water quality targeting success stories perez

19
Water Quality Targeting Success Stories ACHIEVING CLEANER WATER THROUGH FARM CONSERVATION WATERSHED PROJECTS Michelle Perez, PhD Senior Policy Specialist July 26, 2008 Soil and Water Conservation Society Symposium

Upload: soil-and-water-conservation-society

Post on 09-Feb-2017

90 views

Category:

Environment


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 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

Page 2: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

Agenda Introduce the new report

Background, key findings, & recommendations

Hear from leaders of 3 of the 6 case studies

Q&A; Discussion

Page 3: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

Traditional conservation program approach

• USDA financial conservation programs solves water quality problems on individual farms

Page 4: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 5: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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)

Page 6: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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”

Page 7: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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?

Page 8: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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)

Page 9: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 10: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 11: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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)

Page 12: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 13: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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)

Page 14: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 15: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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

Page 16: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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.

Page 17: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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.

Page 18: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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.

Page 19: Water quality targeting success stories   perez

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