Voluntary Conservation Works, and Further Water Quality Gains Can Be Achieved

Transcription

1 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 ( ) Attorney, planter, and politician remembered for Give me Liberty, or Give me Death speech 2

3 Hugh H. Bennett 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 Aldo Leopold Most of what needs doing must be done by the farmer himself.... All the nonfarming public can do is to provide information and build incentives on which farmers may act. Aldo Leopold,

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 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 4

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. 5

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 6

7 NRCS and Water Quality Through History ( ) 1930s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s present 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 7

8 Partnership Between NRCS and Landowners 97 million acres of land are currently enrolled in NRCS programs 182,958 landowners currently participate in NRCS programs Over 2.6 million acres of land are enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program Every hour, 11 acres of wetlands are restored by private landowners. 8

9 The Conservation Planning Process Energy Soil Water Animals Conservation Planning Air Plants Climate Change 9

10 Focus of Conservation Planning Conservation Systems At its core, the focus of conservation planning is on increasing voluntary adoption of: Right conservation systems Right position on landscape Right amount Right timing and sequencing of practice/system implementation (progressive implementation)

11 Systems Approach to Nutrients: Avoiding, Controlling, Trapping (ACT) Avoiding Nutrient management Rate, Timing, Form, Method Avoiding Controlling Residue and tillage management Drainage water management Controlling Trapping Buffers Wetlands designed for nutrient removal ACT Trapping 11

12 Domestic and Global Issues Economics of agriculture: Increased competition for natural resources; economics increasingly dominant in decision-making; continued decrease in number of mid-size farms Environment and public health: Intensifying dissatisfaction with slow progress in improving water quality; keen interest in food safety and quality Changing climate: Increasing temperature and more severe droughts, floods, and storms; more pressure on farms to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy efficiency Demographic trends: Population growth leading to increased demand for food, fiber, and water

13 Partnership Challenge By 2050 there will be 2.4 billion more people to feed. U.S. cropland acreage dropped by 63 million acres between 1982 and 2007, from 420 to 357 million acres. To meet future food demand, food output will need to increase by 70 percent over the next 40 years. Challenge: Increased and safe food production that safeguards conservation values: healthy soil, clean air and water, quality wildlife habitat... 13

14 Loss of Agricultural Land:

15 Loss of Agricultural Land:

16 Highest Priority Natural Resource Concerns Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) 2010 Listening Sessions Plants: Invasive Species, 11% Fish or Wildlife Habitat Condition, 9% Other, 26% Soil Erosion, 31% Water: Sediment & Nutrients, 28% Water: Insufficient, 20%

17 17

18 Soil Erosion on Cropland: 2007 Natural Resources Inventory Water (sheet and rill) erosion (billions of tons per year) Annual Reduction % reduction (billions of tons per year) Wind erosion (billions of tons per year) % reduction Soil erosion on cropland decreased 43 percent between 1982 and

19 Soil Erosion on Cropland: 2007 Natural Resources Inventory (cont.) Costs avoided per year because of reduction in sheet and rill erosion (using 2009 values): On-site Off-site Total $1.1 billion $3.3 billion $4.4 billion Note: USDA estimates the cost of eroded soil at $6.10 per ton. 19

20 CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments Upper Mississippi, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Ohio/Tennessee, Missouri 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. 20

21 CEAP: Regional Cropland Assessments 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 21

22 CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments 90% Acres Needing Conservation Treatment Percentage of Cropped Acres 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 45% 15% Upper Mississippi River Basin 61% 34% 19% 19% Chesapeake Bay Watershed Great Lakes Region 46% 24% Ohio-Tennessee River Basin 17% Missouri River Basin 1% Moderate treatment need High treatment need 22

23 CEAP: Key Findings of the Regional Cropland Assessments Acres Needing Conservation Treatment for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss 70% 64% 63% Percentage of Cropped Acres 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 53% 22% 51% Upper Chesapeake Bay Mississippi River Watershed Basin 40% 37% 12% Great Lakes Region Ohio-Tennessee River Basin 5% 1% Missouri River Basin Nitrogen loss (runoff and subsurface) Phosphorus loss (surface water) Note: Percentages include cropped acres with a high or moderate need for additional conservation treatment. 23

24 Landscape Conservation Initiatives 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 24

25 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. 26

27 Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement Average of 9.5 partners per watershed FY10 FY12 funding = $222 million FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated 123 partner agreements covering 640 twelve-digit watersheds More than 577,508 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement Average of 9.5 partners per watershed FY10 FY12 funding = $222 million FY13 funding = up to an additional $80 million anticipated 27

28 28

29 National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) 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. NWQI addresses agricultural sources of pollution that NRCS can effectively address through voluntary action of producers: Priority Pollutants Nutrients Sediment Bacteria (new for FY13) 29

30 Progress Through NWQI (2012) More than 750 agreements with landowners in 154 small (12-digit HUC) watersheds 128 have water quality monitoring stations 82 have 319 projects 68 are within Landscape Conservation Initiatives (e.g., MRBI and GoMI) Approximately 160,000 acres of targeted conservation under contract or agreement More than $38 million in funding for FY12 30

31 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

32 FY 2013 NWQI Improvements Earlier and consistent coordination with state water quality agencies. Strengthen outreach to farmers/ranchers in selected watersheds. Selection of FY2013 watersheds allow states the flexibility to use FY2012 watersheds and/or add new ones. Encourage states to choose contiguous watersheds. 32

33 FY 2013 NWQI Improvements (cont.) Establish realistic expectations for outcomes. Establish incremental measures of success it may be many years before delistings. Need to be very strategic about where to add monitoring. 33

34 FY 2013 NWQI: Timeline Late October: Issue guidance to states. Mid-January: States watershed selections are due. Application and ranking period through July

35 35

36 Conservation in the New Farm Bill Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) Consolidates four programs: o o o o Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP) Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and 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.

37 Leveraging Partnerships to Enhance Small Watershed Approach Keystone Field-to-Market Fieldprint Calculator Use pilot watersheds to determine potential for use in NRCS s resource assessment and conservation planning process Incorporate WQIag into Fieldprint Calculator World Resources Institute (WRI) MRBI Assessment Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Comprehensive small watershed water quality approach 37

38 Agricultural Drainage Water Management (ADWM) Not about draining new acres Focus is managing drainage water for improved environmental outcomes and sustaining crop production Use a conservation systems approach ADWM with nutrient management, conservation tillage, crop rotations, cover crops, and other practices Consideration must be given to watershed/landscape context downstream flow, flooding, groundwater Partnerships and collaboration will be essential research, demonstration, technical and financial assistance, assessment and evaluation 38

39 Drainage Water Management: Water Control Structure Outlet raised after planting 39

40 Bioreactors 40

41 Drainage Water Management

42 FY 12 Progress Drainage Water Management Practices

43 Three-Tiered Monitoring: 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) 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. NRCS also relies on partners to perform the in-stream and watershedlevel monitoring and evaluation. 43

44 Edge-of-Field Monitoring in the Context of Three-Tier Approach to Water Quality Monitoring Potential sub-watershed approach to edge-of-field monitoring 44

45 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

46 Status of NRCS Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation in MRBI Forty-nine existing contracts with the original Monitoring and Evaluation Interim Practice constructed with producers Over $800,000 in payments to producers so far Interagency collaboration watersheds MRBI focus area watersheds 46

47 Collaboration on Water Quality Monitoring in MRBI Targeted water quality monitoring in 15 small watersheds (12-digit HUCs) in six states in partnership with USGS, EPA, ARS, and USACE Minnesota: Sauk Wisconsin: Upper Rock Iowa: Boone River Missouri: South Fork Salt, North Fork Salt, and Lower Grand Arkansas: L Anguile and Point Remove Mississippi: Big Sunflower 47

48 World Resources Institute s Review of MRBI (Michelle Perez, Senior Associate, Water Quality Team) Number of MRBI projects monitoring each water quality indicator 48

49 World Resources Institute s Review of MRBI (Michelle Perez, Senior Associate, Water Quality Team) Various water quality indicators exist under each major category 49

50 50

51 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

52 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

53 How would certainty benefit the producer? Natural resource sustainability (on-and off-farm) Constant expectation for fixed period piece of mind Priority access to technical and financial assistance Recognition Marketability (labeling) Environmental services opportunities Reduced insurance rates? Improved access to loans?

54 Soil Is Alive! Soil: Has structure Breathes (exchanging air up to eight times per hour) Captures, holds, and releases water Filters and cleanses both water and air Breaks down and degrades pollutants Processes and cycles nutrients Sequesters and cycles carbon and other GHGs Provides the foundation for the water cycle and for plants, wildlife, and humans 54

55 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 Soil Health: A Landscape Example The amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in 83 days! 56

57 NRCS Promotes Soil Health to Improve Water Quality, Combat Drought, Mitigate Flooding, and Improve Productivity Neighboring farms in Ohio, very different responses to the 2012 drought. Farm that uses conventional practices, such as tilling the soil. Farm that has used no-till for four decades. 57

58 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.

59 Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts Increased commitment to a systems approach to conservation, with soil health as the foundation Improved and expanded technical assistance to foster systems approach Greater focus on the economics and sustainability of conservation systems Greater commitment to adaptive management and the tools/technical assistance to support it Approaches to foster and sustain conservation innovation with regards to both technologies and approaches 59

60 Opportunities to Improve Water Quality Efforts (cont.) Further refinement of targeting efforts greater focus on high treatment need/vulnerable acres Greater collaborative commitment to monitoring, modeling, and assessment of environmental outcomes on a long-term basis Development and implementation of recognition and certainty programs by states or added incentives to support voluntary approaches Continued development of environmental service economic opportunities 60

61 Partnership Opportunity Sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe food production In 1960, one farmer fed 25 people. Today, one farmer can feed 129 people. We ll need farming systems that are: Even more productive, More environmentally friendly, and Capable of producing safe food from field to table. Targeting conservation resources generates 3 to 5 times the benefits of more general approaches. 61

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,

63 More than 77 Years of Helping People Help the Land 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) (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 or call (202) (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 63