2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE
SWCS Annual Conference 2019
NRCS Area Wide Planning Branch

2. Provides an opportunity for partners to work with
NRCS on a shared vision for water quality priorities
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)

3. • Priority watersheds are selected in collaboration
with state water quality agencies, facilitated by
EPA
• NWQI addresses Clean Water Act impaired
surface waters, with a focus on nutrients and
sediment, and pathogens related to agricultural
land uses
• Long-term goal of NWQI is to achieve water
quality improvements through accelerated
conservation practice implementation
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)

4.  NWQI continues to be adapted to meet
the needs of NRCS, customers and
partners. Results of program evaluation are
used to make improvements:
• In FY 2017, a pilot project was initiated
to develop watershed assessments and
outreach plans prior to
implementation funding (“readiness
phase”)
o 21 projects in 17 states provided
technical assistance dollars to aid
assessments
o Assessments identify and target
critical source acres for treatment
o Outreach strategies developed to
engage producers
• The readiness phase was
mainstreamed in FY 2018.
Adaptive Approach – Emphasis on Planning
Example of critical
source acre
identification in a
watershed

5. NWQI Expansion
• Original focus on addressing surface water bodies
impaired under the Clean Water Act
• In FY2015 special consideration for watershed selection
was provided if the impaired water body was a source of
drinking water
• In FY 2019, NWQI initiated a pilot to address source
water protection, including surface and ground water
sources
o SWP pilot areas do not have to coincide with
impaired, threatened, or critical waterbodies as
determined by the state.
o SWP areas are proposed by state drinking water
partners
o 15 SWP pilot projects in 9 states for FY19
Adaptive Approach – Expansion to Source Water
Protection

6. 1. Readiness Phase
• New priority watersheds or source water protection areas
that need assessments can request the readiness phase
• Readiness watersheds are provided technical resources to
assist with development of assessments and outreach
strategies
2. Implementation Phase
• Watershed assessment complete, ready for financial
assistance for practice implementation
• The watershed assessment must provide all elements
outlined in the NRCS assessment guidance
• Multi-year budget and proposal will be required for all
watersheds beginning in FY2020
NWQI Watershed Selection – Two Phases

7. Measuring Progress
All NWQI watersheds will assess progress toward meeting watershed
goals
• When possible, select watersheds where baseline water quality
monitoring data already exist
• Track implementation on the identified critical source areas within the
watershed
• Report on the specific metrics that were developed with partner input to
demonstrate progress in meeting watershed goals
• Interim metrics are related to or surrogates for the water quality concern
(e.g., load reduction percentage, pounds of P prevented from leaving
field, change in biotic integrity score, change in P index results weighted
across the watershed, etc.)
Tracking Progress

8. Measuring Progress
Working with the Conservation Technology Information
Center (CTIC) Purdue University, and WaterComm to:
• Obtain feedback from local NWQI watersheds on
program delivery and program successes and
challenges
• Develop improved guidance for staff and partners on
effective water quality efforts and watershed planning
• Improve communications surrounding water quality
efforts
Working with Partners to Improve NWQI

9. What is Successful
Watershed Management?
Emily Usher
Purdue University
An in-depth evaluation of the
National Water Quality Initiative
Dr. Sarah P. Church
Montana State University
Dr. Linda S. Prokopy
Purdue University

10. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
• Cooperative agreement with NRCS, Purdue University
and Conservation Technology Innovation Center (CTIC)
• Inform NRCS’ ability to implement small watershed
projects and improve watershed related communication
Gather input from local stakeholders on
project design
marketing
delivery
implementation
of small watershed improvement projects
Project Overview

11. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Project Overview
Interviews
• State water
quality agencies
• US EPA
Surveys
• Conservation staff
• Watershed partners
• State agency staff
Practitioner’s Guides
• Successful Watershed Management
• Successful Partnerships with NRCS
Watershed Forums
• Watershed priorities
• Resource needs
• Outreach and education

12. ResultsBackground Methods
Watershed Forums
Identify watershed
priorities
Identify resources
needed
Discuss outreach and
education strategies
Tenmile Creek
Bellingham, WA
Little Beaver Creek
Duncan, OK
Lake Bloomington
Bloomington, IL
Roaring River
Wilkesboro, NC
East Creek
Middlebury, VT
Discussion

13. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
East Creek Watershed Forum
17 participants
Producer or Landowner
Conservation staff
(NRCS/SWCD/Extension)
Community member
Local Government
State Agency

14. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Watershed Forums
Identify resources
needed
Discuss outreach and
education strategies
Identify watershed
priorities
“For successful watershed management in this
watershed…..”

15. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Q-Statements:
36 statements addressing topics related to
• Design
• Marketing
• Delivery
• Implementation
Of successful watershed management
Q Methodology
Q-Statement development:
• Literature review of successful
watershed management
• Interviews with conservation
staff in forum watersheds
• Survey of forum participants
• Mixed Methods
• Preserves subjectivity
• Reveals social perspectives
• Applicable across disciplines
Participants are asked to rank statements based on their subjective
agreement or disagreement with the statement.

16. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
For successful watershed management in this
watershed…
• …local stakeholder concerns should be highest priority for conservation staff.
• …a watershed plan is necessary.
• …conservation staff should engage with the community.
• …technical and financial assistance should be available for those who quality.
• …water quality monitoring is necessary.
• …watershed related information should be communicated with diverse
methods to broad audiences.

17. Data Collection
Quantitative (Individual activity)
Participants individually ranked 36
priorities for successful watershed
management and documented their
unique perspective on the score sheet.
Qualitative (Group activity)
Facilitators lead large and small group
discussion of rationale for participants
ranking decisions. (recorded and
transcribed)
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Mixed methods

18. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Q Methodology
1. Chocolate Chip Cookie
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
2. Butter Pecan
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
3. Mint Chocolate Chip
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
4. Cookies and Cream
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
8. French Vanilla
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
7. Chocolate Fudge
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
6. Neapolitan
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
12. Strawberry
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
13. Black Cherry
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
14. Peanut Butter Cup
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
15. Coffee
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
9. Orange Cream
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
5. Blueberry Cheesecake
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
16. Salty Carmel
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
11. Rocky Road
My favorite ice cream flavor is…
Read each card and consider to what extent you agree or disagree with the statement.
My favorite ice cream flavor is…

19. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Q Methodology
Divide statements into “agree”, “neutral”, and “disagree” piles
Record statement numbers on data sheet to reflect individual priorities

20. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Q Methodology
2. Butter Pecan
11. Rocky Road
8. French Vanilla
7. Chocolate Fudge
6. Neapolitan
12. Strawberry
14. Peanut Butter Cup
9. Orange Cream
5. Blueberry Cheesecake
16. Salty Carmel1. Chocolate Chip Cookie
3. Mint Chocolate Chip
4. Cookies and Cream
13. Black Cherry
15. Coffee
Divide statements into “agree”, “neutral”, and “disagree” piles
Record statement numbers on data sheet to reflect individual priorities

21. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Q Methodology
Most
Agree
Most
Disagree
2. Butter Pecan
11. Rocky Road
8. French Vanilla
7. Chocolate Fudge
6. Neapolitan
12. Strawberry
14. Peanut Butter Cup
9. Orange Cream
5. Blueberry Cheesecake
16. Salty Carmel
10
514167 6 1 15
3
4 13
9 2
8
1211
1. Chocolate Chip Cookie
3. Mint Chocolate Chip
4. Cookies and Cream
13. Black Cherry
15. Coffee
Divide statements into “agree”, “neutral”, and “disagree” piles
Record statement numbers on data sheet to reflect individual priorities

22. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
10
514167 6 1 15
3
4 13
9 2
8
1211
1. Chocolate
Chip Cookie
2. Butter
Pecan
3. Mint
Chocolate Chip
4. Cookies
and Cream
11. Rocky
Road
8. French
Vanilla
7. Chocolate
Fudge
6. Neapolitan
12.
Strawberry
13. Black
Cherry
14. Peanut
Butter Cup
15. Coffee
9. Orange
Cream
5. Blueberry
Cheesecake
16. Salty
Carmel
10. Maple
Walnut
Q Methodology
At the end of the exercise, participants have a subjective list of watershed priorities
then discussed rational for their priority decisions in small groups.

23. 23
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Quantitative (Individual activity)
In PQ Method, researchers conducted
a factor analysis to identify distinct
groups of participants with similarly
ranked priorities, coined
“perspectives”.
Qualitative (Group activity)
In excel, researcher coded transcripts
and developed narratives to describe
rationale behind each perspective.
Data Analysis
Mixed methods

24. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
East Creek Watershed Priorities
Local Knowledge and
Local Concerns
Perspective 2:
31%
5 participants
Conservation Staff
Producer Awareness and
Biological Integrity
Perspective 3:
19%
3 participants
Producer or Landowner
Conservation Staff
50%
8 participants
Producer or Landowner
Watershed Planning
and Assistance
Perspective 1:
16 completed sorting activity
3 distinct perspectives were identified

25. 25
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Agreement across perspectives: Outreach and Biological Integrity
PriorityRationale
East Creek Watershed Priorities
•Maintaining watershed health
•Strong working relationships between conservation staff and producers
is necessary
“Being able to speak to NRCS or the state on the farm and not feeling like
you're going to be penalized for it, being open and honest. Take them around
and they say, ‘This is a problem’and you say, ‘Okay. How do we fix it?’You'll
get a lot more people involved if they don't feel like they'll get a crack of the
whip every time somebody comes out.”

26. 2626
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Perspective 1: Watershed Planning, Assistance, and Collective Action
East Creek Watershed Priorities
•Flexible watershed plans to achieve water quality goals
•Technical and financial assistance increases adoption
•Address multiple stakeholder needs to achieve collective action
“You always kind of prickle a little bit at the required piece of it, but
unless everybody's pulling on the rope together, you're only as strong as your
weakest link. You got to have conformity in order to get the objectives that you
want.”
RationalePriority

27. 2727
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Perspective 2: Local Knowledge, Local Concerns, and Coordination
Priority
East Creek Watershed Priorities
Rationale
“I look to my producers because they know the potential impacts of the
change in management. There's a reason they've made decisions on the land
and if we can look to them to say, ‘Well, if we have an additional goal of this,
what do you foresee the impacts of that being?’They're really the experts on
landscape.”
• Prioritizing local concerns can increase local buy-in
• Coordinated watershed planning process is more important
than the document itself.
• Incorporate local knowledge into watershed management

28. 28
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Perspective 3: Awareness, Assistance, and Biological Integrity
Rationale
East Creek Watershed Priorities
“If we don't show [the public] something, they're going to keep pushing.
Everybody says it's going to take years and years and years [to improve water
quality], but I'm afraid if we don't show something, the [State politicians] are
going to say, ‘Guess what. It's not working. More regulations.’”
•BMP awareness can increase adoption
• Prioritize funding to implement BMPs, rather than public outreach
• Water quality monitoring is necessary to show progress
Priority

29. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Summary of East Creek Priorities
Agreement across perspectives
Outreach and Biological Integrity
•Strong working relationships
•Maintain watershed health
Watershed Planning,
Assistance, and Regulation
Perspective 1:
Flexible watershed
planning
Local Knowledge,
Local Concern and Coordination
Perspective 2:
Incorporate local knowledge
to increase buy-in
Awareness, Assistance and
Biological Integrity
Perspective 3:
Increase awareness to
improve water quality

30. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Identify Resource Needs
Discuss outreach and
education strategies
Identify watershed
priorities
Identify resources
needed
30
Identify resources needed to accomplish your
watershed priorities

31. 31
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Resource Needs
Analyses:
• Identified relationships within the broad categories of
each group
• Combined group results to create a collective list of
resource needs
Data collection:
• Participants shared resources needed for successful
watershed management
• Collectively, small groups assembled
resources into broad categories
• Discussed how the resources contributed
to successful watershed management
(recorded and transcribed)
• Explained their rationale

32. 32
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Resource Needs
• Implementation
• Outreach to all
• One-to-one technical assistance
and implementation
• TA $ for one-on-one farm visits by
outreach “case manager”
Technical Assistance
• Full suite of funding
• $ for on-farm assistance (projects
and people)
• Prioritize funding to critical
watersheds
Financial Assistance
• Cooperation, patience, perseverance
• “Buy-in” and collaboration from
landowners and farmers
• Strong partnerships with “all-in”
approach
• Community driven plan to address all
resource concerns
Collaboration
Strategic Planning
• Develop plan with
S.M.A.R.T. goals
• Shared goals
• Flexible resources – “All in”
approach for everyone
• Develop materials and actions to
reach out to landowners and
farmers
• Flexible resources to engage
farmers and landowners
Flexible Resources
• Mechanisms to measure BMP
effectiveness over time
• Indicators to demonstrate
success/progress of implementation
• Identify unmet resource concerns that
will make a difference
• Understand resource concerns that
impair waterways
Measurement,
Monitoring, Tracking
Shared Successes
• Public that values the farm community
• Looking at what works other places
• Find success stories the
public/neighbors can get behind

33. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
East Creek Resource Needs
Identify and
Measure
•Resource
concerns
•BMP
effectiveness
•Demonstrated
project success
Strategic Plan
Development
•Community
driven plan
•Promote public
value of ag
•Buy-in from ag
community
Collaborative
Leadership
•Cooperation,
patience and
perseverance
•“All-in”
approach
•Time allocated to
1:1 interactions
Flexible Funding
•Assistance for
public good
practices
•Engage
producers and
landowners
Financial
Assistance
•Full suite of
practices
•Targeted
watersheds
Technical
Assistance
•Staff
•1:1 interactions
•Outreach
materials

34. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Outreach and Education Strategies
Discuss outreach and
education strategies
Identify watershed
priorities
Identify resources
needed
Discuss strategies for outreach and education related to:
• Recipients • Content • Delivery

35. 35
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Outreach and Education
Data collection:
• Facilitated discussion about
• Recipients
• Content
• Delivery
Of watershed outreach and education.
(recorded and transcribed)
Analyses:
• Identified reoccurring themes

36. East Creek Outreach and Education
•Demonstrate success
•Highlight importance of
agriculture
•Promote public benefits
of watershed health
Content
•1:1 interactions
•Relatable to the general
public
•Hands-on learning
opportunities
Delivery
“All-in” Approach
Recipients
Producers and
Landowners
General
Public
Legislative
Leaders
Results DiscussionBackground Methods

37. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
87 participants
Producer or Landowner
Conservation Staff
Community Member
Local government
NGOs
State agency
Researcher
Overall Watershed Forums

38. 38
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Watershed Priorities
38
“For successful watershed management in this
watershed…..”
Outreach and
education
strategies
Watershed
priorities
Resources
needed
Interagency
Perspective
Watershed
priorities

39. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Stakeholder Concerns
and Outreach
Perspective 1:
29%
19 participants
Producers
Biological Integrity
and Education
Perspective 2:
38%
25 participants
Producers
NRCS
Perspective 3:
Watershed Planning
And Inclusion
33%
22 participants
NRCS
Conservation District
72 completed soring activity
3 distinct perspectives were identified
Overall Watershed Priorities

40. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Summary of Overall Watershed Priorities
Stakeholder Concerns and
Outreach
Perspective 1:
Address concerns of
producers and landowners
Biological Integrity and
Education
Perspective 2:
Focus on water quality
improvements
Watershed Planning and
Inclusion
Perspective 3:
Include local knowledge
into flexible plans
Agreement across perspectives
•Agency supported local leadership
•Strong working relationships
•Maintain watershed health

41. 41
Stakeholder Concerns
and Outreach
Perspective 1:
Address concerns of
producers and landowners
Biological Integrity
and Education
Perspective 2:
Focus on water quality
improvements
Watershed Planning
And Inclusion
Perspective 3:
Include local knowledge
into flexible plans
31%
16%
29%
36% 38%
31%
37%
29%
57%
31%
38%
47%
43%
7%
31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NC WA IL VT OK
Perspective 1 Perspective 2 Perspective 3
Compared Priorities Across Watersheds
Results DiscussionBackground Methods

42. 42
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Overall Resource Needs
Identify resources needed to accomplish your
watershed priorities
Outreach and
education
strategies
Watershed
priorities
Resources
needed
Interagency
Perspective

43. Overall Resource Needs
• Monitoring
• Coordination
• Transparency
• Confidentiality
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Funding
Personnel Project
•Consistent •Coordinated •Long-term
Staff Leadership
“Watershed Coordinator”
Community Leadership
“Watershed Champion”
Leadership
• “All-in” approach
• Targeted outreach
• Follow-up
• Coordinated
Outreach and
Engagement
ResultsBackground Methods Discussion

44. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Overall Strategies for Outreach and Education
Discuss strategies for outreach and education related to:
• Recipients • Content • Delivery
Outreach and
education
strategies
Watershed
priorities
Resources
needed
Interagency
Perspective

45. Overall Outreach and Education
•On-farm benefits
•Demonstrated success
•Personal interactions
•Private sector
Current and Potential
Practice Adopters
Legislative and Community
Decision Makers
• Highlight coordination
• Support agricultural needs
• “Squeaky wheel”
• Show legislative impacts
General Public
In and Out of Watershed
• Value of agriculture
• Benefits of watershed
health
Results DiscussionBackground Methods

46. 46
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Interagency Perspectives
Outreach and
education
strategies
Watershed
priorities
Resources
needed
Interviews with state water quality agencies and EPA
• Agency roles in NWQI
• NRCS role as a watershed partner
Interagency
Perspective

47. Results DiscussionBackground Methods Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Interagency Perspective
SWQA
• Work towards common goals
• Coordinate with NRCS
• Watershed selection
• Water quality monitoring efforts
• Access to 319 funds
• Assist in development of watershed
and outreach plans
EPA
• Reduce water quality impairments and
document water quality improvements
• Administer 319 funding to SWQA
• Programmatic, technical, and
administrative support to SWQA
Agency Roles in NWQI
Interviews with Regional EPA and State Water Quality Agencies (SWQA)
representatives on their agency’s role in NWQI and NRCS’ role as a partner

48. Results DiscussionBackground Methods Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Interagency Perspective
Improvements
Water Quality monitoring
Provide more specific information to
guide water quality monitoring
Staff Resources
Increase staff resources dedicated to
1:1 interactions with producers
Watershed Site Selection
Consistent and transparent watershed
selection criteria
Targeted watershed approach
Leverages resources and moves away from
“random acts of conservation”
Local relationships
Established working relationships with the
watershed community
Benefits
Framework for interagency collaboration
Establishes formal partnerships between
agencies working towards similar goals
Interviews with Regional EPA and State Water Quality Agencies (SWQA)
representatives on their agency’s role in NWQI and NRCS’ role as a partner
NRCS Role as a Partner

49. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Overall Strategies for Outreach and Education
Outreach and
education
strategies
Watershed
priorities
Resources
needed
Interagency
Perspective
• Agency-wide recommendations for NRCS
• Watershed-specific recommendations

50. Shirl Sazynski; Seven Days
Overall Recommendations
•Promote collaborative environment
•Increase communication and transparency
with SWQA
•NWQI watershed selection
•Water quality monitoring needs
Increase interagency collaboration
•Enable one-to-one interactions
•Provide technical assistance
•Incorporate local needs
•Enable local solutions
•Manage additional workload of NWQI
Increase staff resources
Promote success and on-farm benefits
•Achievable results through voluntary action
•Highlight direct benefits of adoption
• Tailor message and delivery to recipients
• Coordinate tailored messaging
Tailored and consistent messaging
Watershed-specificNRCS
•Emphasize agricultural contributions to
watershed health and the broad community
•Benefits of a healthy watershed
Promote ag. and watershed health

51. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey

52. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Conservation Staff
NWQI watershed managers (n=333)
Response rate: 36.0%
Watershed Partners
Snowball sample
26 responses
SWQA
NPS/TMDL state contacts (n=103)
Response rate: 37.8%
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
Survey Topics
• NRCS Staff needs in NWQI watersheds
• Watershed planning and NWQI assessment
• NWQI Outreach plan
• Interagency coordination
• Partnerships
• Water quality monitoring in NWQI watersheds
Generalize forum results
Survey closed: July, 17th

53. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Conservation Staff
40% 60%
Gender
Female Male
Mean age:
4642 States
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
72%
24%
5%
Agency Affiliation
NRCS SWCD Other
SWQA
Mean age:
50
34 States
45% 55%
Gender
Female Male

54. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Conservation Staff
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
Staff Needs
Rank most important NRCS staff needs for successful watershed management
SWQA
1. Additional NRCS staff to manage added
workload of NWQI
2. Increase existing NRCS staff time allocated
towards providing technical assistance
3. Increase staff time allocated towards
outreach in the agricultural community
4. Increase staff time allocated towards
outreach in the non-agricultural community
1. Additional NRCS staff to manage added
workload of NWQI
2. Increase existing NRCS staff time allocated
towards providing technical assistance
3. Increase staff time allocated towards
outreach in the agricultural community
4. Increase staff time allocated towards
outreach in the non-agricultural community

55. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
Staff Responsibilities
Rank most important NRCS staff responsibilities for successful watershed management
SWQAConservation Staff
1. Develop strong working relationships with
producers in target watersheds
2. Provide on-farm technical assistance
3a. Promote resources and programs available
in the watershed
3b. Provide assistance in program enrollment
1. Develop strong working relationships with
producers in target watersheds
2. Provide on-farm technical assistance
3a. Provide assistance in program enrollment
3b. Develop partnerships with the agricultural
community

56. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
Information Recipients
Rank most important recipients of watershed related outreach and education
SWQAConservation Staff
1. Producers and Landowners
2. Local community leaders
3. Non-agricultural community
1. Producers and Landowners
2. Agri-business professionals
3. Local community leaders

57. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
• Overview of NWQI
• Watershed site selection
• NWQI phases
• NRCS contributions to NWQI watersheds
• Partnership opportunities
• Current and potential partnerships
• Examples of successful partnerships
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
NRCS Partnerships
Practitioner’s Guide

58. Results DiscussionBackground Methods
Next Steps
Use key findings to develop a practitioner’s guide for successful
watershed management to be used across the US
Relationships
• Work through
established
networks
• Understand local
concerns
• Promote local
solutions
Leadership
• Contextual
understanding
• Technical
expertise
• Collaborative
mindset
Partnerships
• Leverage
resources
• Diverse expertise
• Access to
diverse
stakeholders
Engagement
• Inclusive
watershed
management
• Urban and rural
connections
• Establish a
relationship with
the watershed
Communication
• On-farm benefits
of BMP adoption
• Public value of
clean water
• Goals can be met
through voluntary
adoption
Practitioner’s GuideNWQI Survey
Successful Watershed Management
Practitioner’s Guide

59. 59
Results DiscussionBackground Methods
In Conclusion..
Provides guidance to design, marketing, delivery and
implementation of small watershed projects
Emphasizes the importance of:
• Place based management
• Partnership development
• Relationship building
for successful watershed management

60. Thank you
Photo Credits: Wilkes County SWCD, and Shirl Sazynski, Seven Days