This document summarizes several large watershed projects and lessons learned from them. Key lessons include: (1) conservation planning must be done at the watershed scale with water quality data; (2) identify pollutants and their sources before implementing practices; (3) target critical source areas; (4) understand farmer attitudes; (5) maintain practices; (6) technical assistance is most effective locally; and (7) economic incentives are often needed for adoption. The North Canadian River project in Oklahoma applied these lessons through practices like no-till, riparian fencing, and monitoring, significantly reducing phosphorus loads. In Vermont's Lake Champlain basin, phosphorus levels remained high despite efforts, requiring new regulations

1. Watershed Success Stories
71st Annual SWCS International Conference
July 24‐27, 2016
Louisville, KY
Shanon Phillips, Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Vicky Drew, USDA‐NRCS
Moderator: Deanna Osmond, North Carolina State University
Responder: Larry Elworth, RESOLVE

2. Lessons Learned from
Large Federal Watershed Projects
Black Creek 1978-1984
Project
Model 1978-1982
Implementation
Program
The Rural Clean 1980-1995
Water Program
Hydrologic Unit 1991-1994
Area Projects &
Demonstration
Projects
USEPA Section 319 1991 - present
National Nonpoint
Source Monitoring
Program
NIFA CEAP 2004-2011
With dwindling resources and mounting environmental
degradation, it is essential that many of the lessons from
NIFA-CEAP be integrated into policy and agency protocol if
water resources are to be protected or improved.

3. Lessons Learned from
Large Federal Watershed Projects
1. Conservation planning must be done at the watershed scale with sufficient
water quality and potentially modeling information.
2. Before implementing conservation practices, identify the pollutants of concern,
and the sources of the pollutants.
3. Identify critical source areas to prioritize conservation practices.
4. Identify watershed farmers’ attitudes toward agriculture and conservation
practices to promote adoption.
5. Even after conservation practices have been adopted, continue to work with
farmers on maintenance and sustained use.
6. Technical assistance to farmers is most effective when delivered by a trusted
local contact and is very people intensive. Reduced funding is eroding the
ability of NRCS, extension, and soil & water conservation districts to deliver
effective programming.

4. Lessons Learned from
Large Federal Watershed Projects
7. Economic incentives were often required for adoption of
conservation practices not obviously profitable or fitting with
current farming systems.
8. Conservation practice adoption is a multivariate choice and
although economics are exceptionally important, there are many
other factors that are part of the decision-making process.
9. Most conservation implementation projects should NOT conduct
water quality monitoring. For projects that do conduct water
quality monitoring, establish monitoring systems that are
designed to specifically evaluate response to treatment and ensure
that projects include the necessary resources and expertise.
10. Conservation activities must be monitored as intensively as water
quality monitoring, and at the same temporal and spatial scales to
link water quality response to land treatment changes.

5. Where the Rubber Meets the Road:
Putting Lessons into Action
Shanon Phillips,
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Vicky Drew,
USDA‐NRCS ‐ Vermont

6. North Canadian River Watershed Projects
Shanon Phillips
Oklahoma Conservation Commission

7. Project Beginnings
In 2004, conservation districts joined together to seek
assistance for a program that would address water quality
concerns in the North Canadian River.

8. Watershed Characterization
 Landuse is 35% pasture
and 38% winter wheat
 Water Quality Problems:
 Enterococcus
 Turbidity
 E. coli
 Low DO
 High chlorophyll a
values in downstream
Lake Overholser

9. Watershed Planning
 Developed plan early in 2008
 Formed Local Watershed Advisory Group
 Select conservation practices
 Select cost-share rates
 Developed Watershed Model
 Hired local Project Coordinator
 Hired local Education Coordinator

10. Water Quality Monitoring
 Standard grab
samples monthly
+ 6 high flow per
year
 Autosampler flow
weighted –TP,
discharge, nitrate
& ammonia
weekly
 Weekly during
recreation
season- bacteria-
E. coli, and
Enterococcus
$T
$T
$T
$T
$T
$T
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
#
Canton LakeCanton Lake
Lake Overholser
Blaine Co.
Canadian Co.
Dewey Co.
Monitoring Sites$T
North Canadian watershed
ÊÚ Autosampler Sites

11. Education

12. North Canadian River Project Priorities
& Conservation Practices
1. Erosion Control
• Conversion to no-till
• Cropland conversion to
pasture
2. Riparian Area Protection
• Fencing, off-site
watering, planting
3. Livestock Management
• Cross-fencing, heavy
use areas, nutrient
management, watering
facilities
4. Septic Tank Replacement

13. 13
 Approximately 290 Acres
60 acres of cropland
180 acres of pastureland
Balance in ponds, creeks, riparian areas
Implemented Best Management Practices include:
Rotational grazing
Riparian area exclusion
Solar watering facility
Pond exclusion and let-down area
Conversion to no-till
OSU Extension Studies included:
Impacts of grazing on no-till and soil health
Sequestration of carbon in no-till systems
Cover crops and crop rotations in no-till
Inter-seeding forage mixes into no-till systems
Nutrient management, i.e. N-Strips, grid soil sampling
Demonstration Farm
Working in partnership with OSU Cooperative Extension Service

14. Implementation
 Occurred in three
phases, beginning
in 2007, 2010, and
2011
 158 cooperating
landowners
 $2,651,715 worth of
BMPs installed
 $1,614,841 state
dollars
 $746,705 EPA
319 dollars
 $290,169
landowner
dollars

15. 15
Conservation Practices Installed
 21,196 acres of continuous no‐till
 85,077 LF of riparian area fencing installed
 1,345 acres of cropland planted to grass
 586 acres of riparian area protected
 17 substandard septic systems replaced
 26,810 LF cross fencing installed to facilitate grazing
 11,710 acres enrolled of grid soil sampling and nutrient
management
 34 wells, 28 solar pumps, 8 watering facilities

16. 16
Making a Difference
 Over 85,077 linear feet
of riparian area fencing
has been installed.
 Riparian area fencing
protects stream banks
from erosion and helps
filter out soil, nutrients
and bacteria.

17. Parameter
Downstrm
Calib
Downstrm
Implem
Downstrm
Change
Upstrm
Calib
Upstrm Upstrm
ChangeImplem
Concentration
(mg/L)
TotPhosphorus 0.8533 0.2186 0.3874 0.1681
**(0.000) **(0.000)
Ortho-Phosphorus 0.3538 0.0997 0.1806 0.0951
**(0.000) **(0.009)
Nitrate 0.2041 0.0649 0.1922 0.17
**(0.000)
TKN 3.45 1.544 1.678 1.072
**(0.001) **(0.000)
Total Weekly Load
(lbs)
TotPhosphorus 8063 1508 2184 416
**(0.000) **(0.000)
Ortho-Phosphorus 3566 804 1016 255
**(0.000) **(0.000)
Nitrate 1600 271 1001 210
**(0.000) **(0.000)
TKN 31997 14663 9758 2473
**(0.000)
Making a Difference‐
Water Quality Monitoring

18. Other Project Results
 Private funding from an Electric Cooperative to
incentivize carbon sequestration in the watershed
 Development of hand-held, more cost-effective green-
seeker technology unit to allow the use of n-rich strips
 Developed and demonstrated a training and data
collection program using Conservation District
Employees to collect environmental data (where
districts earned extra funds)
 Demonstrated that agricultural producers are willing do
their part to address environmental concerns

19. Keys to Success
 Local Leadership
 Invested Partners
 Understanding of the Watershed
 Historical water quality data
 Watershed Model
 Targeting
 Watershed plan
 Possibility of Success
 Monitoring for Success-
 water quality, landuse change…
 Long-term program

20. Vicky Drew
USDA NRCS VT
Water Quality in the
Lake Champlain Basin

21. Watershed Area
56% in Vermont
37% in New York
7% in Quebec

22. 64%6%
10%
16%
4%
Land Use and Vegetation in
the Lake Champlain Basin
Forested
Developed
Water
Ag
Wetlands
Basin Characteristics
 heavy clay lacustrine soils
 short growing season (150 days near the
Lake and 105 days in higher terrain)
 35% prior converted wetlands
 OVER 70 PERCENT of ag is dairy

24. But, there’s a problem…

26.  Multiple NRCS land treatment Watershed Projects dating back to 1980
 Federal Legislation
 1990‐Lake Champlain Basin Act
 Increased coordination of conservation in basin – basin plan and steering
committee
 Funded through EPA and GLFC ‐ $3 to 6 Million/year
 1995 ‐ Vermont adopts Accepted Agricultural practices and regulations on
Large Farm Operations
 2002 ‐ 1st TMDL approved by EPA
 2006 – Vermont enacts regulations on Medium Farm Operations
 2004‐2014 ‐ NRCS obligated over $40 million for water quality practices in the
Lake Champlain basin
History of Water Quality
Improvement Efforts

27. Lake phosphorus
levels have
continued to
increase despite 30
years of agricultural
conservation efforts
Water Quality
Trends

28.  Conservation Law Foundation files lawsuit against EPA in 2008 citing
a lack of “reasonable assurance” that goals would be reached
 Movie “Bloom” released in November, 2010. This film captured the
attention of many Vermonters and incited anger and placed blame
on the ag sector.
 EPA formally revokes approval of first TMDL in January, 2011
 Public outcry focused on all government agencies to “do more”
 Widespread opinion that voluntary approach to conservation would
never work
 Farmers who have followed NRCS recommendations question the
effectiveness of conservation practices installed in the past
State of VT, NRCS, and all partners are under fire to
demonstrate proven success and improvement in water quality
as a result of conservation
Public Pressure Builds

29. Phosphorus
Loading to
Lake
Champlain by
Land Use

30. Lake Champlain Phosphorus Load
Reductions by Lake Segment

31.  In response to pending TMDL, Act 64 Passed by Vermont
Legislature ‐ 2015
 Applies to Farms with $2,000 gross income in an average
year or 4 or more acres with livestock
Requirements
 NRCS 590 standard
 Cover Crops on floodplain fields
 Perennial Buffers
 Surface Water – 25 feet wide
 Ditches – 10 feet wide
 No Manure applied
 On any field Dec. 15 – April 1
 On floodplains Oct 15‐ April 15
 On 10% slopes or greater
 In Buffer Zones
Vermont’s New Required Ag Practices
(RAPS)

32.  Strengthen Partner Coordination
 Signed Water Quality MOU with 8 Partners
 Improve Understanding of the Problem
 Edge of Field Monitoring
 Identified tile drainage as a significant source of soluble phosphorus
 Using CIG to fill data gaps
 Target Resources
 Technical and Financial Assistance to Critical Source Areas identified through SWAT modeling
 Watershed Action Plans for 4 High Priority HUC 12 subbasins
 Accelerate Implementation through Increased Funding and
New Initiatives
 RCPP
 Vilsack Commitment
 Certainty – VT Environmental Stewardship Program
 National CIG grant for Nutrient Trading Program
 Improve On Farm Planning, Accountability and Tracking
 Development of a Vermont‐specific, user friendly APEX model
 Development of a shared NRCS/partner database
 Tracking progress in meeting P reduction goals in 4 priority watersheds
A Look Back at NRCS Efforts
Over the Past Five Years

33. Edge of Field (EOF)
Monitoring
 Seven projects on 6 farms started in
2012, two new projects in 2015
 Focused on practices important for
VT with little or no data on practice
effectiveness;
 Practices included cover crops,
reduced tillage systems, sediment
basin, manure incorporation on
hayland, drainage water
management, cover crops and a
grassed waterway
 Now have baseline and treatment
data
Keys to Success:
Understanding the Problem

34. Summary of EOF Phosphorus Results
 TP 60 percent higher from cornfields vs. hayfields
 Hayfields had a higher percentage of soluble P in
runoff (84 percent vs. 43 percent)
 Overall, approximately 65 percent of the P in surface
runoff was in the dissolved form (TDP)
Implications
 Hay fields can contribute significant amounts of
soluble P to surface waters and manure needs to be
better managed on these fields (timing, aeration,
injection).
 Erosion control practices on corn fields are not
sufficient to control soluble P losses

35. SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool)
Watershed Level P Loading
Keys to Success:
Targeting the Areas Most in Need

36. A Closer Look: SWAT Field Level P Loading
(74% of P load from 24% of Fields)
 NRCS targeted funds to
critical source areas through
EQIP ranking with Lake
Champlain Basin Program
matching funds
 100% cost‐share for one year
coordinated across the
partnership to reach farmers
in prioritized hot spots.
Keys to Success:
Targeting the Areas Most in Need

37. A Steering Committee selected
priority watersheds
 NRCS developed a watershed
level resource assessment and
plan including P loading and
reduction estimates
 Local Workgroups developed
Tactical Action Plans that
identified specific
implementation needs and
goals
Goal: to greatly accelerate practice implementation in
selected, small watersheds (HUC‐12) with focused
outreach, technical assistance and funding.
Keys to Success:
A Focused Watershed Planning Process

38.  Focused on watersheds that were:
 Most impaired
 In the public eye
 Long term water quality monitoring
data
 Four watersheds will receive prioritized FA
and TA over the next four years.
 The goal is to apply the most appropriate
conservation measures in the most critical
areas to achieve water quality
improvement.
 Nearly ½ of EQIP funds ($4.6 million in FY
2016) was focused in these priority areas.
Each watershed project includes an
agreement with a local partner for
coordination, E&O and farmer assistance
Targeting the Most Critical Areas

41. Watershed
Name
Watershed
Area (acres)
Total
Estimated
Ag P
Loading (lbs
/yr)
TMDL
Reduction
Goal
Ag P
Reduction
Goal (lbs
/yr)
Project
Goal
(lbs/yr)
(% of
TMDL
goal)
NRCS
Estimated
Cost of
Project
Implemen‐
tation
Rock River 22,743 19,248 83% 15,976 7,000
(40%)
$8,518,000
Pike River 25,088 9,599 83% 7,967 5,200
(65%)
$9,938,000
St. Albans
Bay
33,515 23,047 35% 8,066 7,000
(87%)
$7,764,000
McKenzie
Brook
21,222 43,276* 60% 29,966 15,000
(50%)
$10,753,000
2016 Priority Watershed
Estimated Ag Phosphorus Loadings
and Targeted Reductions

42. Rock River‐Practice Scenario to Reach
TMDL Goal
.Land Cover Selected BMP
Total Practice Acres
Applied
TP Load Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Cont. Corn
Cover Crop‐Conservation
Tillage‐Manure Injection 1,279 1074
Cont. corn Cover Crop 1,023 563
Cont. Corn Crop Rotation 1,540 739
Corn/Hay Riparian Buffer 34 109
Cropland Grassed Waterays 27 130
Corn/Hay
Reduced Manure P (Nutrient
Management and CAP) 3,056 306
Cont. Corn Ditch Buffer 45 878
Hay
Reduced P inputs and
Injection 2,300 230
Pasture
Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer (CREP) 232 719
Farmstead
Waste Management
Improvements 48 480
Total Reduction 10,003
TMDL Target 16,000

45.  Locally‐led farmer engagement
 Farmer‐to farmer meetings with NRCS, UVM, and key partners
 Enhanced Technical Assistance for Farmers
 Develop watershed specific action plan to identify four key strategies
 Develop a plan of delivery for technical assistance
 Financial Assistance for Farmers through Targeting
 Outreach and Education
 Watershed specific fact sheets with key contacts listed (partners and NRCS)
 Include state cost share availability
 Initiate one‐on‐one contact with farmers to explain goals and options.
 Develop farmer success stories and promote positive work being
accomplished in the watershed
 Demonstration farms to illustrate conservation practices and benefits.
 Soil health signage to celebrate and recognize stewardship
 Local Leadership and Coordination
 Funding support to “work” the Action Plan
Local Action Team Priorities

46. Outcome:
A Comprehensive,
Adaptable and Efficient
Strategic Plan for
Implementation
The Problem
Excessive P
in Lake
Champlain
from Ag
Sources
Enhance
Understanding of
the Problem
EOF Monitoring,
Watershed Action
Plans, Tile Drainage
Tracking,
Accountability,
and Evaluating
Success
Partner database, APEX,
Water Quality
Monitoring
Efficiently use
and target
conservation
funding
SWAT and CSA’s, tile
drainage, APEX, STEP,
Watershed Approach
Partner
Coordination
Water quality MOU,
cross‐training, RCPP
projects for water
quality
Accelerate Conservation
Implementation
RCPP, Vilsack’s Commitment, VT
Env. Stewardship Program,
National CIG for Nutrient Trading
Program, Watershed Action Plans

47. The Way Things Work
How effective watershed projects are organized
and what we can do to improve public and private
sector watershed programs.

48. Purpose
Identify and articulate the key organizational factors in
effective watershed projects
Watersheds:
 Tulpehocken Creek, Pennsylvania;
 Rock River, Vermont
 Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
 Point Remove, Arkansas
 North Canadian River, Oklahoma;
 Root River, Minnesota
 Whatcom County, Washington
 Tillamook Bay, Oregon

49. Characteristics of Effective
Watershed Projects
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is
unhappy in its own way.” Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
 Watershed assessment – Successful projects are based on sound
watershed plans or assessments that characterize the nature of the
water quality problems, identify sources, prioritize critical areas, &
identify conservation practices.
 Collaboratively developed implementation plan – Creating the plan
collaboratively helps create and reinforce the partnerships that are
integral to success.
 Creation of a credible set of data - multiple benefits of baseline
information, credibility, creating shared knowledge base and
commitment

50. Characteristics of Effective
Watershed Projects
 Capacity to coordinate and manage project activities -
adequate capacity and skill to organize and manage a project;
an anchor organization; project coordinator & staffing.
 One on one engagement with farmers and landowners -
there is no substitute for the direct interaction with a farmer
and the trust formed by strong working relationships.
 Flexibility ability to respond to site specific conditions on a
farm and engender adoption of practices that might not
otherwise have been installed.
 Appropriate time frame: Watershed planning, creating a
shared strategy for implementation, assembling credible data,
and developing the trusted relationships extends over multiple
years.

51. Conclusions
 We know how to organize and manage effective watershed
scale projects:
• Studies consistently identify the same key factors
• Effectively organized and managed projects consistently
achieve substantive results
 However most public and private programs are not using
this knowledge on a wide scale to develop successful
watershed projects
 If we are serious about:
• Addressing water quality
• Enabling the farming community to improve water quality
• Making the best use of our conservation programs and
resources
 Our task is to learn from the experiences of effective project
organizers and to systematically apply those lessons in
watershed programs

52. NIFA CEAP Outreach Information
 USDA NRCS CEAP Website
 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technica
l/nra/ceap/ws/?&cid=stelprdb1047821
 Book: Osmond, D., D. Meals, D. Hoag, and M. Arabi. 2012.
How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to
Protect Water Quality: The National Institute of Food and
Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project
Experience. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA.
 Fact Sheets
 Proceedings
 USEPA Webinar
 USDA NIFA National Water
Quality Conference slides

53. Discussion and Questions
Shanon.Phillips@Conservation.ok.gov
vicky.drew@vt.usda.gov
Elworth@resolv.org