Deanna L. Osmond Department of Soil Science NC State University

Transcription

1 The National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research Lunch-N-Learn Seminar April 26, 2013 Deanna L. Osmond Department of Soil Science NC State University

2 Conservation Practices Work!

3 The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) This study will enable USDA to design and implement conservation programs that will not only better meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, but also help ensure that taxpayers' conservation dollars are used as effectively as possible." - Tom Vilsack, Agriculture Secretary

4 National / Regional Assessments Cropland (Cultivated) Grazing Lands (Range and Pasture) Wetlands (Depressional and Riverine) Wildlife (Terrestrial and Aquatic) Watershed Assessment Studies ARS Benchmark CEAP Activities NIFA Competitive (including a synthesis study) NRCS Special Emphasis Bibliographies and Literature Reviews 3 NEW literature syntheses last year Bibliographieshttp://

5 NIFA CEAP Competitive Grant Watersheds Studies to analyze the effects of prior conservation implementation at the watershed scale All studies were required to have 5 to 10 years of water quality data and land treatment data Watersheds were cropland or pasture Lincoln Lake (AR CEAP) Watershed

6 NIFA CEAP Watershed Locations

7 Synthesizing and Extending Lessons Learned from the 13 NIFA CEAP Watershed Studies: Objectives Summarize and describe the sciencebased information and lessons learned about conservation practices at the watershed scale from the 13 NIFA CEAP projects. Deliver knowledge to decision- and policymakers within key organizations.

8 NIFA CEAP: Water Quality Results Six projects were able to document water quality changes at the watershed scale. All had significant conservation practice implementation and appropriate water quality monitoring. Three employed long-term monitoring (ID, NE & OH) Three used experimental watershed monitoring designs (IA, NY & PA) Two were part of the US Environmental Protection Agency 319 National NPS Monitoring Program (IA & NY) Cannonsville Reservoir (NY CEAP) Spring Creek (PA) CEAP Rock Creek (OH CEAP)

9 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: We MUST Incorporate Results With dwindling resources and mounting environmental degradation, it is essential that many of the lessons from NIFA-CEAP be integrated into policy and agency protocol if water resources are to be protected or improved. Black Creek Project The Rural Clean Water Program Model Implementation Program Hydrologic Unit Area Projects & Demonstration Projects NIFA CEAP USEPA Section 319 National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program present

10 What Would Make Conservation Practice Implementation Better? Little Bear River (UT CEAP) Lower Calapooia (OR CEAP) Paradise Creek (ID CEAP)

11 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Intentional Conservation Conservation planning must be done at the watershed scale with sufficient water quality and potentially modeling information. Cheney Lake (KS CEAP)

12 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Intentional Conservation Before implementing conservation practices, identify the pollutants of concern, the sources of the pollutants, and the hydrologic transport of the pollutant. Eagle Creek (IN CEAP)

13 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Intentional Conservation Understand how conservation practices function.. Rock Creek (OH CEAP)

14 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Intentional Conservation Identify critical source areas to target conservation practices within the watershed. Goodwater Creek (MO CEAP) with permission of C. Baffaut

15 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Continued Conservation Even after conservation practices have been adopted, continue to work with farmers on maintenance and sustained use of the practices. Little Bear River (UT CEAP)

16 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Working With Farmers Technical assistance to farmers is most effective when delivered by a trusted local contact and is very people intensive. Reduced funding is eroding the ability of NRCS, Extension, and Soil and Water conservation districts to deliver effective programming. Lincoln Lake (AR CEAP)

17 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Working With Farmers Identify farmers attitudes toward agriculture and conservation practices to promote adoption and use. Economic incentives often required for adoption of conservation practices not obviously profitable or fitting with current farming systems Ease of use or management Type of practice structural Conservation practices that have multiple benefits Ability to see the pollutant Threat of regulation Changes in technology Belief system of farmer Age of farmer Family dynamics Land ownership: type and length of lease Additional partners providing resources

18 Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Many Farmers, Many Factors Conservation practice adoption is a multivariate choice and although economics are exceptionally important, there are many other factors that are part of the decisionmaking process. Cannonsville Reservoir (NY CEAP)

19 Improve The Bang for the Buck 1. Engage in intentional and effective watershed planning. 2. Engage in intentional conservation practice implementation. 3. Engage in intentional and effective outreach and education programs. 4. Improve incentives and flexibility to promote conservation practice adoption. 5. Ensure continued stewardship.

20 Land Treatment: Key Points Little River (GA CEAP) Erosion control has increased substantially due to technological advances, price and labor pressures, and conservation programs. Much of the sediment is coming from streambanks and streambeds, not uplands.

21 Land Treatment: Key Points Controlling nutrient pollution, especially nitrogen, will continue to be a significant challenge: management practices are harder for farmers greater difficulty implementing practices that control pollutants farmers cannot see farmers use nutrients to reduce risk antagonistic outcomes of conservation practices such that practices which reduce sediment may increase nutrients tile drainage being added much faster than conservation practices can be adopted marginal land transformation climate change may change the timing and duration of rainfall that increases nutrient losses

22 Conclusion Eagle Creek (IN CEAP) Taken in their aggregate, and with the new knowledge provided through the NIFA- CEAP projects, agencies (public and private), industry, and farmers and ranchers can increase the effectiveness of conservation practices and leverage public funds by reorienting conservation planning and implementation. Cheney Lake (KS CEAP)

23 NIFA CEAP Outreach Information USDA NRCS CEAP Website al/nra/ceap/ws/?&cid=stelprdb Book: Osmond, D., D. Meals, D. Hoag, and M. Arabi How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project Experience. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA. Fact Sheets USDA NIFA National Water Quality Conference Proceedings USEPA Webinar

24 NIFA CEAP Team Thanks all the NIFA-CEAP watershed project personnel, key informants, USDA NIFA-CEAP and NRCS-CEAP personnel Our Sponsors Co-Authors Mazdak Arabi - Hydrologist Dana Hoag Economist Colorado State University Deanna Osmond Agronomist & Team Leader NC State University Dan Line Hydrologist NC State University Jean Spooner Statistician NC State University Al Luloff Sociologist Penn State University Mark McFarland Water Quality Extension Texas A&M Don Meals Watershed Monitoring & Evaluation Consultant Andrew Sharpley - Soil Scientist Univ. of Arkansas Greg Jennings - Stream Restoration NC State University

25 Questions