Anzeige

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project

5. Sep 2017
Anzeige

Más contenido relacionado

Presentaciones para ti(20)

Similar a National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project(20)

Anzeige

Más de Soil and Water Conservation Society(20)

Anzeige

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project

  1. National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project – Connecting on-farm conservation efforts to watershed scale assessments to benefit water quality USDA-NRCS Landscape Conservation Initiatives Team Dee Carlson SWCS 72nd International Annual Conference
  2. • Working collaboratively with EPA and states to improve water quality in small agricultural watersheds • Primary goal to reduce nonpoint sources of nutrients and sediment, and pathogens related to animal agriculture A major focus of the Initiative is to demonstrate that focused implementation of conservation practices can lead to meaningful progress on water quality goals National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Launched in 2012
  3. Successful Watershed Planning* • Establish strong partnerships through stakeholder, community and producer involvement • Define achievable and measureable watershed goals • Clearly understand the pollutants of concern and transport modes • Target conservation to critical source areas • Develop conservation systems that address the pollutants, and that meet producers’ needs (fit the watershed and fit the operations) • Apply effective outreach strategies * CEAP watersheds synthesis (2012), Rural Clean Water Program evaluation (1993), EPA watershed planning (2008), RESOLVE review of NRCS watershed projects (2015)
  4. NWQI Increases Water Quality Conservation NWQI provided a three-fold increase in average annual practice obligation and a four-fold increase in average annual treated acres for core water quality practices, as compared to General EQIP in the same small watersheds Baseline Years – 2010-2011
  5. NWQI Reaches More Customers NWQI more than doubled the amount of producers reached for voluntary conservation in small priority watersheds Baseline Years – 2010-2011
  6. NWQI’s Targeted Approach Primary targeting approach for NWQI is to concentrate efforts at the small watershed scale (HUC12) in priority watersheds identified by the State water quality agency and other NRCS partners. Further targeting is needed to adequately address water quality concerns…. Source: Vulnerability Assessment and Program Performance Tool (VAPPT) developed by the NRCS RAD GIS Lab for NWQI
  7. • Identify pollutants of concern • Identify pollutant sources • Identify pollutant transport mechanisms and routes • Identify and target conservation to critical source areas Pollutant(s) Sources Transport Critical Areas Within-Watershed Targeting Approach Slide courtesy of Craig Goodwin, NRCS National Water Quality Specialist
  8. Need for Watershed-Scale Assessment While a watershed plan is a requirement for inclusion in NWQI, many of the initial NWQI watersheds lack watershed plans at the scale or level of detail necessary to inform placement of on-farm conservation efforts for greatest water quality benefit.
  9. NWQI Pilot Project • Develop watershed-scale assessments during the pilot period sufficient to guide future investments in on-farm planning and conservation efforts to increase water quality improvements. • Assessments complement existing watershed plans by identifying vulnerable acres for treatment in order to accomplish watershed goals. • Outreach strategies to achieve conservation on acres most in need of treatment • Identify meaningful measures of progress towards watershed goals
  10. Targeting Tools Used by Pilot Watersheds • Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI) - NRCS Resource Assessment Division • CEAP Conservation Benefits Identifier (CCBI) – NRCS Resource Assessment Division • Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) – ARS-Iowa • Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) - International Water Institute, Red River Watershed Management Board, MN Board of Soil and Water Resources, Houston Engineering Inc. • APEX/SWAT – TAMU/ARS – Texas
  11. NRCS CEAP Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Identifies cropland soils vulnerable to runoff and leaching. Based on APEX modeling for CEAP cropland. Source: Vulnerability Assessment and Program Performance Tool (VAPPT) developed by the NRCS RAD GIS Lab for NWQI
  12. NRCS CEAP Conservation Benefits Identifier (CCBI) - Qualifies relationships between levels of inherent vulnerability (SVI) and known levels of conservation treatment to rank fields by their potential for soil or water quality gains from additional conservation. Source: Vulnerability Assessment and Program Performance Tool (VAPPT) developed by the NRCS RAD GIS Lab for NWQI
  13. Across watershed: Nutrient/manure management, Cover Crops, No-tillage or strip tillage Slide courtesy of Jill Reinhart, NRCS Indiana State Office ARS - Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF): GIS-based planning resource to help improve soil management and identify potential practices and locations to control/reduce water and nutrient movement within fields, at and below field edges, and in riparian zones.
  14. Avoid point and non-point source contributions from agricultural operations Control runoff, erosion, and leaching to ground water Trap or physically stop contaminants before they can exit the agricultural landscape Systems Approach to Non-Point Source Control: Avoid, Control, and Trap (ACT) Control Avoid Trap Slide courtesy of Craig Goodwin, NRCS National Water Quality Specialist
  15. Pilot Results Analysis and Lessons Learned Nitrogen Transport/ New vs. Existing NWQI Priority 1 Treated Acres (%) Priority 1 Needing Treatment (%) Acres with Improvement (%) Acres Fully Treated* (%) RUNOFF New Watersheds 54% 60% 44% 10% Existing Watersheds 76% 51% 63% 2% LEACHING New Watersheds 37% 54% 19% 8% Existing Watersheds 38% 66% 35% 24% Successful Targeting – Example Analysis Average Watershed Size 24,000 Average Percent Cultivated Acres 33% *Full treatment refers to a system comprised of all 3 components - avoiding, controlling and trapping practices. Data from the NWQI Decision Tool developed by the NRCS RAD GIS Lab
  16. Pilot Results Analysis and Lessons Learned • Measure progress towards watershed goals – Track implementation on critical source areas in graduated pilot watersheds – Establish and monitor a set of water quality metrics that meets local partners’ needs - outcomes – In-stream monitoring results where available • NRCS will continue to work with science partners to evaluate and implement targeting tools • Continued focus on outreach strategies - the importance of producer engagement cannot be overstated Next Steps

Hinweis der Redaktion

  1. The NWQI is one of a number of NRCS initiatives that address critical resource concerns, like wildlife and water quality, at a landscape level. Initiatives build on existing locally-led efforts, are partnership driven, and they are a wallow NRCS to focus financial and technical assistance to accelerate implementation where it is most needed. NWQI was initiated in 2012 as a collaborative effort with EPA and state water quality agencies to address water quality in priority small watersheds, typically HUC12. The initiative addresses surface water pollutants originating from ag lands, primarily nutrients, sediment, and pathogens.
  2. External evaluations of past NRCS watershed programs, and detailed analyses of the CEAP watershed studies have both identified common elements that lead to successful projects. These lessons learned guided the development of NWQI.
  3. Targeting strategies are watershed dependent to reflect local conditions. They now include inherent factors that are landscape related and deemed vulnerable. First determine the vulnerability of the landscape - crops with high nutrient recs - land close to CAFOs (manure surplus) - soil erodibility K factor - steep slopes Then determine the level of existing treatment. - Highest Priority is High vulnerability and no treatment. - Lowest Priority is Low vulnerability and treatment in place.
  4. Target at the watershed scale and implement at the field level.
  5. This may be one factor contributing to the absence of positive water quality trends in many of the NWQI watersheds. Watershed assessment at the HUC-12 scale helps to identify critical source areas needing treatment, and assess effective conservation systems amenable to producers Assessment ties into/complements the existing watershed plan(s) – it is not a stand-alone document Assessment follows the NRCS area-wide planning policy, and includes the first 6 steps of planning Assessment is a useful document to inform conservation planning at the field level
  6. Working at the watershed or landscape scale is the best way to deal with the off-site effects in agricultural watersheds  Working at the watershed scale opens up opportunities to plan and implement different strategies that complement and increase the benefits of in-field practices - strategies to implement buffers, restore wetlands, repair stream channels, and enhance riparian corridors are best implemented at the watershed scale and will reinforce the benefits of work at the farm scale if the efforts are effectively targeted and coordinated Working at the watershed scale provides the ability to “focus for effect” - to direct conservation efforts at the most vulnerable parts of the landscape and during the most vulnerable times of the year
  7. CEAP quantified the relationship between inherent vulnerability to nutrient and sediment loss and the effects of farming and conservation practices on those losses, for cultivated cropland. CEAP documented that a significant portion of vulnerable cropland acres remain “critically under-treated.” CEAP modeling suggested that treating those acres with a system of “Avoiding”, “Controlling”, and “Trapping” (ACT) practices could be a more cost effective way to deliver conservation.
  8. Practices are not implemented randomly, but as systems of practices to address specific resource concerns. For nutrients, a systems approach looks toward avoiding, controlling, and/or trapping nutrients through a set of conservation practices. The voluntary, incentives-based conservation approach is achieving results Opportunities exist to further reduce sediment and nutrient losses from cropland Comprehensive conservation planning and implementation are essential Targeting enhances effectiveness and efficiency Full treatment of the most vulnerable acres will require suites of conservation practices because no single practice is a universal solution
  9. Nationally we will be tracking pollutant load reductions by watershed based on the CEAP framework, as well as implementation on critical acres as identified by watershed assessements. Priority 1 Acres – percent of a cultivated cropland acres that falls in Priority 1 ranking – typically the highly to moderately high vulnerability soils Priority 1 treated acres – of all acres with some treatment (practices), what % are on Priority 1 acres Priority 1 still needing treatment (no practices yet applied) - % of Priority 1 acres Acres with improvement– of acres treated, how many have moved to lower priority? Full treatment – of acres treated, what % have been fully treated?
  10. Develop watershed assessments that identify vulnerable acres within small watersheds (HUC12) Design outreach strategies that engage producers and other stakeholders and that focus on vulnerable areas Systems identified to fully address water quality – meet the needs of producers
Anzeige