Conservation Effects Assessment Project(CEAP)

Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Conservation

Managing the Agricultural Landscape for Environmental Quality

Why CEAP?

OMB requests for outcome-based reporting

2002 Farm Bill significantly increased conservation funding call from both inside and outside government for better accountability

Assessment is needed to guide development and implementation of future conservation programs

Overview of CEAP

• Watershed case studies (43)

• National Assessment Cropland Wildlife Wetlands Grazing Land

CEAP Highlights…

Blue Ribbon Panel review National Agricultural Library bibliographies

Cropland (set of 5) Wetlands Grazing Lands Wildlife

Literature Syntheses on Practice Effects—What is Known and Not Known

International Workshop on Managing Agricultural Landscapes For Environmental Quality—Strengthening the Science Base (Oct 2006)

Cropland National Assessment-- Goals

1. Estimate the benefits of conservation practices currently present on the landscape

2. Estimate the need for conservation practices and the benefits that could be realized under “full treatment”

3. Simulate alternative options for implementing conservation programs on cropland

Schematic for Construction of the National Assessment

Farm survey data at

NRI-CEAP sample points

Field-level modeling APEX

Watershed modeling SWAT

Onsite (field-level) Effects

Off-Site Water Quality Effects

NRI-CEAP Sample

Primary Sample Unit

(PSU)

Points

Statistical Design

Activities for Construction of the CEAP Current Condition.

Collect:1. Farm survey (NASS)2. NRI point attribute data 3. Field office records: NRCS/FSA4. Historical weather data

Field-level modeling (APEX)

CEAP Current Condition, onsite

estimates

Select subset of NRI sample points 20,000 cropland

10,000 CRP

Setup data for site specific simulations

Refine APEX model

Soil Data

NASIS

NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey

The survey obtains for each sample point: Three years of crop and cropping practice

information• Crops grown, seeding rates, etc.• Nutrient applications, including manure• Pesticide applications and pest management practices• Field operations, including tillage• Irrigation practices

Conservation practices Conservation Program participation

NASS Farmer Survey• 44 pages • Covers all aspects of

crop production for 3 years.

• Tillage• Fertilizers and

manures• Pesticides• Irrigation• Conservation

NASS Fertilizer

Daily weather—47-year simulation using actual weather for 1960-2006.

Hydrology Erosion Nutrient cycling Carbon cycling Pesticide fate Soil characteristics (temperature, bulk density, etc.) Crop growth Tillage and management operations Field-to-field routing used to simulate field borders,

buffer strips

APEX Model

Root Zone

Shallow (unconfined)

Aquifer

Vadose (unsaturated)

Zone

Confining Layer

Precipitation

Infiltration/plant uptakeSurface Runoff

Lateral Flow

Return Flow

Percolation to shallow aquifer

Hydrologic Balance

Evaporation and Transpiration

Deep percolation

Modeling Strategy

1. Estimate a CEAP Baseline using farmer survey information at NRI sample points

2. Construct an alternative scenario assuming “no practices”

Difference between these two scenarios represents the benefits of the accumulation of conservation practices currently in place.

Microsimulation Modeling

Thus, the resulting simulation model … Captures the diversity of land use, soils, climate,

and topography as represented by the NRI, and diversity of human behavior as represented in the NRI-CEAP survey.

Estimates the loss of materials at the field scale where the process model performs the best, using site-specific information.

Provides a statistical basis for aggregating results to the national and regional levels.

Soil Type and Management Interactions

Soil Leaching Potential

Management Level Soil Leaching average

Low Moderate Moderately High High

Low 33 28 8 8 21

Moderate 58 31 10 10 30

Moderately High 65 36 12 11 32

High 109 42 17 14 47

Management average

67 34 11 11 33

 

Non-Cultivated Lands

Channel/Flood PlainProcesses

Point Sources

APEX CultivatedFields

SWAT : Off-Site Effects

EROSION

•Water– USLE– USLE modifications

MUSLE Onstad-FosterRUSLERUSLE 2

•Wind– Manhattan, KS with Bagnolds energy

equation

NUTRIENTS•Nitrogen

–Surface runoffsoluble and adsorbed

– Subsurface flowlateral and vertical

–Mineralization–Immobilization–Denitrification–Volatilization–Nitrification–Crop uptake

•Phosphorus– Surface runoff

soluble and adsorbed– Leaching– Mineralization– Immobilization– Adsorption-desorption– Crop uptake

NUTRIENTS

PESTICIDE FATEGLEAMS

•Surface runoff–soluble and adsorbed

•Leaching

•Degradation–from foliage and soil

•Washoff from plants–rainfall or irrigation

• Management capabilities– Irrigation– Drainage– Furrow diking– Buffer strips– Terracing– Waterways– Fertilization– Manure management– Lagoons

APEX

– Reservoirs– Crop rotation and selection– Pesticide application– Grazing– Tillage

ROUTING COMPONENT

•Water–Overland flow–Channel–Floodplain–Sub-surface

•Sediment–Modified Bagnolds stream power–Deposition – degradation

Overland flowChannelFloodplain

ROUTING COMPONENT

•Nutrients and pesticides

–Soluble materials considered conservative–Adsorbed materials sediment transported –Enrichment ratio concept

SUBAREA FILE

• Management• Daily weather• Soil• Channel parameters

– Depth– Width– Length– Slope

• Reservoir parameters– Spillway elevation– Runoff volume– Release rate– Surface area

INPUT DATA

• Data Files Residing with Model– Weather– Tillage– Fertilizer– Soil

– Pesticide– Management– Crop Growth Parameters

RECENT APEX APPLICATIONS

• CEAP – Conservation Effects Assessment Project− National assessment of the effects of conservation

practices on cultivated cropland across the U.S.

Distribution of APEX testing sites across the U.S. that were used in the CEAP sensitivity analysis