Opportunities for cleaner water thru RCPP

targeted watershed projects MICHELLE PEREZ

Conservation Coalition, March 25, 2014

MRBI Lessons for RCPP

Today’s Talk

• Mississippi River Basin

Healthy Watersheds

Initiative (MRBI) (1/3) - Highlights of MRBI

successes and

shortcomings to inform

development of future

targeted watershed

projects such as those

under the new

Regional Conservation

Partnerships Program

(RCPP)

Potential Future

Talks

• WRI - National Targeting Modeling

Report to Improve Cost

Effectiveness (2/3)

- Overcoming Barriers to

Targeting (3/3)

- Nutrient Trading for MRB-

GOM 45% N&P Goal

What is Targeting? And the RCPP?

• Purpose / Objective / Goal? - “To get more conservation on the ground” or “To improve water

quality” or “To achieve specified water quality goals”

• Scale? - MRB–GOM region; local stream or river segments; lakes

Geographic targeting

• Principles?

- Cost-effectiveness: Maximize nutrient reductions per dollar spent

Benefit-cost targeting

• Metrics of success? - Administrative outputs: BMP counts, dollars spent, acres treated

- Environmental outcomes: Water quality indicators at edge of

field, in-stream, watershed outlet

Benefits to

Business As Usual Conservation

Solves individual water quality problems on individual farms

BAU v. Targeting

Targeted Watershed Project Examples

• Rural Clean Water Program (’80 – ’90) - 12/21 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements

• 319 Projects - 1/3 of 453 “Success Stories” thanks to ag conservation programs

• NIFA-CEAP Watershed Projects - 6/13 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements

• Iowa’s Watershed Councils

- Extension + farm leaders + farmers = water quality improvements

• Minnesota’s Ag Water Quality Certification Program - 4 targeted watershed projects

Data Considerations for

Designating RCPP Critical

Conservation Areas

USGS SPARROW

P Loading to Gulf

USGS SPARROW

N Loading to Gulf

CEAP Upper

Mississippi

River Basin

Cropland

Assessment

Report

WRI-CEAP National Targeting Modeling Report

EPA 319 Project Nearing Success

CEAP Targeted Watershed Projects

Mississippi

River Basin

Healthy

Watersheds

Initiative

Projects

Reviewed by

State

Methods

• Conducted a literature review

- Identified likely factors important to targeting success (achieving improved water quality) & selected 7 key characteristics

• Requested ‘10 & ‘11 MRBI proposals & performance reports

- Reviewed RFPs

- Reviewed 45/75 (60%) awarded proposals

- Reviewed available annual performance reports

• Interviewed MRBI, EQIP managers, 8 project leaders, & targeting & water quality experts

• Produced a “snap shot” of 2 months of targeting thinking & project intentions

6 Targeting Characteristics

1. Stakeholder and producer buy-in

2. Type & how S.M.A.R.T.-Q. are goals

3. Geographic targeting

4. Measurement and evaluation

5. Cost effectiveness

6. Adaptive management

MRBI’s RFP

WRI

Stakeholder &

Producer Buy-in

SMART-

Q Goals Geographic

Targeting Monitoring

& Evaluation

Cost-

Effective-

ness

Adaptive

Mgt

STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP FINDINGS

STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP FINDINGS

It takes a skilled &

resource-rich village!

• Projects had 2 - 30 partners; Median: 9.5 - 98% had producer connections

- 100% had conservation T.A. skills

- 98% had water monitoring skills

- 33% had modeling skills

• Half the projects leveraged additional funds for more

conservation practices & monitoring stations. All leveraged

funds for project implementation & reporting.

• Few projects included producers in the project design stage.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Make sure all the right stakeholders are involved in

developing RCPP targeted watershed projects

(TWP)

Tell the public about it on a RCPP information clearing

house website

Enable farm producers and landowners to

participate in the development TWP

Give time in RFP proposal development process

Prioritize awards to future projects that leverage

and formalize significant resources from non-USDA

sources

Give time in RFP proposal development process

GOALS: Identified 4 types of

goals stated by the projects

1. Output goals

e.g. # cover crop acres planted, # NM plans, livestock exclusion

2. Interim outcome goals (short-term) e.g. Reduce fertilizer & manure application rates; Reduce sheet

erosion

3. Environmental outcome goals (medium-term)

e.g. Reduce N&P loading to streams; Reduce sediment [ ] in streams

4. Ecological balance outcome goals (long-term)

e.g. Achieve local TMDL; Remove stream from Impaired Waters List

GOAL FINDINGS

Most projects went beyond outputs to set

outcome-oriented goals

• All projects set MULTIPLE goals

- 93%: output goals

- 78%: interim outcome goals

- 78%: environmental outcome goals

• 67% of projects with outcome goals also set quantitative

targets

PROJECT-LEVEL GOAL FINDINGS

• Half of the most ambitious project goals weren’t very

SMART-Q

• 78% of projects mention policy drivers (e.g. TMDLs or

Impaired Waters List) but don’t state the project aims

to address the driver

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Write clear, SMART-Q goal statements for

both the RCPP program & projects

Tell the public about it on a RCPP information clearing

house website

Prioritize funds for projects that aim to

achieve already existing landscape-scale

policy goals

GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING FINDINGS

Initiative lacked targeting rational

for each of 43 MRBI areas

• Referenced relevant data but no narrative provided for

why each project area was prioritized

- Top SPARROW N & P Loading Watersheds

- Impaired Waters Lists

- TMDL Lists

- Availability of existing monitoring data

- Availability of staff resources & interested on-the-ground

groups

- Etc.

GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING FINDINGS

Most projects had a good rationale for

choosing project areas

• 93% provided scientific evidence justifying why project

area needing conservation

• 76% indicated project area chosen because of ability to

yield large environmental benefits

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide “targeting narratives” for the

targeted watershed projects

Tell the public about it on a RCPP information clearing

house website

MEASUREMENT EVALUTION FINDINGS

A lot of water quality monitoring may be

occurring at a lot of different scales

• Many projects

intend to monitor at

- edge-of-field: 82%

- in-stream: 80%

- watershed: 60%

# Projects

monitoring

each major

water quality

indicator

category

Actual water quality indicators

mentioned

MEASUREMENT & EVALUTION FINDINGS

• Uncertain Initiative oversight, leadership, & accountability

for Initiative-level results - Providing EOF leadership: monitoring moratorium & new protocols

- In-stream & watershed-outlet oversight?

• RFP required projects to have a “water quality monitoring

and evaluation plan” - Half the projects planned to measure progress towards goal(s)

- 42% of projects planned to provide annual performance reports

• Additional clarity is needed regarding - What metrics of success are being collected & at what scales?

- What methods are being used?

- Who is aggregating, analyzing, and reporting metrics?

MEASUREMENT & EVALUTION FINDINGS

A bit of modeling planned

• 28% of projects proposed to use models to evaluate

outcomes:

AnnAGNPS

ANOVA

Iowa’s Sediment Delivery Calculator

CE-QUAL-W2

computer models

calculation models

RUSLE

Wisconsin’s SNAP-PLUS

STEPL

SWAT

FACTORS IMPACTING

MONITORING SUCCESS

• Only half the projects mentioned setting an adequate

water quality monitoring baseline

• Only 40% of projects were using an existing watershed-

based plan

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Ensure leadership & accountability for landscape-

scale outcomes

Establish RCPP HQ & State Coordinators to collect results

data & tell the public about it on the RCPP website

Establish advisory teams for water quality

monitoring, metrics, & modeling

Prioritize projects with already existing baseline

data or paired watershed approach

Consider requiring watershed-based planning to

help attain landscape-scale outcomes

COST

EFFECTIVENESS FINDINGS

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

FINDINGS

• 40% plan to analyze data

to evaluate the

effectiveness of their

activities and to adapt

accordingly

• 42% have an outreach strategy to share results

• 3 projects planned to

estimate cost-

effectiveness of nutrient

management effort

($/lb N avoided)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Require a narrative discussion (at least) of

cost effectiveness & invest in tools or

provide methods to calculate cost

effectiveness

Formalize adaptive management

Emphasize sharing lessons learned

Thank You!

Michelle Perez, PhD

202-729-7908

mperez@wri.org