improving water quality: overcoming barriers to better targeting of us

IMPROVING WATER QUALITY: OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO BETTER TARGETING OF U.S. FARM CONSERVATION FUNDSSARA WALKER AND MICHELLE PEREZ

SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends more than $5 billion annually on agricultural conservation programs. However, these payments have traditionally only focused on farm-scale environmental problems instead of also solving landscape-scale problems such as waterbodies impaired by excessive nutrients from agriculture. In addition, the funds have not been allocated as cost effectively as possible. Targeting–identifying high priority land, such as regions or watersheds, for implementing conservation and within those areas, selecting specific acres and practices that are cost effective–can be used to achieve landscape-scale conservation goals and to ensure that environmental benefits are maximized per federal conservation dollar spent. Because targeting is not prevalent within USDA’s programs, this paper identifies the scientific and technical, social and political, and institutional and implementation barriers to targeting as well as options for USDA and other agencies and organizations to consider for overcoming these barriers.

ISSUE BRIEF

WRI.ORG

WRI.ORG

2 |

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides over $5 billion annually in financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to implement conservation practices that address resource concerns (e.g., water quality, wildlife habitat) on individual farms (Stubbs 2013).Conservation programs, like USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), have been benefi-cial for many producers, but they have not historically focused on addressing resource concerns beyond farm boundaries or maximizing cost effectiveness (i.e., environmental benefits per dollar spent). Since agriculture is a primary source of nutrient and sediment impairments in U.S. waterbodies (Hall et al. 2012) and conservation program budgets are limited, better targeting of funds could create federal conservation programs that are more results-oriented and can help to strategically clean up waterbodies with nutrient impairments due to agriculture.

In this paper, WRI defines targeting of conservation payments as identi-fying high priority land—such as regions or watersheds—for imple-menting conservation and within those areas, selecting specific acres and practices that are cost effective.

Currently, targeting efforts are limited.1 In an effort to ascertain why targeting is not more preva-lent within USDA and how to make better use of it to accelerate water quality improvements through reductions in agricultural nutrient pollution, this paper identifies some of the major barriers to targeting

federal agricultural conserva-tion funds. In addition, this paper suggests options for USDA and other institutions to overcome these barri-ers in order to more effectively use federal funds to solve the country’s most pressing water quality concerns related to agriculture.

WRI identified barriers to target-ing by reviewing USDA’s past and current targeting efforts; reviewing scientific, political, and economic literature on landscape-scale water-shed management; and interviewing targeting program managers, project partners, and other professionals.

WRI identified three major types of barriers: (1) scientific and technical, (2) social and political, and (3) insti-tutional and implementation.

Scientific and Technical BarriersInformation on various spatial and temporal scales is critical for deter-mining where to target funds and for assessing progress. Typically, this information is obtained through direct measurement and/or model-ing, and both of these techniques can be technically challenging and resource intensive.

USDA and other stakeholders could consider transferring site-specific tools to other regions; advancing modeling capabilities to streamline pollution estimation methods; and sharing data and information among institutions to learn from past and current targeting efforts, identify data and tool gaps, and advance the collective state of knowledge on targeting.

CONTENTS 2 Executive Summary

3 Introduction

6 Background

8 Methods

9 Barriers to Targeting

23 Conclusion

24 Endnotes

25 References

Suggested citation: Walker, Sara, and Michelle Perez. 2014. “Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds.” Issue Brief. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: <www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-con-servation-funds>.

http://www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-conservation-funds



Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds

ISSUE BRIEF | June 2014 | 3

Social and Political BarriersSome politicians continue to expect a broad distribution of conservation funding in the belief that because geographic targeting can favor some states or districts over others, their constituents may have reduced access to targeted program payments (Scarlett 2011).2 Stakeholder groups may also have competing interests with regard to how funds are spent (Hatch et al. 2001; Wu et al. 2001).

USDA and other stakeholders could develop an educational campaign to change perceptions and gain more public support for target-ing, focus on costs and benefits to maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent, and require minimum environmental stewardship from producers applying for targeted funds that would otherwise prioritize “bad actors.”

Institutional and Implementation BarriersEven with the necessary data, targeting tools, and political and stakeholder support, institutional barriers at the agency and conser-vation district level can hinder program implementation. District conservation staff may have to turn

some producers away if their farms are not in priority areas or if they cannot cost-effectively generate environmental benefits. Targeting also requires new and increased conservationist capacity to identify priority areas and producers to track environmental outcomes achieved. Furthermore, recruiting the right participants can be challenging because focusing conservation efforts in select areas means that the pool of potential participants is limited.

Options for overcoming these barriers include strengthening USDA program leadership and oversight to create a more results-oriented agency culture, involving producers and the local community in water-shed planning efforts, and creating a collaborative network of experts and funders who can join forces to affect change.

While the barriers to targeting will be challenging to overcome, they are not insurmountable. Some options for increasing and improving target-ing efforts may be relatively easy to adopt in the near future, requiring minimal investments. These options include increasing collaboration among agencies and institutions involved in targeting, aiming to

maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent, and selecting project recruits who can earn the interest and trust of fellow produc-ers. Other solutions may require years of time and money. The recommendations presented in this paper are options for consideration and may come with their own set of barriers, so they should be evalu-ated for their potential benefits, drawbacks, and feasibility. Exploring these options in greater detail will help USDA and other institutions involved in targeting use conser-vation funds to cost-effectively maximize environmental benefits.

INTRODUCTIONU.S. federal agricultural conser-vation programs address many environmental and natural resource concerns related to agricultural land such as soil erosion, wildlife habitat, air and water pollution, and water use. Over the past three decades, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has used programs such as the Environmental Quality Incen-tives Program (EQIP) to encourage agricultural producers to implement conservation practices by offering financial and technical assistance. In 2012, USDA spent more than $5 billion on working lands, land retire-ment, and easement conservation programs (Stubbs 2013).3

While these programs have been successful at addressing individual farm-level environmental problems such as those related to water quality like soil erosion and excess livestock manure, they have not historically been targeted to address landscape-scale issues such as restoring nutrient-impaired waterbodies

The purpose of this brief is to help USDA, Congress, and other institutions identify and eliminate the barriers to targeting and thus improve the environmental performance and cost effectiveness of federal conservation funds used to address agricultural nutrientand sediment concerns.

4 |

in high-priority watersheds. The purpose of this brief is to help USDA, Congress, and other institutions identify and overcome the barriers to targeting and thus improve the cost effectiveness and environmental performance of federal conservation funds used to address agricultural nutrient and sediment concerns.

Agriculture is a main source of pollu-tion for the majority of the 15,000 U.S. waterbodies that are impaired for nutrients, so the effectiveness of these conservation programs at improving water quality is of particular concern (Hall et al. 2012). The current conventional program spending approach disperses conser-vation practices across the landscape. This approach is unlikely to culmi-nate in the concentration of practices sufficient to produce the amount of nutrient reductions needed to clean up these impaired waterbod-ies. Clean up could mean restoring a river to meet water quality standards for fishing, or attaining a lake’s total maximum daily load (TMDL)4 for phosphorus to allow for swimming.

In addition, federal conservation programs like EQIP do not maximize the cost effectiveness (i.e., environ-mental benefits per dollar spent) of their efforts. EQIP includes a cost-efficiency factor in its appli-cation ranking process; however, cost efficiency is calculated using the conservation practice physical effect (CPPE) matrix, an ineffective approach that fails to account for site-specific information or consider benefits per dollar spent (Perez and Walker 2011). Moreover, the cost-efficiency factor is focused solely on a single application’s ability to address individual field-scale resource concerns, regardless of the

importance of the field-scale activities on a watershed or larger landscape scale.5

Given the current fiscal climate of shrinking budgets, it is increasingly important that limited resources be invested in the most effective way possible to achieve environmen-tal goals. For federal conservation programs, that means prioritizing environmental problems and allocat-ing funds for efforts that maximize environmental benefits per taxpayer dollar. This strategy can be executed by better targeting the conservation funds.

Targeting efforts can be designed in various ways for various purposes and at various scales (Carey 2013; Johans-son 2006; Walter et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2001):

Geographic targeting can be used to identify areas—including regions or watersheds—that are a high priority for conservation.

�Benefit�targeting may aim to maximize nutrient reductions per acre, using precision conservation to precisely identify the source of pollution and implement appro-priate conservation practices in those locations.

Cost targeting may be used when the goal is to execute the targeting program at the least possible cost.

These and other forms of targeting can also be combined, as shown in Figure 1.

FIG

UR

E 1

TARGETING CAN BE CONDUCTED FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES

COST TARGETING

BENEFIT TARGETING

GEOGRAPHIC-BENEFIT

TARGETING

GEOGRAPHICTARGETING

BENEFIT- COST

TARGETING

GEOGRAPHIC+

BENEFIT-COSTTARGETING

GEOGRAPHIC-COST

TARGETING



In this brief, we use the term target-ing to refer to both geographic and benefit-cost targeting; that is, identifying high-priority land for implementing conservation, and within those areas, selecting specific practices and acres that can generate the most environmental benefit per dollar expended.

The first part of our targeting defini-tion refers to geographic targeting. Some commonly used scales are shown in Figure 2. In the context of water quality, these priority areas could be selected because their waterbodies are impaired and need to be restored, their waterbodies are pristine and need to be preserved, or changes in land management have the greatest potential to reduce pollutant loads. Geographic targeting directs financial and technical resources to regions of the country that are of high priority to address a landscape-scale environmental problem such as an impaired waterbody.

One study by Iowa State University used a modeling exercise to compare the results of geographically targeting two different watersheds by simulating the full adoption of conservation tillage across each watershed (Feng et al. 2004).

Although both watersheds received the same degree of conservation treatment, the sediment reduc-tions achieved were different. The first watershed started with nearly double the sediment load of the other watershed, and thus achieved nearly

double the sediment reductions when conservation practices were applied. This example demonstrates the power of geographically target-ing conservation practices to areas of the highest priority. However, while geographic targeting aims to maximize conservation efforts in a given area, the costs of the conservation efforts also should be considered.

In addition to geographic target-ing, our definition of targeting also includes benefit-cost targeting; that

Targeting means identifying high-priority land for implementing

conservation, and within those areas, selecting specific practices and acres

that can generate the most environmental benefit per dollar expended.

FIG

UR

E 2

COMMON SCALES OF GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING

Region targeting

Sub-basin targeting

Sub-watershed targeting

6 |

is, the ability to target field-level conservation efforts based on the estimated environmental benefits achieved—for example, nutrient reductions at the edge of field, in a stream, or at the watershed outlet—and the cost of the activity. Benefit-cost targeting aims to maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent, thereby favoring the most cost-effective practices and acres (Wu et al. 2001). It capitalizes on the fact that the benefits provided by each acre of land—and the costs to achieve those benefits—vary (Walter et al. 2007). A recent World Resources Institute study estimated that under benefit-cost targeting, up to nine times more nitrogen reduc-tions per dollar spent could be gener-ated compared to the current conser-vation funding approach (Perez et al. 2014).

In order to achieve measurable improvements in water quality, conservation programs ideally should target some funds through both a geographic and benefit-cost approach, thereby strategically allocating funding for systems of practices—that is, combinations of practices that avoid, control, and trap nutrients—on acres in high-priority regions or watersheds “according to the ratio of environ-mental benefit to economic cost” (Wu et al. 2001). By targeting funds in both ways, conservation programs can ensure they’re implementing “the right practices, in the right places, at the right scale, and at the right time” (SWCS and EDF 2007), achieving a greater return on public investment. WRI’s study confirmed the advantages of this approach to allocating conservation funds over conventional methods. When areas were targeted to maximize nitrogen reductions at the lowest cost, twelve

times more reductions were achieved than had been achieved under the current approach. Moreover, the cost to reduce a pound of nitrogen under this geographic and benefit-cost targeting approach was only $0.30, whereas the cost under the current approach was $3.65 (Perez et al. 2014).

USDA and other federal agencies have made efforts to better target conservation funds and assess environmental outcomes—for example, reductions in in-stream nutrient concentrations and meeting a TMDL. However, the allocation for geographic targeting approaches makes up only about 10 percent of total conservation program budgets, and programs are not adequately designed to do benefit-cost targeting.6

In an effort to examine why targeting is not more prevalent within federal conservation programs and how to make better use of it to achieve measurable reductions in agricul-tural nutrient pollution in a cost-effective way, this paper identifies some of the major technical, political, and institutional barriers to targeting conservation funds. In addition, we suggest some options for overcom-ing these barriers. While each option is presented to address one or more specific barriers, many of the options could be adopted and adapted to address additional challenges. The recommended options are presented for consideration, with the under-standing that they also may come with barriers to their implementation and may require additional resources that are not available. USDA and other agencies and organizations—including EPA, state technical committees, district conservationists, universities, and nongovernmental organizations—engaged in conserva-tion efforts should carefully consider

the potential benefits, drawbacks, and applicability of each of these options. While the focus of the paper is on targeting to achieve measur-able improvements in water quality through agricultural nutrient and sediment reduction, many of the barriers and recommendations also may be applicable to targeted efforts that aim to generate water quality improvements through reductions in other pollutants, improvements in wildlife habitat, increases in carbon sequestration, and other desired environmental outcomes.

BACKGROUNDAlong with USDA’s primary conser-vation focus on the individual farm scale, the agency has conducted a few major landscape-scale geographic targeting efforts and has attempted to improve the cost effective-ness of conservation efforts. This section discusses some of USDA’s most prominent efforts to target some of its conservation funds. The lessons learned from these past and ongoing efforts can shed light on the challenges of targeting and the solutions to these challenges.

Rural Clean Water ProgramIn 1980, USDA and EPA devel-oped a temporary, experimental targeting program, the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). RCWP was designed to reduce nonpoint-source water pollution from agricul-ture in order to meet water quality standards or goals in targeted waterbodies. The program enrolled agricultural producers in 21 critical watersheds across the country to implement conservation practices that cost-effectively improve water quality. Several targeted watershed projects achieved various accom-plishments, such as reductions



in nutrient loadings by 50 to 60 percent; restoration of waterbod-ies for shellfish harvesting, better fishing, and recreational uses; and contributions to research on nonpoint-source pollutant transport, treatment, and monitoring. The program experienced some great successes and obstacles, and it used those experiences to identify recom-mendations for conducting similar projects in the future (Gale et al. 1993).7

1996 EQIP Program When the farm bill was reautho-rized in 1996, it included progress toward better targeting of conserva-tion funds to cost-effectively achieve environmental outcomes in high priority areas. The 1996 farm bill launched the EQIP program with just $20 million compared to the current $1.3 billion in annual spend-ing (Batie 1998). In an attempt to direct EQIP’s limited funds to areas with the greatest need for environ-mental improvement, the statute called for about three-quarters of the EQIP budget to go to “conservation priority areas” (CPAs). These priority areas were defined as “watersheds, regions, or areas of special environ-mental sensitivity or having signifi-cant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns” (USDA 2003). EQIP applicants were evaluated based on whether their farms were located in these priority areas, and whether they aimed to “maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended”—criteria that reflect both geographic and benefit-cost targeting principles.8 USDA gave producers an opportunity to bid for conservation payments based on the producer’s ability to maximize benefits per dollar spent, a policy known as “bidding down.”

These targeting efforts proved difficult for a couple of reasons. First, using CPAs actually resulted in only a slight improvement over business as usual, as environmental concerns were not the only factor informing distribution of funds (Cain and Lovejoy 2004). For example, NRCS interpreted the law to mean that every state would receive EQIP funding. Within those states, one or more areas would be designated a CPA, an allocation method which spread the limited funding very thinly.9 Second, being able to demon-strate environmental benefits per dollar spent in order to bid down requires technical know-how, and producers who can achieve greater economies of scale may have an advantage. Therefore, producers who were located outside of prior-ity areas or who lacked the ability to bid for low-cost share payment rates expressed dissatisfaction with these criteria (SWCS and EDF 2007). Largely as a result of this pushback, this legislative language and geographic prioritization approach were dropped from the reautho-rized farm bill in 2002 and were not included in subsequent farm bills.

Landscape Conservation InitiativesIn 2009, USDA created Landscape Conservation Initiatives (LCIs), new programs which would enable NRCS “to more effectively address priority natural resource concerns by delivering systems of practices, primarily to the most vulner-able lands within geographic focus areas” (USDA 2013). LCIs address water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat and species conservation, and overall ecosystem health. These innovative conservation programs

were developed based on findings from USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), which indicated that targeting conserva-tion to the most vulnerable areas was the most effective way to accelerate conservation efforts (USDA/NRCS 2012). Since 2009, funding for LCIs has come primarily from a subset of working lands, land retirement, and easement programs.

LCIs cover more than a dozen regions of the country, each with a particular environmental focus—for example, improving the health of the Mississippi River watershed and restoring Sage Grouse habitat in western states. WRI conducted a preliminary review of one of these LCIs—the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI)—to determine how effec-tively the initiative was designed to target its funds to achieve landscape-scale water quality improvements. Overall, MRBI was rated as “fair.” MRBI demonstrated thoughtful decision making in its selection of geographic areas in which to focus its efforts, but there are several target-ing criteria in need of improvement. For example, little attention was paid to cost effectiveness (Perez and Walker 2013).

National Water Quality Initiative In 2012, USDA created the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) to accelerate targeted funding in order to improve the health of at least one impaired water body in every state (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition 2012). EQIP provides funding for this initiative, which is meant to supplement the funding available for specific regions

8 |

under the Landscape Conservation Initiatives. One significant advance-ment in collaboration and account-ability has occurred with NWQI, as USDA is now partnering with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and EPA in monitoring water quality to track NWQI’s landscape-scale outcomes. Because past indicators of federal conservation program success were administrative metrics, like numbers of contracts or dollars awarded, tracking actual environmental outcomes such as improvements in stream nutri-ent and sediment concentrations is a major step forward for USDA in being more results-oriented and accountable (USDA/NRCS 2011).

Regional Conservation Partnership ProgramThe new farm bill—the Agricultural Act of 2014—establishes a Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Although RCPP represents a consolidation of various regionally targeted programs, such as the Chesa-peake Bay watershed program and Great Lakes basin program, it aims to “increase the restoration and sustain-able use of soil, water, wildlife and related natural resources on regional or watershed scales” (USDA/NRCS 2014).

Like MRBI, RCPP will be implemented using a partnership approach with stakeholders. Furthermore, RCPP will prioritize project applicants who propose to address these conservation priorities on a large scale (regional, state, or national) and use outcome-based performance measures to demonstrate results of their conser-vation efforts. About a third of the program’s budget will go toward up to eight “critical conservation areas” to be determined by USDA. RCPP appears to hold great promise for using some of its funds for geographically targeting conservation. On the other hand, the program does not mention any components to ensure or measure cost effectiveness.10

USDA’s history of targeting conserva-tion efforts is mixed. It is important to capture key lessons from these past experiences to ensure that the current LCI, NWQI, and RCPP efforts, as well as all future targeting endeavors, have the greatest possible opportunity to succeed. With this in mind, WRI set out to determine the kinds of barri-ers that are preventing targeting from succeeding at cost-effectively improv-ing water quality in impaired water-bodies and how these barriers could be overcome.

METHODSWRI identified the barriers to target-ing and possible solutions primar-ily through a literature review and a series of interviews with conservation professionals and targeted watershed project leaders. We reviewed literature on the science, economics, and politics of geographic and benefit-cost target-ing, success stories and lessons learned from past and present efforts to target conservation funds, landscape-scale watershed management, and the costs and benefits of conservation. This research formed a preliminary basis for understanding the major types of barriers, and this foundation was then used to conduct interviews.

We interviewed ten conservation, environmental, and natural resource professionals from USDA and five nongovernmental organizations (see online Appendix for list at www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-conservation-funds). These experts were asked to provide specific examples of barriers from their experi-ences, identify the kinds of targeting efforts that have been successful, and rank the main categories of barri-ers in order of their significance. We also interviewed sixteen LCI targeted watershed project leaders, repre-senting a total of seven MRBI and Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI) projects and twelve USDA conservation program managers and coordinators associated with LCIs (see online Appendix for list at www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-conservation-funds). These program managers and project leaders were asked about the targeted design of their respective program or project and about the successes and shortcom-ings they have experienced during implementation.

Ideally, targeting is used to cost-effectively attain environmental goals and achieve landscape-scale outcomes through targeted watershed projects. However, targeting can also be used to increase the cost effectiveness of conservation funds that are dispersed broadly across the landscape.

www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-conservation-funds








This paper was also informed by two other analyses related to improv-ing the effectiveness of federal conser-vation programs that WRI conducted in tandem with this analysis. The first analysis evaluated how well-designed MRBI was to cost-effectively achieve landscape-scale water quality benefits. This analysis was conducted by rating MRBI on six factors identified as necessary for achieving success: stake-holder and producer buy-in, goal and objective setting, geographic targeting, monitoring and evaluation, cost effec-tiveness, and adaptive management. This analysis included its own series of interviews with project leaders, the results of which helped to inform our understanding of barriers faced during implementation of targeted conserva-tion efforts (Perez and Walker 2013).

The second analysis, conducted with the NRCS CEAP team, examined the existing level of cost effectiveness of NRCS’s conservation programs and the potential improvement in cost effectiveness that could be gained from geographic and benefit-cost targeting

(Perez et al. 2014). The study used CEAP’s Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) data, CEAP-NRI farmer surveys, program payment data for conserva-tion practices nationwide, results of the agricultural policy extender (APEX) model, and an economic optimization model to estimate the regional distri-bution of funds from 2006 to 2011. This information was then compared to how funds could be distributed if the conservation budget were targeted to the 201 four-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds in the contigu-ous United States according to which cropland acres could generate the most nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment reductions per dollar spent.11

BARRIERS TO TARGETINGThe research and interviews shed light on the many challenges associated with targeting agricultural conserva-tion funds. WRI organized the barriers into three main categories: technical and scientific, social and political, and institutional and implementation. The sections below summarize these main

barriers to targeting as well as possi-ble solutions for overcoming these barriers in the future.

Technical and Scientific BarriersTargeting is complex, as it must achieve “watershed-scale conserva-tion goals through implementation at the individual farm scale” (Schil-ling et al. 2007). Information is the key to making strategic targeting decisions across various spatial and temporal scales, as well as for assess-ing progress. Information for targeting decisions and for assessing the water quality improvement that results from improved management practices on a farm requires direct measurement and/or modeling.

Acquiring good information through monitoring and modeling takes time and money and is technically challeng-ing (Hansen and Hellerstein 2006). Water quality monitoring data on pollutant loads can be collected at various scales to inform where to target and to assess progress, but

BARRIERS

Options for Overcoming Barriers

Limited Availability of Tools

Resource-Intensive Water Quality

Monitoring

Farm Data Confidentiality

Use available metrics and tools

Transfer tools

Advance modeling capabilities

Explore agroecoregions

Share data and information

Revise and clarify data confidentiality agreements

TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS

TABL

E 1

10 |

collecting it is time-consuming and expensive. Models can estimate pollutant loads more efficiently, but technical know-how to develop, calibrate, and validate the models to local conditions is needed, and invest-ments in data collection and user-friendly, decision-facilitating tools are necessary. Table 1 highlights the types of technical and scientific barriers and potential solutions.

This section will discuss these challenges of obtaining and using the data and information necessary for targeting. Following this section, we present options for overcoming these barriers.

Limited Availability of Watershed-Scale and Field-Scale Estimation Tools

Targeting requires predictive tools that can help program manag-ers make appropriate investment decisions. Tools such as models are often used to inform targeting decisions, such as where to target, with what practices, and at what cost. These tools also are used to assess progress toward achieving environmental outcomes such as improvements in water quality. At a landscape scale, sophisticated models like USGS’s spatially refer-enced regressions on watershed attributes (SPARROW) model are available for geographically target-ing disproportionately high nutrient-yielding watersheds (USGS 2011).

For example, in the Chesapeake Bay, an estuary with a TMDL for nutrients and sediment, SPARROW identifies critical watersheds that make up what’s known as the “fertile crescent”—from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia up through the Susquehanna Valley in south-central

Pennsylvania and down through the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware—that delivers the highest yields of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural sources to the Bay (see Figure 3) (USGS 2004). This valuable information is available for the Bay because SPARROW is populated with a plethora of agricultural nutrient loading data. However, not all regions receive the same political and scientific focus as the Chesapeake Bay,

leaving other regions in the country without sufficient data or tools to identify watersheds that should be prioritized.

In addition, as targeting becomes more locally focused, even fewer tools are available. Simply imple-menting conservation practices anywhere within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, or even within its highest-loading subwatersheds, will not necessarily be sufficient for

MAP OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED’S VARIATION IN PHOSPHORUS YIELDS FROM AGRICULTURE DELIVERED TO THE BAY

FIG

UR

E 3

Source: U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW Model, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

0.00 - 0.03

0.04 - 0.06

0.07 - 0.09

0.10 - 0.12

0.13 - 0.15

0.16 - 0.18

0.19 - 0.21

0.22 - 0.24

> 0.24

Delivered Phosphorus (kg/hec/yr)



meeting the TMDL. Conservation efforts within subwatersheds must concentrate appropriate types and sufficient amounts of conservation practices on fields upstream from a waterbody of concern in order to see water quality improvements. To reach the concerted conservation effort necessary to improve in-stream water quality, a comprehensive watershed planning process is crucial, as is the use of sophisticated tools that account for the relationship between these various spatial and temporal scales (Osmond et al. 2012). Expertise to carry out this complex watershed planning process may be lacking in some areas (Shilling et al. 2005). Some projects that were part of the RCWP failed to produce results because an insufficient number of conservation practices were imple-mented to achieve improvements in water quality (Gale et al. 1993).

Benefit-cost targeting approaches are necessary to identify and target the specific sources of pollutants and select conservation practices that will generate the greatest reductions to meet the goal in a cost-effective manner. The precision conserva-tion side of benefit-cost targeting relies on having site-specific data on pollutant loads and conservation practice implementation and also on knowing the topography, soil types, and hydrology of the area farms in order to implement the right practices in the right places (Carey 2013; MDA 2013). This information is crucial to understanding precisely which farms and fields are generating the largest pollutant loads, where conservation practices are already in place, and where they are still needed. It is also crucial for locating naturally vulner-able parcels of land, which are prone to runoff or leaching because of poor soils.

In conducting benefit-cost targeting, the costs of implementing conserva-tion practices must be considered in each location. This additional component adds another level of complexity beyond geographic targeting because it considers not only the projected environmen-tal benefits of the conservation practices, but also the costs. Conven-tional federal conservation programs are built around paying for practices. Conservation funds are awarded in accordance with the cost to install and maintain the practice rather than the environmental benefits it provides. Under benefit-cost target-ing, conservation funds are awarded to producers based on the cost effectiveness of the practice’s pollut-ant treatment—for example, the nitrogen reduced per dollar spent. This change in approach is not only challenging for USDA culturally, as will be discussed later in this paper, but it requires different tools and new proposal ranking methodolo-gies. Building up this capacity and technical know-how will take time and money. The investment is signif-icant, but without it, targeting efforts may not be able to accurately and efficiently assess cost effectiveness.

An assessment of the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in Illinois, which funds conservation on environmen-tally sensitive land, found that the program’s effectiveness suffered from an inability to conduct preci-sion conservation at the field scale. The program appropriately identified marginal and eroding agricultural land on floodplains in the south-ern reaches of the Illinois River as the type of agricultural land that would maximize the program’s cost effectiveness. The program also set measurable goals for reducing

nutrients and sediments and increas-ing fish and wildlife populations, and identified applicable conservation practices for achieving these goals. However, the program failed to provide any mechanisms for identify-ing specific farms and fields—or even smaller geographic regions within the southern floodplain region—as the highest priority for receiving conservation treatment. Moreover, the program did not consider treatment costs when awarding payments. Because of this failure to conduct benefit-cost targeting at the field scale, the program fell short of achieving its goals, and the reduc-tions that were achieved were not as cost effective as they could have been (Yang et al. 2005).

One example of a sophisticated pollutant loading estimation tool for use at a fine scale is USDA’s nutrient tracking tool (NTT).12 NTT can be used to estimate farm-scale nutrient loads based on site-specific soil, climate, and agronomic data. The tool has been adapted for use in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, translating nutrient and sediment loads and conservation efforts at the field scale in Pennsylvania, for example, into water quality improve-ment estimates for the Chesapeake Bay. In places where NTT has been calibrated and validated, it can be a powerful resource for quantifying nutrient loads, selecting conservation practices, and forecasting farm-scale environmental benefits. However, while the method is transferrable, much of the site-specific data behind the tool are not. It takes years of work to gather the necessary infor-mation for validating the tool to a particular region. Innovative tools like NTT are increasingly important for providing assurance that desired results are achieved, but their

12 |

functionality is limited to areas with sufficient data, technical capacity, and resources to adapt or build them.13 A dearth of data and tools like these is a barrier to consistently conduct-ing field-scale targeting. When tools and data are not readily available to support targeting efforts, the costs necessary to build this capacity could outweigh the cost efficiencies that targeting is designed to achieve (Weinberg and Claassen 2006).

Resource-Intensive Nature of Water Quality MonitoringData from water quality monitor-ing efforts underpin many of the tools and models that can be used to develop targeting priorities or assess field-level impacts. In addition, water quality monitoring can help to assess the effectiveness of target-ing approaches by measuring water quality before and after targeting efforts are in place. Monitoring to assess progress could be conducted at various geographic scales such as at the edge of a field, in a stream, or at a watershed outlet.

However, monitoring is technically challenging, both labor and cost

intensive, and the protocols to estab-lish a reliable data set and produce meaningful analysis are considered to be largely still in development.14 As a result, meaningful data on pollutant loads and hydrology are not available for every small water-shed or even major basin in the country. Few producers implement-ing conservation practices who have the opportunity to do so conduct monitoring due to the challenges listed above. According to the leaders of one MRBI project, none of the producers in their project could be persuaded to install an edge-of-field (EOF) monitoring station to assess their progress. The producers found monitoring to be too expensive, and without any tangible benefit to the landowner, there was no incentive to do it.15 Another MRBI project was conducting some water quality monitoring, but not in as many locations as the project leader had hoped, noting that costs to install monitoring sites were around $1,000 per acre.16 These challenges result in a dearth of monitoring information, hindering the ability to assess the results of targeting efforts.

Even if monitoring is possible, the diversity of pollutant sources and controls, lag times, and the poten-tial for monitoring errors make it difficult to assign results to a specific conservation effort (Abdalla et al. 2007; Willamette Partnership et al. 2012). For example, many Rural Clean Water Program projects could not determine the effectiveness of their efforts via monitoring due to the effects of other pollutant sources (Gale et al. 1993).

Data Limitations Due to Farm Data Confidentiality

The watershed planning process—from targeting at the field scale to assessing in-stream water quality progress—requires spatially explicit knowledge of farm fields and conser-vation practices. Unfortunately, section 1619 of the 2008 farm bill17 prohibits the disclosure of individual farm information, thereby potentially preventing this crucial field-scale data from being accessible to project planners. For targeted watershed projects to be effectively designed and efficiently implemented, planners need to know the watershed land use, how it’s being managed, and what conservation practices are already on the ground in order to know which conservation practices are needed where so as to improve water quality in the waterbody of concern. Moreover, in order to assess the water quality improvements that are achieved as a result of conserva-tion practices, conservation practice implementation and maintenance must be tracked over time just as water quality must be monitored (Osmond et al. 2012). This important feedback loop is critical for determin-ing where to target and how success-ful targeted practices and programs are at improving water quality.

For targeted watershed projects to be effectively designed and efficiently implemented, planners need to know the watershed land use, how it’s being managed, and what conservation practices are already on the ground in order to know which conservation practices are needed where so as to improve water quality in the waterbody of concern.



To overcome the scientific and technical barriers to targeting, more and better data and tools are needed. Because this need requires a large investment in time and money, it is also important to make better use of the data and tools that are currently available.

Better employ already available tools and performance metrics. Existing metrics and tools are not currently used to the fullest extent possible (Walter et al. 2007). Until sophisticated tools are devel-oped for all high-priority regions, targeting program managers should proceed using the best available science to identify acres and practices that are likely to achieve the most benefits per dollar spent. Until water quality improvements can be better quantified, interim metrics—such as in-field corn stalk nitrate tests, the pre-sidedress nitrogen test (PSNT), and phosphorus site indices (PSI) that are available through the land grant university extension system and the soil and water con-servation districts (SWCDs)—can at least be used to assess changes in nutrient losses in fields. The water quality index for agricultural runoff (WQIag) developed by USDA is a good example of using the best available informa-tion to at least qualitatively assess the water quality benefits of conservation practices. The tool can use site-specific information to as-sess how beneficial conservation practices are at improving field-scale water quality, using an ordinal scale from 0 to 10 (Environmental Leader 2013). Even if not ideal, existing data and tools like these can still be useful in providing the best available assessment of field-level nutrient and sediment data before and after conservation practices to capture the likely benefits of targeted efforts.

Transfer tools. As mentioned above, there are a variety of tools in use around the country, such as NTT, which have good frameworks and methods in place. USDA, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and others who use these tools can take advantage of these existing frameworks to plan targeting efforts and assess progress, and bring these tools to their regions. By

adapting what is already available, costs can be saved on the development of the tool’s methodology. Compared to developing a tool from scratch, fewer investments would be necessary to collect data, populate the tool with the necessary site-specific information, and to perform calibration and validation. Better collaboration among conservation stakeholders would help to introduce and adapt the best tools to other areas.

Advance modeling capabilities. Models and tools are useful mechanisms for estimating pollution loads without the need for labor- and resource-intensive water quality monitoring on every conservation site. They hold great promise for streamlining targeting work by offering automated evaluation and calculation capabilities. Although developing and calibrating models requires significant up-front investment, once developed, their utility may pay off with widespread use. Program managers and universities should continue to thoughtfully develop new models when necessary, aiming to strike a balance between making use of what is already available and investing in better information and capabilities.

Explore the use of agroecoregions. Due to the high costs involved with identifying the most suitable acres for benefit-cost targeting, USDA and universities could identify agroecoregions—homogeneous geographic areas with similar soil, climate, and land use—in order to more efficiently treat areas with similar natural resource concerns using uniform conservation practices (Hatch et al. 2001). For example, the University of Minnesota identified agroecoregions in the Minnesota River basin for the purpose of targeting conservation efforts in subregions of the watershed. Minnesota’s nitrogen reduction planning tool uses agroecoregions to streamline the estimation of nitrogen loadings and conservation practice costs across homogenous areas, helping to efficiently assess conservation practice implementation efforts that will achieve the greatest amount

of nitrogen reduction per dollar spent (Lazarus et al. 2013).

Share data and information. USDA, other federal and state agencies, SWCDs, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and watershed groups should all make a greater effort to work more effectively together. Increasing collaboration allows all targeting actors to share data, information, and lessons learned. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy recommended the establishment of a common comprehensive database with information related to landscape- and field-scale targeting. The database could include information on who the various targeting actors are, what they are doing, and what data have been collected and analyzed. This kind of database would be very useful for sharing otherwise inaccessible data, identifying what still needs to be done, and for generally advancing the state of knowledge that is necessary for targeting to be successful (McKinney et al. 2010).

Revise and clarify data confidential-ity requirements. The prohibitions on data disclosure in section 1619 of the 2008 farm bill could potentially hinder the ability of targeted project planners to assess the landscape, identify gaps in conservation, and assess progress if this language remains in future farm bills. More clarity is needed on these restrictions. Congress should consider how non-identifying private information could be selectively shared in order to inform target-ing decisions while protecting the privacy of agricultural producers. An Endangered Species Act pilot program for trading warbler habitat credits, called the Credit Recovery System, alleviated landowner concerns about privacy. Rather than having the federal govern-ment gather information about privately owned land to assess credit generation potential, a private program administrator gained access to the land through confidentiality agreements with the landowners. These confidentiality agreements appeased landowners, advancing warbler habitat conservation efforts across large areas of privately owned land (Loyola 2013).

OPTIONS FOR OVERCOMING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL BARRIERS

14 |

Social and Political BarriersThe decision to target federal conservation efforts is often fraught with social and political obstacles. Even if there are data and tools available to support geographic and benefit-cost targeting, the feasi-bility of implementing a targeted approach also depends on gaining buy-in from a variety of agricultural and environmental stakeholders as well as from farmers and rural landowners. One interviewee, in fact, identified politics as a primary barrier to targeting.18 Table 2 highlights the social and political barriers behind targeting and lists some options for overcoming these barriers. This section will discuss these challenges to gaining social and political support to target federal conservation funds. Follow-ing this section, we present more detailed descriptions of options for overcoming these barriers.

Congressional Disagreement over Funding Allocation Due to Allegiances to Constituents

Due to the historical nature of conservation programs, politicians, states, conservation districts, and producers continue to expect a broad distribution of funding (Scarlett 2011). However, the very nature of geographic targeting means dedicat-ing a portion of the conservation budget to be spent solely in priority areas. This concentration on high priority areas therefore favors some areas and producers over others. Regions and producers in high prior-ity areas will have increased access to conservation funds, and regions and producers outside of high prior-ity areas will have reduced access to conservation funds.

WRI’s national targeting model-ing study illustrated that if USDA’s conservation program budget for

financial and technical assistance were geographically targeted to cropland acres that were the most cost effective at reducing nitrogen runoff at the edge of a field, the lower Mississippi River region, for example, would be a critical area to target (Perez et al. 2014). The decision to target federal conserva-tion funds is highly political and thus challenging.

Congress is perceived to be a major obstacle to better targeting of federal conservation funds.19 Elected officials have duties to represent and advocate on behalf of the constitu-ents in their state or congressional district, while also representing the general American public for the good of the entire nation. But given finite financial resources, difficult decisions must be made to prioritize areas with the greatest potential for maximizing environmental benefits per dollar spent. Choosing to target

BARRIERS

Options for Overcoming Barriers

Allegiances to Constituents

Competing Public and Stakeholder Interests

Producer Inequities

Develop an educational campaign

Set aside portion of funds for geographic targeting

Focus on costs and benefits

Require minimum environmental stewardship

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS

TABL

E 2



conservation funds to particular areas is arguably good for the nation, as a whole, because the most serious water quality issues can be priori-tized and addressed cost effectively. But because this approach is likely to distribute financial resources unevenly, members of Congress whose state or district is outside of the targeted areas may be unwill-ing to support geographic targeting programs that address national or regional priorities instead of their constituent interests.20

For example, in a 2009 House Agriculture subcommittee hearing on the implementation of the 2008 farm bill, members of Congress challenged NRCS on the agency’s creation of the MRBI because they perceived it as “carving out” conser-vation funds for producers in desig-nated priority watersheds. These representatives expressed concern that the targeting initiative would prevent the farmers in their districts from receiving their “fair share” of conservation funds and that the conservation budget should instead

be allocated proportionately across the country.21 Despite MRBI and the other Landscape Conservation Initiatives being created based on research by USDA’s CEAP program, which demonstrated that target-ing was the most effective way to accelerate more cost-effective conservation outcomes, political challenges temporarily threatened the implementation of science- based decisions that maximize the value of taxpayer funds.

Delays in Decision Making Due to Competing Public and Stakeholder Interests

In addition to political challenges within the government due to the competing interests of congressio-nal districts, the various interests of stakeholder groups also compli-cate the ability to objectively target high-priority areas. Conservation biologists and resource economists have observed the complexity of balancing the demands of numer-ous interest groups that are affected by conservation programs and have

a stake in their efforts: farmers and rural landowners, environmentalists, and taxpayers. Studies suggest that some farmers and rural landown-ers may be primarily interested in conservation that comes with minimal cost and generates immedi-ate benefits for their farm and property. Environmentalists may be most interested in targeting that results in the greatest environmental improvement at all spatial scales, even if that takes decades and signifi-cant amounts of money. Taxpayers may prefer conservation strategies that optimize both environmental benefits and cost effectiveness (see Figure 4) (Hatch et al. 2001; Wu et al. 2001). Addressing all of these interests is both technically and socially challenging. Competing priorities among stakeholder groups and the public can slow or halt the establishment, design, and imple-mentation of a targeting program.

The Platte River basin in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming is in an arid region of the country and serves as part of a main North-South

DIFFERING STAKEHOLDER OPINIONS ON HOW TO SPEND TARGETED CONSERVATION FUNDS

FARMER

ENVIRONMENTALIST

TAXPAYER

FIG

UR

E 4

Funds should achieve immediate on-farm benefits at minimal cost

Funds should achieve environmental benefits at various geographic scales, over long time period

Funds should maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent

16 |

corridor for migratory birds. It faces challenges over water use and alloca-tions, as well as with endangered species management. In 1997, after several years of negotiations, the Platte River Cooperate Agreement was signed by Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and the U.S. Department of Interior to collaboratively manage the multistate river basin to support the basin’s various water users and protect endangered species. Partners under this agreement spent the next decade writing a Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan that balanced the needs of the environ-ment and the endangered species as well as the competing interests of the states, federal government, and individual water users. This example illustrates the time and collaborative effort involved in managing water-sheds to accomplish environmental

and natural resource goals that meet the expectations of competing public and stakeholder interests (National Research Council 2013).

Producer Tensions About Potential Inequities

Several concerns about geographic and benefit-cost targeting pertain to perceptions of inequality between different kinds of farm produc-ers. For example, tensions about geographic targeting exist between producers within targeted priority areas and producers in non-priority areas (see Figure 5). Benefit-cost targeting can create tensions between “good actors” and “bad actors” (see Figure 5). Finally, as bidding down has been used in the past, Box 1 discusses how its use—coupled with benefit-cost

targeting—may create tensions between large or wealthy producers and small or low-income producers.

As mentioned above, under geographic targeting, producers outside of priority areas would be at a disadvantage for receiving some conservation funds. The ramifications of this perceived geographic discrimination include possible delay of conservation activities. Watershed project leaders in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative in Pennsylvania suggested that when producers in the non-priority areas see that programs are focusing elsewhere, they may wait to implement any additional practices until programs focus on their geographic area in order to take advantage of potential future financial incentives that are not

GeographicallyTargeted Funds

Benefit-CostTargeted Funds

TARGETING CREATES ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES DEPENDING ON TYPE OF PRODUCER

FIG

UR

E 5

PRIORITY AREA

PRODUCER

NON PRIORITY

AREA PRODUCER

BAD ACTOR

GOOD ACTORLi

kelih

ood

of R

ecei

ving

Tar

gete

d Fu

nds

Low

High



currently available to them.22 Regional inequity created by targeting programs could inadvertently slow the adoption of conservation practices in non- targeted areas.

Benefit-cost targeting can create challenges due to the possibility of favoring “bad actors” versus “good actors.” Producers who are known by conservation field staff to have persistent environmental problems on their farms23 may actually be at an advantage for receiving conservation funds over the “good actors.” The so-called “bad actors” are by defini-tion those who do not have a history of adopting many conservation practices and therefore their farms may be able to generate greater marginal benefits per dollar spent. Conversely, there may be very few additional environmental gains to

be had by implementing additional conservation practices on a farm that already has conservation measures in place. For example, planting a one-acre buffer may reduce upland nitrogen runoff by 40 percent and cost $1,000. One producer with minimal conservation practices on his farm may apply for conservation payments to install a buffer for treat-ing his farm’s nitrogen load of 30 pounds per acre, whereas a second producer with many conservation practices already being used may apply for funds to treat his remain-ing nitrogen load of only 10 pounds per acre. Program administrators, favoring cost effectiveness and/or maximizing environmental benefits, would select the first producer because more nitrogen would be reduced per dollar spent. Under benefit-cost targeting, the “bad actors” would have an advantage.

While this decision may in fact maximize taxpayer investment in conservation, it can be viewed as inequitable. The “good actors” may believe that their previous efforts to be environmental stewards are just as worthy of receiving conservation payments as producers who are only now installing conservation practices in response to the incentives being offered. And similarly to producers outside of priority regions, produc-ers who have been practicing good conservation, or would be in the near future, may decide not to continue paying for conservation practices out of their own pocket and instead delay additional efforts, or even renege on previous efforts, so that they can be better positioned to apply for funding at a later time (Weinberg and Claassen 2006).

Bidding down was an attempt to maximize cost effectiveness from 1996 to 2002. EQIP applicants were encouraged to bid for program payments and identify the resource concerns that would be addressed with those payments. During this time, structural practices (e.g., forest buffers) with a maximum cost-share rate of 75 percent were funded at an average rate of only 35 percent. Management practices (e.g., conservation tillage) with a maximum cost-share rate of 100 percent were funded at an average rate of 43 percent. A modeling exercise suggested that allowing bidding could cut

program costs in half without sacrificing environmental benefits (Johansson 2006).

However, concerns were raised that bidding down discriminates against small, cash-strapped farmers who cannot afford to offer low bids (Batie 1998). Large farming operations likely have more technical know-how and financial resources than smaller farms. In addition, they may be able to achieve greater economies of scale in the nutrient or sediment reductions they achieve. As a result, under bidding down, producers with larger, wealthier operations could have lower conservation practice installation and maintenance costs—

and could be technically capable of demonstrating this fact—than producers who farm smaller, less prosperous operations, thus creating issues of unfairness (Johansson 2006).

After only five years of practice, members of Congress passed a new farm bill in 2002 that eliminated the bidding provision in EQIP due in part to opposition from farmers and their state and trade representatives. Despite bidding down’s promise at being able to award conservation payments more cost effectively than conventional approaches, the equity challenges were insurmountable at the time.

BIDDING DOWN HAS BEEN USED TO MAXIMIZE COST EFFECTIVENESS BUT IS CHALLENGED BY ISSUES OF INEQUITYBO

X 1

18 |

Overcoming social and political barriers is challenging but can be achieved by restruc-turing programs rather than investing in expensive data collection and tool develop-ment as is required to address scientific and technical barriers. If the political climate is amenable, these barriers may be surmount-able, and indeed, some programmatic improvements have already been made.

Develop an educational campaign to change perceptions. In order to gain public, stakeholder, and political support for targeting efforts, more education on the environmental benefits and fiscal necessity of targeting is necessary. Environmental and agricultural organizations should increase their targeting outreach efforts to better communicate that federal conservation funds are not entitlements and do not all need to be broadly distributed. Educational information should discuss federal budget limits and the importance of using federal funds efficiently to gain the greatest returns on taxpayer investments.

Set aside a portion of funds for geographic targeting. Given the widespread expectation that funding should be broadly available, it is important that a balance be struck between making conservation funds available for request by any producer and targeting funds that only producers in specific areas can request. Conservation programs can set aside a portion of their total funds to be targeted geographically, with the rest of the funds available to be spent in other areas. NRCS, by way of the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI),

sets aside 6 percent of the budget from three major working lands programs to be used for its Landscape Conservation Initiatives.24 While this is a step in the right direction, targeted programs could be much more effective if they received a greater share of the conservation funding budget. Previous analyses have called for 30 to 40 percent of conservation program funding to be used in targeted watershed projects to clean up impaired waterbodies (EWG 2009; SWCS and EDF 2007). A complementary educational campaign could help to encourage producers to participate in targeted watershed projects. Such a campaign could lower resistance to targeting in general, and increase political support for the distribution of a greater proportion of funds going toward targeting efforts.

Focus on costs and benefits. Whether or not money is targeted geographically, conservation programs can nevertheless aim to spend money more effectively by using quantitative environmental benefit estimations combined with cost information. WRI’s national modeling study suggests that under benefit-cost targeting, conservation programs could achieve four to nine times the environmental benefits (i.e.,nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction) as compared to the current approach to program spending (Perez et al. 2014). Under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, conservation efforts should aim to “maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended,” which would signal fiscal responsibility and environmental accountability to taxpayers. Benefit-cost targeting without the 1996 farm

bill’s bidding down component would create a more even playing field for small-scale and large-scale producers because practice costs are standard. Producers able to demonstrate the greatest benefits would be at an advantage, rather than those who are able to maximize benefits while simultaneously minimizing costs. In addition, NRCS can prioritize cost-effective conservation practices such as nutrient management and conservation tillage, which the RCWP found produced the greatest improvement in water quality per dollar spent (Gale et al. 1993).

Require minimum environmental stewardship. Targeting for cost effectiveness (i.e., maximizing benefits per dollar spent) means that “bad actors,” by definition, are prioritized because they generate greater nutrient or sediment reductions per dollar spent than “good actors.” A sense of inequity can arise and discourage good actors. NRCS could take steps to mitigate this sense of inequity and the potential for conservation backsliding. One mechanism for doing so could be a requirement that producers meet an eligibility standard—in the form of a maximum pollutant load limit or a minimum set of standard practices—in order to receive targeted conservation funds. For example, producers could be required to have an implemented certified nutrient management plan before they are eligible to receive cost-share payments. As with other options explored in this paper, this option may address one barrier (equity) while undermining another (economic efficiency), so these tradeoffs should be carefully weighed.

OPTIONS FOR OVERCOMING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS



Institutional and Implementation BarriersEven if the necessary data and tools were available and all politicians and conservation stakeholders supported the approach, there may still be institutional barriers at the agency and local office level that hinder the implementation of targeting programs. For example, once federal targeting programs are put in place by Congress, USDA must imple-ment these programs to the best of its ability. With the agency’s history of providing support to individual producers to address farm-specific resource concerns, targeting intro-duces a new way of managing conservation. Targeting may also require additional resources and tools, as well as more local staff to recruit participants in priority areas or whose farms have high potential

for generating nutrient reductions at a minimal cost. Table 3 highlights the types of institutional and imple-mentation barriers to targeting and the potential solutions for overcom-ing them. These barriers can get in the way of effectively and efficiently carrying out even the best-designed targeting programs. The main challenges of this final stage of executing a targeting program will be addressed in this section, followed by options for overcoming these barriers. Growing Pains From an Institutional Culture Shift

One commonly repeated description of conservation staff in the state field offices is that they are eager to help any producer who “walks through the door.” This narrative reflects two concepts.

First, conservation programs are voluntary; participants in the program are not required to partici-pate. Second, conservation funds are often awarded to producers who seek out NRCS and SWCD staff in search of technical and financial assistance to address their individual farm’s resource concerns.

An example from an MRBI project leader from a conservation district in Minnesota illustrates how imple-menting targeted watershed projects can conflict with institutional culture. Conservation field staff are pleased when a producer steps forward voluntarily to take action on his farm, but if the producer is seeking funds for programs that are targeted outside of his geographic area, conservation staff find it diffi-cult to turn such producers away.25

BARRIERS

Options for Overcoming Barriers Institutional Culture Institutional Capacity

and OrganizationRecruiting the Right

Participants

Strengthen leadership and oversight

Create a collaborative network

Streamline conservation implementation

Select recruiters carefully

Involve producers and local community

Use effective mechanisms to commu-nicate to and educate producers

INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS

TABL

E 3

20 |

Turning down applicants who apply for targeted funds because the applicants’ proposed conser-vation efforts are not as critical as others to achieve landscape-scale water quality improve-ments can be a hard decision to make and to communicate.

Successful targeting requires more proactive recruitment of participants. Rather than waiting to see who walks in the door, targeting programs should conduct outreach efforts to encourage producers who farm in high-priority areas and who contribute signifi-cantly to water quality problems to become project collaborators. However, this approach to gaining participation requires significant tact and professionalism to avoid making produc-ers feel shamed for being poor stewards of their land—and thereby making these producers resist solutions rather than embrace them. Recruiting the producers whose land is contrib-uting excess pollution is not only challenging professionally but also personally. Many conservation staff and the producers in their districts may be neighbors who attend the same place of worship and whose children attend the same school.26

Inadequate Institutional Capacity and Organization

Being more proactive about seeking out the priority producers is challenging not only culturally

for NRCS and SWCD staff, but also because of limited staff capacity. At a time when NRCS is moving toward more targeted conserva-tion programs, it is also losing some necessary resources to effec-tively execute these programs. For example, over the years, NRCS has experienced a significant loss of its watershed planners, individuals with critical expertise on designing and implementing targeted watershed projects.27 In addition, funding for

program management has recently declined, hindering NRCS’s ability to reach out to potential program participants and project partners (Scarlett 2011). These kinds of staff-ing and funding challenges limit the agency’s ability to effectively design, run, monitor, and evaluate targeted conversation programs.

These institutional capacity issues exacerbate problems created by a lack of coordination and oversight

between the rulemakers (i.e., Congress) and the implementers (i.e., NRCS). Federal program budgets and objectives may be set statuto-rily, sometimes leaving the agencies receiving the funding to determine how to prioritize multiple objectives (e.g., cost-effectively reducing nutri-ent pollution, expanding wildlife habitat) and what targeting crite-ria—such as the presence of particu-lar pollutant sources, or the use of specific conservation practices—

should be used when select-ing where and to whom funds should be awarded to achieve these objec-tives (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 2011; Wu et al. 2001). If an agency does not have personnel with the skills and expertise to prioritize and develop criteria, the program, although created with the best intentions, may suffer as a result.

Similarly, targeting requires not only clear programmatic objectives and criteria for prioritizing conservation efforts in order to meet the objectives; it also requires an

institutional shift from only tracking numbers of contracts signed to also tracking water quality improvements achieved. This agency shift toward demonstrating greater accountability through tracking actual environmen-tal outcomes not only requires new skills and resources to monitor and evaluate these outcomes, but it also means that there must be a signifi-cant adjustment in the mindset of staff who may not be comfortable or familiar with this new approach.28

Targeting requires an institutional shift from only

tracking numbers of contracts signed to also tracking

water quality improvements achieved.



Lack of Interest From the Right Participants in the Right Areas

Program design can only go so far in ensuring an effective targeting program. Farm producers and rural landowners must participate in the program in order to achieve results. Once the information is available to inform where to implement conser-vation and of what type, and target-ing programs are designed with this information in mind, achieving buy-in from producers in the selected high priority areas is the next target-ing challenge.29

Generally, federal conservation programs experience more demand for funds than the available supply, but when targeting programs only serve limited areas, the pool of producers shrinks, and some produc-ers simply cannot be attracted into the program.30 Producers may not be interested in participating for various reasons—because they would be admitting that their farms are pollut-ing, because they believe the conser-vation practices will decrease their yield or cost too much to implement, or because they do not wish to partic-ipate in a government program. One MRBI project leader cited the cost to install conservation practices as a main reason for why producers did not participate, even with program incentives in place.31 Another MRBI project partner reported that in the face of high commodity prices, producers are not willing to sacri-fice yields, and they believed yields would suffer if they were to switch from conventional tillage to no-till practices. Furthermore, this project partner believed that large, wealthy producers—in her MRBI project watershed—were more interested

in increasing profits and acquir-ing more land than implementing conservation practices.32

A preliminary review of MRBI by the Environmental Working Group confirmed that when trying to target individual producers, project leaders found recruitment to be difficult. In some instances, conservation staff had to conduct several on-site visits in order to recruit producers to join the program. In fact, one MRBI project partner reported that, as of one year into the project, he and his team had been unable to success-fully recruit a single producer. He explained that because the targeted area was smaller than the jurisdic-tion in which his team normally works, the pool of landowners the team was trying to reach was limited. Despite outreach efforts to all landowners in the targeted area, only a few expressed interest, and none ultimately signed up. As a result, the project partner now must expand the initial area that was targeted for conservation. The cost of this level of personalized effort required to recruit producers in priority areas is significant and could make these activities prohibitive on a large scale (Lorenzen 2012).

Recruitment can also be challenging because of the geographic distance between the waterbodies of concern in a targeting watershed project and the location of the farm being encouraged to participate. Tradition-ally, federal conservation programs were designed to address resource concerns on a farm-by-farm basis. However, geographic targeting programs may be designed around landscape-scale water quality goals

that aim to restore entire water-bodies. While these objectives are admirable, a producer in Illinois may not be interested in implement-ing conservation for the benefit of the Gulf of Mexico or even his own subwatershed in Illinois.

Some MRBI project partners said that it was difficult to engage produc-ers in efforts to improve their water-shed’s water quality when their local water was safe to drink, and when producers did not understand the long-term benefits for their water-shed.33 As a result, during outreach events to announce the availability of these new conservation funds, partners were reluctant to discuss the overall goals of MRBI or of the local watershed project. Project partners expressed a belief that since producers were primarily interested in their bottom line, talking about downstream water quality concerns would not win over producers.34 Likewise, discussing specific goals of the project, which may include quantitative targets for pollution reduction, was also commonly avoided out of concern that produc-ers would perceive their efforts to be part of an accounting system.35 The inability to discuss the overall targeting program’s goals with the producers who would be implement-ing conservation practices on the ground in order to achieve those goals creates a significant barrier to recruiting the right participants to meet the program’s objectives.

22 |

Ultimately, targeting programs will not be effective unless the right landowners in the right places implement the right kinds and amounts of practices in sufficient concentration so that pollution loads to impaired water bodies are adequately reduced. Overcoming these institutional and implementation barriers will ensure that well-designed targeting efforts are as effective on the ground as they are on paper.

Strengthen targeting program leadership and oversight. Strong agency leaders who believe in the targeted approach to conservation can help instill this attitude in the rest of the staff and start to shift the culture toward being results-oriented rather than solely contract-oriented.36 They can also help to develop institutional capacity by ensuring that the program is staffed appropriately and has the necessary skills and tools to implement the program. In addition, strong leaders can provide the necessary oversight to ensure the targeting program is designed and implemented to maximize environmental effectiveness with minimal costs.

Create a collaborative network of experts and funders. Institutional capacity at the federal, state, and local level can be strengthened by engaging external resources (McKinney et. al 2010). Creating a network of experts and practitioners who can share lessons learned from their respective targeting efforts, join forces to advocate changes in policies that would catalyze targeting, and combine resources to help realize shared visions would greatly expand the abilities of any one agency or organization. USDA resources could be leveraged, for example, by requiring cost-share from project partners—for example, state water quality agencies funded by state taxpayers, environmental groups funded

by charitable foundations, or farm trade associations funded by members—as is the case for MRBI, and tapping into the monitoring capabilities and infrastruc-ture of USGS. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Indiana, with funding from EPA’s Nonpoint Source Control Program, was very successful in encouraging landowners to collectively plant more than 70 acres of riparian forest buffers to lower river water temperatures, increase nutrient filtration, and improve streambank stability. EPA recognized not only TNC’s leadership on the ground as a critical factor in the suc-cess of the project, but also their efforts to share their lessons learned, which resulted in additional tree planting activities by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations (US EPA 2002).

Streamline conservation implementation for agency staff. The increased demand for technical assistance and the necessity to be more proactive to recruit priority producers can also be addressed with the help of new tools. USDA is developing the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative (CDSI) to simplify the delivery of conservation technical assistance, ensure it is based in sound science, expedite administrative processes, and better track environmental outcomes, among other things. The goal of the initiative is to enable staff to spend more time implementing conservation in the field rather than doing paperwork in the office (White 2011). USDA should continue to invest in CDSI and similar tools that hold great potential for increasing its technical assistance capacity, which is critical for targeting programs to be successful. In addition, USDA should consider adding a cost component to CDSI, which would provide staff with the capability to conduct benefit-cost targeting.

Select recruiters carefully. A common theme emerged regarding targeted projects that were successful in recruiting participants: the individuals or organization in charge had good rapport within the agricultural community and effective marketing skills. For producers to agree to participate in any government program, they must be comfortable with the individual who is engaging them. For example, an MRBI project in Minnesota noted that because the Iowa Soybean Association—which has established good relationships with producers through its mission of “expanding opportunities and delivering results for Iowa soybean farmers”—spearheaded the project rather than a government agency, more producers and stakeholders were willing to participate (Iowa Soybean Association 2014).

Involve producers and local community. In order for producers and stakeholders to get behind a targeting project in their community, they should be involved in the project and watershed planning efforts from the beginning. Empowering producers and other community members to help make the decisions on the questions regarding where, what, how, and who to target, not just for the benefit of the rural environment but also for the community’s economic development, will allow them to feel ownership over the conservation efforts and therefore be more engaged and willing to participate (Gale et al. 1993; Reed 2008; SWCS and EDF 2007). Iowa State University’s Extension Service developed watershed projects in northeast Iowa with “Watershed Councils” comprised of farmers who live within the same watershed and who work together on water quality improvement goals developed by the council members themselves. About 90 percent of project participants

OPTIONS FOR OVERCOMING INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS



CONCLUSIONDespite the potential benefits of targeting conservation funding, numerous barriers prevent USDA from applying this approach to cost-effectively achieve stronger, landscape-scale environmental outcomes. Data and technical limita-tions make it challenging to know where and how to target individual fields in order to minimize the cost of achieving landscape-scale water quality improvements. Social and political barriers make it difficult to focus funding in targeted areas because of competing constituent interests in Congress, competing stakeholder interests, and inequi-ties between producers and regions. Institutional and implementation barriers can obstruct even the most well-designed targeting programs from achieving on-the-ground results due to clashes in culture, shortages of trained staff and budgets, and challenges in recruiting producers to participate.

Fortunately, these barriers are surmountable. USDA is already using several solutions, such as CDSI to increase its technical assistance capacity.

Other options for increasing and improving targeting efforts that may be relatively easy to adopt in the near future and require minimal invest-ments, include the following:

To address technical and scien-tific barriers, USDA, universities, nongovernmental organiza-tions, state agencies, and others involved in agricultural conserva-tion efforts could increase and

improve collaboration on sharing targeting best practices and data on conservation practice effec-tiveness and costs, and adapting available tools.

To address social and political barriers of geographic target-ing, conservation programs can aim to “maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended” so that benefit-cost targeting can ensure cost effectiveness.

To address institutional and implementation barriers, leaders of targeting projects could thoughtfully select recruiters who are trusted by local producers to spearhead and help effectively market the projects and enlist the right producers in the right places to implement the right practices to achieve the intended landscape-scale goals.

Other solutions, such as develop-ing more sophisticated tools to locate priority areas and sources of pollutants, may require years and additional money. The recom-mendations presented in this paper represent some of the options for consideration. Most will come with their own set of challenges, which must be weighed against the benefits that could be achieved through better targeting. Adoption of these recom-mendations would help USDA, other government agencies, and nongov-ernmental organizations and univer-sities to overcome these barriers and use targeted conservation funding to maximize the environmental benefits achieved with federal funds.

reported that the watershed projects encouraged changes in their production management, benefited the environment, and increased their profits. Moreover, these environmental benefits were measurable through in-field nutrient diagnostic tests and water quality monitoring (Ingels and Rodecap 2009). This model could be adopted in high-priority areas that lack producer participation.

Use effective communication and education techniques to engage producers. While USDA should continue to strive for large-scale landscape and watershed restoration through its agricultural conservation programs, it is important that when these programs are discussed with producers efforts should be made to tie desired conservation actions to local concerns. In addition, a Resources for the Future study on conservation behavior suggests that education alone has been deemed relatively ineffective at changing environmental behavior. To increase the likelihood of success, the study suggests offering public recognition as an incentive, discussing issues in terms of the producer’s potential losses due to inaction rather than benefits due to action, and sharing how the producer’s community is also engaging in the desired actions (Scarlett et al. 2013). Indeed, some of the most successful MRBI projects were those that met with producers to discuss how MRBI efforts would affect their bottom line, improve the health of their livestock, make them better neighbors, and impact their farming operations for the better. In these cases, MRBI was successfully used as a framework to discuss local concerns and interests and then to engage priority producers accordingly.37

24 |

1. Wilson, Meghan. Personal communication. December 2, 2013.

2. Tim Male. Personal communication. June 23, 2011.

3. Working lands programs provide assistance to address natural resource concerns while keeping private agricultural land in production. Land retirement programs provide payments to landowners for achieving environmental benefits by adopting temporary changes in management or land use. Easement programs provide payments to landowners who permanently take land out of production.

4. According to U.S. EPA, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a “calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.”

5. Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, H.R. 2419, Public Law 110-246, 110th Congress, 2nd sess. (May 22, 2008).

6. Wilson, Meghan. Personal communication. December 2, 2013.

7. Some of the recommendations from the Rural Clean Water Program include assigning a committee of federal agencies to carry out the main objectives of future nonpoint source programs, prioritizing projects with the highest likelihood for addressing a water quality impairment, and creating education programs for farmers.

8. Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, H.R. 2854, 104th Congress. (1996).

9. Ferd Hoefner. Personal communication. July 5, 2011.

10. Agricultural Act of 2014. H.R. 2642, 113th Congress, 2nd sess. (2014).

11. The hydrologic unit code (HUC) is a hierarchical classification system for watersheds based on size. A four-digit HUC watershed averages about 15,800 square miles.

12. NTT is an interface for the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender model, which was developed by Texas A&M University.

13. Clayton Ogg. Personal communication. June 23, 2011.

14. Ryan Stockwell. Personal communication. June 22, 2011.

15. Kate Timmerman and Joe Wagner. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.

16. Joe Ahnefeld, Dave Johnson, Jesse Linscott, and Kelbi Freeze. Personal communication. May 24, 2012.





21. Hearing to Review the Implementation of the Conservation Title of the 2008 Farm Bill before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture. House of Representatives, 111th Congress. October 7, 2009.

22. David Wise and Matt Ehrhart. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.

23. These producers may not have acted in the past due to disinterest or a lack of the necessary financial resources to address the problems on their land.


25. Bev Nordby. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.


27. Keith Admire. Personal communication. June 2013.




31. Matt Williams. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.

32. Bev Nordby. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.

33. Pam Horwitz, Jill Kostel, and Jeff Boeckler. Personal communication. May 24, 2012.

34. Seth Coffman. Personal communication. June 1, 2012.

35. Seth Coffman. Personal communication. June 1, 2012.

36. Insights authors learned at the Mississippi River Basin Initiative discussion hosted by the McKnight Foundation. Minneapolis, Minnesota. June 2, 2011.

37. Seth Coffman. Personal communication.June 1, 2012. Bev Nordby. Personal communication. May 18, 2012.

ENDNOTES



REFERENCESAbdalla, C., T. Borisova, D. Parker, and K. Saacke Blunk. 2007. “Water Quality Credit Trading and Agriculture: Recognizing the Challenges.” Choices 22(2): 117–124. Available at: <http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2007-2/ grabbag/2007-2-06.pdf>.

Batie, Sandra. 1998. “Green Payments as Foreshadowed by EQIP.” Paper prepared for the American Farmland Trust Conference, July 23–24, 1998, Sycamore, Illinois. Center for Agriculture in the Environment. CAE/WP98-8. Available at: <http://aftresearch.org/research/resource/publications/wp/wp98-8.html>.

Cain, C., and S. Lovejoy. 2004. “History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs.” Choices Magazine. Available at: <http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/policy/2004-4-09.htm>.

Carey, J. 2013. “Precision Conservation.” Conservation Magazine, September 9, 2013. Available at: <http://conservationmagazine.org/2013/09/precision-conservation/>.

Environmental Leader. 2013. “USDA Launches Agricultural Water Quality Tool.” May 8, 2013. Available at: <http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/05/08/usda-launches-agricultural-water-quality-tool/>.

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2009. “Seizing a Watershed Moment: Making EQIP Work for Water Quality in 10 Mississippi River Border States.” Environmental Working Group.

Feng, H., P. Gassman, L. Kurkalova, S. Secchi, and C. Kling. 2004. “Targeting Efficiency in the Conservation Security Program.” Iowa Ag Review Online 10(1). Resource and Environmental Policy Division. Available at: <http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_04/article2.aspx>.

Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program. EPA-841-R-93-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency.

Hall, L., T. Christensen, J. Bramblett, S. Hopkins, and J. Hubbert. 2012. “USDA’s National Water Quality Initiative: A Watershed Academy Web-cast.” July 10, 2012. Presented on the U.S. Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency’s Watershed Acad-emy webcast. Available at: <http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/wacademy/upload/2012_07_10-slides.pdf>.

Hansen, L., and D. Hellerstein. 2006. Better Tar-geting, Better Outcomes. Conservation Program Design. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available at: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB2/EB2.pdf>.

Hatch, L. K., A. Mallawatantri, D. Wheeler, A. Gleason, D. Mulla, J. Perry, K. W. Easter, R. Smith, L. Gerlach, and P. Brezonik. 2001. “Land Management at the Major Watershed—agro-ecoregion Intersection.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56 (1): 44 –51.

Ingels, C., and J. Rodecap. 2009. “Developing and Implementing Cost-effective, Performance-based Incentives in NE Iowa Watersheds.” Iowa State University, University Extension. Avail-able at: <http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/nmp_conf/2009_new_orleans/tuesday/mini_workshop_2_ag_nutrient_mgt/1_ingles.pdf>.

Iowa Soybean Association. 2014. “Shared Vision.” Available at: <http://www.iasoybeans.com/about-isa/shared-vision>.

Johansson, Robert. 2006. Participant Bidding Enhances Conservation Program Cost Effective-ness. Conservation Program Design. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available at: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB3/EB3.pdf>.

Lazarus, W., D. Mulla, and D. Wall. 2013. “Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool.” University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sci-ences. Available at: <http://www.extension.org/pages/67624/minnesota-watershed-nitrogen-reduction-planning-tool#.Ukw7_qP3N2Y>.

Lorenzen, Brett. 2010. “The Mississippi River Basin Initiative: A Preliminary Review.” Environ-mental Working Group.

Loyola, Mario. 2013. “How Texas Can Save the Endangered Species Act.” The American Interest. Available at: <http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/12/07/how-texas-can-save-the-endangered-species-act/>.

McKinney, M., L. Scarlett, and D. Kemmis. 2010. Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available at: <http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1808_Large-Landscape-Conservation>.

MDA (Minnesota Department of Agriculture). 2013. “Precision Conservation: Targeting Clean Water Implementation.” Available at: <http://www.legacy.leg.mn/projects/precision-conservation-targeting-clean-water-implementation>.

National Research Council. 2013. Sustainabil-ity for the Nation: Resource Connections and Governance Linkages. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Available at: <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13471>.

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2012. “New NRCS National Water Quality Initiative Tar-gets Impaired Watersheds.” Available at: <http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/nrcs-water-quality-initiative/>.

Osmond, D.L., D.W. Meals, D.LK. Hoag, and M. Arabi. 2012. How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality: The National Institute of Food and Agricul-ture—Conservation Effects Assessment Project Experience. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conserva-tion Society.

Perez, M., and S. Walker. 2011. “Draftfact sheet on how NRCS evaluates the effects of conservation practices on resource concerns and uses a cost-efficiency factor in the ranking pro-cess for financial assistance.” Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Perez, M., and S. Walker. 2013. “Improving Water Quality: A Review of the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative (MRBI) to Target U.S. Farm Conservation Funds.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Perez, M., K. Reytar, M. Selman, and S. Walker. 2014. “Improving Water Quality: A National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost Effec-tiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2007-2/grabbag/2007-2-06.pdf

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2007-2/grabbag/2007-2-06.pdf

http://aftresearch.org/research/resource/publications/wp/wp98-8.html

http://aftresearch.org/research/resource/publications/wp/wp98-8.html

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/policy/2004-4-09.htm



http://conservationmagazine.org/2013/09/precision-conservation/

http://conservationmagazine.org/2013/09/precision-conservation/

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/05/08/usda-launches-agricultural-water-quality-tool/



http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_04/article2.aspx

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_04/article2.aspx

http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/wacademy/upload/2012_07_10-slides.pdf



http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB2/EB2.pdf


http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/nmp_conf/2009_new_orleans/tuesday/mini_workshop_2_ag_nutrient_mgt/1_ingles.pdf




http://www.iasoybeans.com/about-isa/shared-vision

http://www.iasoybeans.com/about-isa/shared-vision



http://www.extension.org/pages/67624/minnesota-watershed-nitrogen-reduction-planning-tool#.Ukw7_qP3N2Y



http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/12/07/how-texas-can-save-the-endangered-species-act/



http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1808_Large-Landscape-Conservation

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1808_Large-Landscape-Conservation

http://www.legacy.leg.mn/projects/precision-conservation-targeting-clean-water-implementation



http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13471

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13471

http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/nrcs-water-quality-initiative/



26 |

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2011. Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy. Report to the President.

Reed, M.S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431. Avail-able at: <http://bit.ly/oz492J>.

Scarlett, L., J. Boyd, A. Brittain, L. Shabman, and T. Brennan. 2013. Catalysts for Conserva-tion: Exploring Behavioral Science Insights for Natural Resource Investments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Available at: <http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-Rpt-Behavior-alScienceEconomicInsights.pdf>.

Scarlett, Lynn. 2011. “America’s Working Lands: Farm Bill Programs and Landscape-scale Con-servation.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available at: <http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1958_America-s-Working-Lands>.

Schilling, K. E., M. D. Tomer, P. W. Gassman, C. L. Kling, T. M. Isenhart, T. B. Moorman, W. W. Simpkins, and C. F. Wolter. 2007. “A Tale of Three Watersheds: Nonpoint Source Pollution and Conservation Practices Across Iowa.” Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues 22 (2): 87–95.

Shilling, F., S. Sommarstrom, R. Kattelmann, B. Washburn, J. Florsheim, and R. Henly. 2005. California Watershed Assessment Manual: Volume I. Prepared for the California Resources Agency and the California Bay-Delta Authority. Available at: <http://cwam.ucdavis.edu>.

SWCS (Soil and Water Conservation Society) and EDF (Environmental Defense Fund). 2007. “Envi-ronmental Quality Incentives Program: Program Assessment.” Available at: <http://www.swcs.org/documents/filelibrary/EQIP_assessment.pdf>.

Stubbs, Megan. 2013. “Agricultural Conserva-tion: A Guide to Programs.” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at: <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf>.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2003. Environmental Quality Incentives Program Benefit Cost Analysis. Final Report. Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/env_assess/EQIP/EQIP_EA_finals/FINAL_BC_Analysis.pdf>.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013. “Landscape Initiatives.” Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/initiatives/>.

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011. “5 Year Strategic Plan.” Washington, DC: USDA/NRCS. Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045273.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,584>.

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2012. “Conservation Effects Assessment Project 2012.” Washington, DC: USDA/NRCS.

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2014. “Regional Conservation Partnership Program.” Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/por-tal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/>.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Section 319 Success Stories Volume III: The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act’s 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. Washington, DC: US EPA.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2004. “SPAR-ROW Model. Digital Data Used to Relate Nutrient Inputs to Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Version 3.0.” Available at: <http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr-2004-1433/>.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. USGS SPARROW Surface Water-Quality Modeling. Available at: <http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/>.

Walter, T., M. Dosskey, M. Khanna, J. Miller, M. Tomer, and J. Wiens. 2007. “The Science of Targeting Within Landscapes and Watersheds to Improve Conservation Effectiveness.” In Manag-ing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conserva-tion Society.

Weinberg, M., and R. Claassen. 2006. Rewarding Farm Practices Versus Environmental Perfor-mance. Economic Brief. Economic Research Ser-vice, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB5/>.

White, D. 2011. “Streamlining Delivery of Con-servation Assistance.” Presentation. USDA NRCS. Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/about/cdsi/>.

Willamette Partnership, Pinchot Institute for Con-servation, and World Resources Institute. 2012. In It Together: A How-To Reference for Building Point-Nonpoint Water Quality Trading Programs. Available at: <http://willamettepartnership.org/in-it-together/In%20It%20Together%20Part%20 2_2012.pd>.

Wu, J., D. Zilberman, and B. A. Babcock. 2001. “Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41 (3) (May): 333–350.

Yang, W., M. Khanna, R. Farnsworth, and H. Onal. 2005. “Is Geographic Targeting Cost-Effective? The Case of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois.” Review of Agricultural Economics 27(1): 70–86.

http://bit.ly/oz492J

http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-Rpt-BehavioralScienceEconomicInsights.pdf



http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1958_America-s-Working-Lands

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1958_America-s-Working-Lands

http://cwam.ucdavis.edu

http://www.swcs.org/documents/filelibrary/EQIP_assessment.pdf

http://www.swcs.org/documents/filelibrary/EQIP_assessment.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/env_assess/EQIP/EQIP_EA_finals/FINAL_BC_Analysis.pdf



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/initiatives/



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045273.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,584



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/

http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr-2004-1433/



http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB5/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/about/cdsi/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/about/cdsi/

http://willamettepartnership.org/in-it-together/In%20It%20Together%20Part%20 2_2012.pd





Each World Resources Institute issue brief represents a timely, scholarly treatment of a subject of public concern. WRI takes responsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedom of inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels and

expert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation and findings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.

Copyright 2014 World Resources Institute. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative Works 3.0 License. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis project was made possible by grants from the Packard Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the McKnight Foundation. We would like to thank the many USDA staff who met or spoke with us during the course of prepar-ing this report: Mike Linsenbigler, Lana Nesbit, Martin Lowenfish, Chris Hartley, Deena Wheeby, Skip Hyberg, Rich Iovanna, Alex Barbarika, Mike Permenter, Amanda Moore, Mark Rose, and Meghan Wilson. We would also like to thank our colleagues in the conservation community who offered their professional opinions on barriers to targeting: Ryan Stockwell (National Wildlife Federation), Mark Tomer (USDA), Tim Male (Defenders of Wildlife), Clayton Ogg (Defend-ers of Wildlife), Roger Claassen (USDA), Ralph Heimlich (Agricultural Conservation Economics), John Horowitz (USDA), John Stierna (American Farmland Trust), David Wise (Chesapeake Bay Foundation), and Matt Ehrhart (Chesapeake Bay Foundation).

In addition, WRI would like to thank the 16 MRBI and CBWI watershed project leaders, who provided us with valuable insights into their ex-periences with implementing their projects. These project leaders represented 11 organizations across 7 states. A complete list of interviewed project leaders is provided in the online appendix at www.wri.org/publication/targeting-barriers-us-farm-conservation-funds.

We would also like to thank the following individuals for reviewing this report: Richard Waite (WRI), Tien Shao (WRI), Katie Reytar (WRI), Stephen Russell (WRI), Mindy Selman (WRI), Betsy Otto (WRI), Daryl Ditz (WRI), Roger Claas-sen (USDA), Todd Walter (Cornell University), Lynn Scarlett (The Nature Conservancy), and Ferd Hoefner (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition). Finally, we would like to thank WRI’s Jill Raval and former interns Lara Bryant and Liz Tully for their research and editing assistance. All errors of fact or interpretation belong to the authors.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSSara Walker is an associate at WRI whose work focuses on NutrientNet, WRI’s online water quality trading tool, and cost-effective and market-based approaches to reducing nutrient pollution.

Contact: [email protected]

Michelle Perez is a senior associate at WRI whose work focuses on farm conservation targeting, farm- and watershed-scale nutrient reduction tools, and market-based approaches to improving water quality.

Contact: [email protected]

OTHER PAPERS IN THIS SERIESPerez, M., and S. Walker. 2013. “Improving Water Quality: A Review of the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) to Target U.S. Farm Conservation Funds.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: <http://www.wri.org/publication/MRBI>.

Perez, M., K. Reytar, M. Selman, and S. Walker. 2014. “Improving Water Quality: A National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost Effec-tiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds.” Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: <wri.org/publication/national-targeting-modeling-study>.

ABOUT WRI WRI is a global research organization that works closely with leaders to turn big ideas into action to sustain a healthy environment—the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being.

Our ChallengeNatural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth’s resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people’s lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade. Our VisionWe envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise management of natural resources. We aspire to create a world where the actions of government, business, and communi-ties combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment for all people. Our Approach

COUNT ITWe start with data. We conduct independent research and draw on the latest technology to develop new insights and recommendations. Our rigorous analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities, and informs smart strategies. We focus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where the future of sustainability will be determined. CHANGE ITWe use our research to influence government policies, business strategies, and civil society action. We test projects with communities, companies, and government agencies to build a strong evidence base. Then, we work with partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strengthens society. We hold ourselves accountable to ensure our out-comes will be bold and enduring. SCALE ITWe don’t think small. Once tested, we work with partners to adopt and expand our efforts regionally and globally. We engage with decision-makers to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact. We measure success through government and business actions that improve people’s lives and sustain a healthy environment.



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wri.org/publication/MRBI

http://www.wri.org/publication/MRBI

wri.org/publication/national-targeting-modeling-study

wri.org/publication/national-targeting-modeling-study

10 G STREET NE SUITE 800WASHINGTON, DC 20002, USA+1 (202) 729-7600WWW.WRI.ORG ISBN 978-1-56973-827-6

www.wri.org