watershed scale conservation

Watershed Scale Conservation: How Much is

Enough?SWCS

July 29, 2014

Green Bay

Saginaw Bay

WLEB

Agriculturally Intensive Watersheds in the Great Lakes

Outcomes at Scale

Supply Chain and Policies

Great Lakes Ag Strategy:

Issue Specific

Collaborative

Goal Driven

Accountable and Adaptive

Agriculture BMPs & Water

Nature

Setting the Decision PointDesired

Condition

Current Condition

Obtaining Sustainable Agricultural Watershed Goals $ Cost

How Much Conservationis Enough?

Mary Fales, Saginaw Bay Watershed Project Director, The Nature Conservancy


Important take home points:• We need a goal and plan!


Important take home points:• We need a outcome-based goal and plan!• Long term vision• Target BMPs to highest ROI• Track progress• Look for long term sustainability

How Much is Enough?

How Much Is Enough?

Intense Algae Blooms

It Depends on Your Goal

Acres of BMPs

Total $$ Spent

Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP)

Scott P. Sowa, Matthew Herbert, John Legge, Mary Fales, Kim Hall, Patrick Doran, Sagar Mysorekar, Layla Cole, Tia Bowe, Gust Annis, A. Pouyan Nejadhashemi, Lizhu Wang, & Charles Rewa

Informing Strategic Conservation:Body of Work That Supports Many Strategies

Getting the right information to the right people in the right format to support; 1) setting realistic goals, 2) strategically implement practices, & 3) track progress

Informing Strategic Conservation

Getting the right conservation practices to the right places, in the right amount, at the right time, as efficiently as possible, to

address the right problem and achieve realistic goals

Phases of Work

Phase 1 – link fish health to water quality

Phase 2 – link water quality to BMPs

Phase 3 – decision tools to target and track (MSU-IWR)

Phase 4 – Implementation!partnering to set goals and test innovative strategies to achieve them

• Over 300 actual data points

Phase 1 – Link fish health to WQ

• SWAT model gave us predicted WQ at each point

Phase 1: Link fish health to WQ

–At what point are water quality variables no longer limiting?

–Other factors still play a role

Which Variables Are Limiting and Where?PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN

SEDIMENT/FLOW

Phase 2:Linking WQ to BMPS (and ultimately fish health)

• Used SWAT to model changes in water quality under different scenarios (12 BMPs)

• Current condition• Medium (25%) • High (50%)• Historic Condition

• Nutrient Management/Waste Utilization

• Conservation Crop Rotation • Filter Strip • Conservation Cover • Residue and Tillage Management

No‐Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed • Mulch Till, Residue Management• Residue Management, No‐Till/Strip Till • Cover Crop • Pasture and Hay Planting • Wetland Creation/Restoration

Selected BMPs

Sub‐watershed Comparison:Fish Community Health

Current Condition 25% BMP Implementation

Sub‐watershed Comparison:Fish Community Health

Current Condition 50% BMP Implementation

Dose Response CurveBMPs Fish Health

Sub-watershed Comparison:Fish Community Health

50% BMP Implementation

• ~$7.7 M to achieve non-limiting conditions for all 8 variables at the OUTLET of the other 3 sub-watersheds

• More than $44 million to achieve non-limiting conditions in all streams of four focal watersheds

• What are realistic goals?• Lower expectations?• Conservation innovation?

The Highlights!

TNC and partners have developed the science so we can determine:

1. HOW MUCH: What percentage of the land needs to be treated with practices

2. WHERE: Where conservation practices need to be implemented

3. OUTCOME ORIENTED: All the work is tied to improving fish community health

Phase 3: Decision ToolsGetting the right information to the right people in the right format at the right time to support the logistics of strategic conservation

Context Target and Track

Sediment and Nutrient Calculatorswww.iwr.msu.edu/glwms/

Jeremiah Asher, GIS Project ManagerLaura Young, Research Assistant

Michigan State UniversityInstitute of Water Research

69th Soil Water Conservation Society International Annual ConferenceMaking Waves in ConservationJuly 29, Lombard, Illinois

Great Lakes Watershed Management System Walkthrough

Watershed Scale Conservation: How much is Enough?

Outline

• Underlying Models– HIT– L‐THIA

• Types of Analyses• Walkthrough Example

UNDERLYING MODELS

Background | Models

High Impact Targeting (HIT)HIT estimates sediment loading from agricultural lands to nearby streams

Long‐Term Hydrologic Impact Analysis (L‐THIA)L‐THIA estimates run‐off volumes and pollutant loads

HIT Model

HIT: Field Evaluations

35

Results: 70% of the time HIT maps correctly characterized the landscape.

Basic L-THIA Model Components

Hydrologic component estimates average annual direct runoff based on the Curve Number method with daily rainfall data

Water quality component estimates pollutant loadings using estimated direct runoff and coefficients associated with land uses

36Purdue University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access institution.

Nonpoint Source Pollution

37

L‐THIA produces Average Annual Pollutant Results for sediment, nutrients, a series of metals, and bacterial indicators(e.g. lbs of Nitrogen per year)

Available L‐THIA NPS Outputs in GLWMS:

Total RunoffNitrogenPhosphorousTotal Suspended SolidsLeadCopperZinc

Purdue University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access institution.

SYSTEM WALKTHROUGH

www.iwr.msu.edu/glwms

View Baseline NPS

• Estimates baseline nonpoint source pollutant loadings

Calculate a Baseline Change

• Estimates the change in runoff and NPS pollutant loadings based on a land cover change or best management practice

Compare 2 Scenarios

• Specify two different land cover or practices (before and after)

• Allows you to set your own baseline• Useful for when detailed knowledge is available for a land area

http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/docs.htm?docid=9372 Photo courtesy of USDA ARS

Conventional TillageNo Till with Cover Crop

QUESTIONS?

www.iwr.msu.edu/glwms

Laura [email protected]

517‐353‐8587

Phase 4: Test Innovative Strategies

Cass River Watershed Pilot (Sanilac CD)– Test if information and decision tools can foster

changes via traditional Farm Bill to meet conservation action goals

Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)– Set watershed scale sustainability goals and

related conservation action goals to drive changes in behavior through supply chain demand

Pay for Performance in the Bad River Watershed (Great Lakes Commission grant)– Set ecologically meaningful sediment reduction

goals and use online tools to pay farmers per ton of sediment reduced

New Technology with Traditional Funding Models: Utilize the Farm Bill

Targeting Practices Using Traditional Farm Bill Programs ‐ Partner: Sanilac and Tuscola

Conservation Districts, MSU‐IWR

‐ Mott Foundation Grant

‐ Use modeling to select areas for highest ROI

‐ Targeted technical assistance & outreach

‐ Using the Great Lakes Watershed Management System to quantify outcomes

Cass River Watershed Demo Project

COVER CROPS

WETLAND RESTORATION

STRIP TILL

EDUCATION

New Funding Models: Pay for Performance

Sediment Reduction in the Bad River Watershed ‐ Partner: Gratiot Conservation

District, NRCS

‐ Great Lakes Commission Grant ($250,000)

‐ Develop a watershed goal for sediment reduction

‐ Using the sediment calculator to determine reduction amount

‐ Set a payment rate for sediment reduction ($/ton)

New Funding Models: Drain Fee Reduction Project

Shiawassee River Watershed

‐ Partners: County Drain Commissioner, MSU‐IWR, local conservation district, CD

‐ Cook Family Foundation

‐ Develop a watershed goal for sediment reduction

‐ Set a discount value for sediment reduction ($/ton)

‐ Using the sediment calculator to determine reduction amount

Opportunities with new Farm Bill

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

PartnershipsCollaboration

IncentivesFoundations

NGO’s

Outcomes

Corporations

Agri-Business

Saginaw Bay Watershed RCPP

‐ Partners: Many!

INNOVATIONS:1. Set ecologically relevant

implementation goals

2. Use online tools to target and track progress (Quantify Outcomes)

3. Agribusiness as the Delivery Mechanism

• It can become part of everyday business – efficient/cost‐effective

• Much broader reach and much greater trust

• Scalable to Great Lakes and beyond

Saginaw Bay Watershed RCPPLEADS:

– Michigan Agri-Business Association– The Nature Conservancy

AGRONOMY RETAILERS:– Star of the West Milling Co.– Crop Production Services– Helena Chemical Co.– Brown Milling – Michigan Agricultural Commodities– Auburn Bean and Grain Co.– Wilbur Ellis– Cooperative Elevator Company

COMMODITY GROUPS: – Michigan Bean Commission– Michigan Sugar– Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee– Michigan Milk Producers Association– Michigan Corn Growers Association– Michigan Wheat Program

CONSERVATION GROUPS– Ducks Unlimited– Delta Institute– Wild Turkey Federation

HIGHER EDUCATION– Michigan State University

STATE AGENCIES– Michigan Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR)– Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ)– Michigan Department of Agriculture

and Rural Development (MDARD)

CORPORATIONS– Kelloggs, Coca-Cola– AgriDrain– Ecosystem Services Exchange

New Funding Models: Regional Conservation Partnership Program

‐ Goal: at least 55,000 acres of conservation practices

‐ Federal Funding: $20M (for farmers)

‐ Huge opportunity to leverage federal funding‐ Technical expertise‐ Developing goals and enhancing tools‐ Training the project team‐ Outreach: awareness and marketing‐ Tracking progress over time‐ Scaling Up!

© Scott Warren

Achieving Conservation at Scale with Industry in Western Lake Erie Basin

The Nature Conservancywww.nature.org/wleb

SWCS Conference, Lombard, ILLauren [email protected]

Cumulative Impacts

Continually Developing 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification

Building Relationships can Scale Conservation & Profits

Year 1Onsite Audit

Year 2Onsite Audit in the

first certification cycle, possible

Desk Audit in later certification cycles

Year 3Desk Audit for

NSPs that have performed well in previous years.

$600 Annual Registration Fee+

Audit Costs (estimated from $900-$1100/year paid to auditor)

Grower Customers

Nutrient Service Providers

Society

Triple Bottom Line Evaluation

Lake Erie - 2014

Who has funded the development of the 4R Certification Program?

Supply Chain Partnerships

SWCS Annual Conference

July 28th, 2014

Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends

We pursue non-confrontational, pragmatic

solutions to conservation challenges.

Patagonia grasslands, Argentina ©Bridget Besaw

The Nature Conservancy has helped protect

more than 119 million acres of land worldwide.

River leading to Iliamna Lake, Alaska habitat the gravel bottoms provide habitat for king salmon ©Ami Vitale

A Title

95

A Title

96

The agricultural challenge: Feeding humanity while conserving nature

Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture

Global Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Irrigation Use

Dead Zones of the World

99

Major known eutrophic and hypoxic areas. Reprinted from Selman et al.

6.6

7.9

9.9

12.4

10.6

9.0 9.3

10.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1980 1990 2000 2010

billi

on b

ushe

ls c

orn

and

mill

ion

tons

nut

rient

(N, P

2O5,

K2O

) Corn Production Nutrient Use on Corn

Source: Computed by TFI from data reported by NASS, USDA.

+87%

- 4%

U.S. Corn Production and Nutrient Use on Corn

4R Nutrient Stewardship

Sustainability

A management strategy

WLEB 4R Certification

Supply Chain Initiatives: Field to Market

What is the Fieldprint Calculator?

An online education tool for row crop farmers that indexes their agronomics and practices to a fieldprint

Helps growers evaluate their farming decisions and compare their sustainability performance

– In the areas of:• Land use• Soil conservation• Soil carbon• Water use• Energy use• Greenhouse gas emissions• Water Quality• Biodiversity in development

– Against:• Their own fields• Their own performance over time

• County, state and national averages

Fieldprint Calculator Summary Page

105

Sample Results:Resources per bushel, Soybeans

106

A Closer LookSoybean Results: Soil Erosion

107

• Total soil erosion decreased over most of the study period, but has increased more recently (similar for corn)

• Per acre soil erosion decreased during first half of study period, then leveled off (similar for corn, cotton, and wheat)

TOTAL PER ACRE PER BUSHEL

Top Down

Bottom Up

Supply Chain Alignment

Supply chain engagements, growing region/ watershed scale

Field scale metrics, tools & pilots

4R