2018 SWCS International Annual Conference July 29-August 1, 2018 Albuquerque Convention Center

1. Lessons Learned from the NIFA-
CEAP Synthesis and Other
Watershed Studies
Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Meeting,
Albuquerque, NM. July 29-August 1, 2018
Deanna Osmond, NC State University
(Dan Line, Greg Jennings (retired), Jean Spooner (retired), NC State
University; Dana Hoag and Mazdak Arabi, Colorado State;
Andrew Sharpley, University of Arkansas; Mark McFarland (retired), Texas
A&M; Don Meals (retired); Al Luloff (retired) Penn State; Lisa Duriancick,
USDA, NRCS; Katie Flahive, USEPA; many, many others)
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

2. Informed by Watershed Projects
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
*
*
*
*
*
*

3. Rural Clean Water Program
• 21 watershed
scale projects
• Objective was to
related water
quality change to
conservation
practices
• Ran for 15 years
• Synthesized
lessons learned
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

4. 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

5. North Carolina Watershed Studies
• Field-scale
management
and
conservation
practices
surveyed
• Farmer
behavior
relative to
practices and
nutrient
management
expolored
Lincoln Lake (AR CEAP)
Watershed

6. Lessons Learned: History Matters
Black Creek 1978-1984
Project
Model 1978-1982
Implementation
Program
The Rural Clean 1980-1995
Water Program
Hydrologic Unit 1991-1994
Area Projects &
Demonstration
Projects
USEPA Section 319 1991 - present
National Nonpoint
Source Monitoring
Program
NIFA CEAP 2004-2011
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.

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

8. Lessons Learned: Watershed Scale A Must
Conservation planning must be done at the watershed scale
with sufficient water quality and potentially modeling
information.
KS CEAP

9. Lessons Learned: Identify Pollutants!
Before implementing conservation practices, identify the
pollutants of concern and the sources of the pollutants.
Practices need to be placed in critical source areas.
Eagle Creek (IN CEAP)

10. Lessons Learned: Continual Use of
Conservation Practices
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)

11. Economic incentives were often required for adoption of
conservation practices not obviously profitable or fitting with
current farming systems.
Lessons Learned: Economics Cannot
Be Ignored
Paradise Creek (ID CEAP)

12. 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.
Lessons Learned: People-to-people
Increases Adoption
Lincoln Lake (AR CEAP)

13. Lessons Learned: Farmers Adopt Practices
for Many Reasons
Cannonsville Reservoir (NY CEAP)
Conservation practice adoption is a multivariate choice
and although economics are exceptionally important,
there are many other factors that are part of the decision-
making process.

14. What Would Make Conservation Practice
Monitoring and Modeling Better?
Little River (GACEAP)
Cheney Lake (KS CEAP)
Rock Creek(OH CEAP)

15. Lessons Learned: Water Quality Monitoring
Should be Used Judiciously
Most conservation implementation projects should NOT
conduct water quality monitoring because monitoring is
technically very challenging and expensive.

16. The scientific basis of modeling is
still evolving.
• Watershed models are very
complex.
• Use models and model results
with care because watershed
processes may overwhelm the
capacity of existing modeling tools
to reveal the water quality impacts
of conservation practices.
• Select the correct model(s) and
modify if necessary.
• Ensure sufficiently trained
personnel, well calibrated and
validated models, and adequate
water quality and land treatment
data, including spatial and
temporal changes of these data.
Lessons Learned: Models are Still Evolving
Rabotyagov et al. 2010

17. Erosion control has increased
substantially due to technological
advances, price and labor
pressures, and conservation
programs UNTIL recently. Much
of the sediment is coming from
streambanks and streambeds,
not uplands, although reduction
in conservation practice use has
increased erosion in certain
areas of the country.Little River (GA CEAP)
Controlling Sediment Pollution

18. Controlling Nutrient Pollution 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
• tile drainage is being added much faster than conservation
practices can be adopted
• marginal land transformation
• need for conservation practice systems
• one management solution does not fit all agroecological
regions
• climate change is changing the timing and duration of
rainfall and will probably increases nutrient losses

19. Conclusion
Taken in their aggregate, and with the new knowledge
provided through the watershed 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,
but it is going to take a great deal of hard work.
Eagle Creek (IN CEAP) Cheney Lake (KS CEAP)

20. Questions