28% for P, & 34% for Enterococcus
3. Iowa’s Hewitt Creek Project• Extension & farmer watershed council project & Upper Iowa University • IA Farm Bureau & state funds for PI, SCI, CNT, grassed waterways, no till &
cover crops, & MRBI funds for waste structures • Monthly & rain event sampling• 60% decrease in turbidity & social & economic outcomes (e.g., a “watershed community” and increases in profitability)
Six projects highlights4. Wisconsin’s Pleasant Valley Stream Rehabilitation Project
• WI Department of Natural Resources & Dane Cty Land Conservation District• State, local, & federal WHIP funds for stream bank stabilization & fish habitat• Before/after monitoring design with 6 biological, chemical, & physical indicators• 50% decrease in sediment & trout counts up 70-100% = Proposed delisting
stream for sediment
5. Wisconsin’s Pleasant Valley On-Farm Phosphorus Reduction Project• The Nature Conservancy, University of WI-Madison, USGS, Dane County LCD• TNC, CCPI, NIFA funds for nutrient mgt, no till, rotation changes, pasture mgt• Paired watershed monitoring design with continuous flow stations at outlets• 55% reduction in phosphorus compared to control watershed
6. Indiana’s Shatto Ditch Project• TNC, University of Notre Dame, Kosciusko County SWCD• USDA CIG, EQIP, TNC foundation & corporate donor funds• Before/after monitoring design; bi-weekly grab samples all year • 30-40 % reduction in both nitrate-N & dissolved phosphorus
Favorite findings & lessons• Farmer leadership - Very important to three projects
(CA, OK, IA) to lead or design projects & encourage farmer participation
• Targeting of critical sub-areas - Three projects (OK, IA, WI) used SWAT or Phosphorus Indices (PI) to prioritize fields with highest P losses thru application ranking
• Quick monitoring results - One project (IN) detected 30-40% less instream nitrate & DP just nine months after cover crop adoption on 70% of acres in very small watershed with rigorous monitoring
• Field-scale & project-level outcomes - Two projects (IA & WI) used PI & RUSLE2/SCI to (1) estimate P & soil outcomes & (2) motivate practice adoption by farmers thru better decision-making
Recommendations 1. Watershed project leaders - Heed available guidance on instream
water quality monitoring (USDA 2003 & EPA 2016) & adopt appropriate field-scale modeling tools to quantify & report on field & watershed-level environmental outcomes. Ask for help if you need it.
2. NRCS – Provide additional guidance on water quality monitoring & quantification of environmental, social and economic outcomes to watershed project leaders and set up a reporting system to collect success stories. Collaborate with partners to do this.
Recommendations 3. USEPA – Offer training events to disseminate its new 2016 guidance
on water quality monitoring to help LCI and RCPP targeted watershed project leaders develop and implement effective monitoring plans & offer to help train NRCS staff to evaluate monitoring plans included in future LCI or RCPP proposals.
4. The research community – Analyze & better understand whether a “critical mass” of conservation adoption or an “intensity” of treatment of each priority acre is needed before projects can expect to achieve measurable improvements in water quality.
Recommendations 5. Congress - Increase financial and technical assistance for USDA’s
Landscape Conservation Initiatives and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and the USEPA’s National Monitoring Program and the research agenda above.
6. Charitable foundations and corporations striving to achieve sustainable supply chains – Provide significant, sustained financial support to project leaders as well as to farmers to leverage the USDA funding & help drive this new outcomes-oriented conservation approach.
Saving the Land that Sustains Us
www.farmland.org
[email protected]; (c) 410-353-5492
Saving the Land and Water that Sustains Us
Email me for launch
announcement