usda conservation effects assessment project (ceap) usda agricultural research service e. john...
Post on 31-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP)
USDA Agricultural Research ServiceUSDA Agricultural Research Service
E. John Sadler, CoordinatorE. John Sadler, Coordinator
M. A. Weltz, National Program LeaderM. A. Weltz, National Program Leader
Congressional DirectiveCongressional Directive The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been providing
assistance to farmers in implementing conservation practices for more than 60 years.
The effects of these practices have not been quantified. Congress and OMB directed USDA to conduct an assessment
of the effects of conservation practices. NRCS was identified as the lead agency. NRCS requested assistance from
ARS in quantifying the environmental effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale.
CEAP was established to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices implemented under the 2002 Farm Bill.
The initial focus is on cropland. Future plans include
assessments for wildlife, grazing lands, and wetlands.
Conservation Effects Assessment Conservation Effects Assessment ProjectProject
CEAP Has Two MajorCEAP Has Two MajorComponentsComponents
National Assessment Provides estimates of conservation
benefits at the national scale.
Watershed Assessment Studies
Provides more detailed information on conservation effects in selected watersheds.
Designed to support the National Assessment.
The Watershed Assessment Studies The Watershed Assessment Studies CategoriesCategories
Three Watershed CategoriesThree Watershed Categories Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) Benchmark (ARS) Benchmark WatershedsWatersheds
Natural Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Service (NRCS) Special Emphasis (NRCS) Special Emphasis WatershedsWatersheds
CSREES Competitive Grants CSREES Competitive Grants Watersheds Watersheds
The ARS Watershed Assessment The ARS Watershed Assessment StudyStudy
Research Approach 14 Benchmark Watersheds Six multi-location teams Focus on rainfed cropland watersheds Collaboration with NRCS and other agencies
The ARS Watershed Assessment The ARS Watershed Assessment StudyStudy
S. Fork Iowa River
Walnut Creek
Mark Twain
U. Washita River
U. Leon River
Town BrookSt. Joseph River
U. Big Walnut Creek
Yalobusha River
Little River
Goodwin CreekBeasley Lake
ScopeScope68 ARS Scientists 68 ARS Scientists 25 Projects 25 Projects 14 Locations14 Locations
The ARS Watershed Assessment The ARS Watershed Assessment StudyStudy
The ARS Watershed Assessment Study
Anticipated Products1. Water, soil, management, and economic
data system.
2. Quantification of effects of conservation practices on environmental quality.
3. Validation of models and quantification of uncertainties of model predictions.
4. Evaluation of cost effectiveness of selection and placement of conservation practices.
5. Development of regional watershed models.
Missouri’s project – Mark Twain Lake /Salt River basin
• CEAP focuses on larger watersheds
• Historical data is on a smaller watershed – Goodwater Creek
• Scaling up is a significant part of our research in CEAP
• Some watersheds have very different land uses, which gives us some leverage
The NRCS Special Emphasis
Watersheds Funding by NRCS thru state offices 8 selected in 2004 Focus on specific resource concerns Locations add diversity to other
CEAP watershed studies Technical collaboration with others
CSREES Competitive Grants Watersheds
4 projects funded in 2004, 4 more in 2005
3 year duration Maximum award - $660K/project $3 million (CSREES 2M, NRCS 1M) Competitive external review
CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel
Established to provide external review and guidance to CEAP.
Composed of representatives from the communities that will use CEAP output.
Recommendations:USDA should use CEAP resources to provide
assessments that will inform the 2007 farm bill debate.
CEAP should provide rigorous assessments of options for implementing future conservation programs.
SUMMARYSUMMARY CEAP is mandated by Congress and OMB. ARS-CEAP is a large multi-location project involving
14 watersheds. NRCS Special Emphasis Watersheds involve 8
watersheds focused on specific resource concerns. CSREES Competitive Grants watersheds include 4
projects funded in 2004 and 4 additional projects funded in 2005.
All three watershed programs support the CEAP National Assessment.
An external panel is providing guidance to CEAP direction.
CEAP Web sitehttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceapWeb site contains Overview of CEAPFact sheet for each watershedARS Watershed Assessment Study project planWork plan for National Assessment
Local Issues - Atrazine
• What appears to reduce Atrazine lost in runoff?• ARS local research results
– Applying less of it– Incorporating after applying it– Having no runoff until it dissipates
• Two of these are management compromises • The other is unpredictable, and approaches
unmanageable
Planting and Runoff Timing
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
%
Planting and Runoff TimingCorn planting progress, 1990, MO NE District
Perc
en
t p
lan
ted
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Day of year
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Flo
w,
cfs
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Planting and Runoff Timing
Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE Districtyear=1991
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
doy
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 2200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1991
Day of year
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Perc
en
t p
lan
ted
Flo
w,
cfs
Planting and Runoff Timing
Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE Districtyear=1995
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
doy90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
1995
Day of year
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Perc
en
t p
lan
ted
Flo
w,
cfs
Planting and Runoff Timing
Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE Districtyear=2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
doy90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
0
1000
2000
3000
2000
Day of year
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Perc
en
t p
lan
ted
Flo
w,
cfs
Big Questions
• Given the dominant effect of time since application…– Is dry weather the only thing that can prevent
loss?– Is recent improvement mostly caused by
weather?– Will future years disappoint us? – What would happen if they do?
E. John Sadlersadlerj@missouri.edu
John.Sadler@ars.usda.govCropping Systems & Water Quality Research Unit
Columbia, MO
top related