This document outlines a plan to quantify environmental, social, and economic outcomes for a Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) project in the Upper Macoupin Creek Watershed in Illinois. The goals are to reduce phosphorus loads by 25% and nitrogen loads by 15% through increased adoption of conservation practices. Monitoring will include instream sampling at multiple scales to estimate nutrient load reductions. Social outcomes will assess changes in knowledge and behaviors through surveys. Economic impacts will analyze yield and profit effects of adoption. However, meeting nutrient reduction goals will require expanding conservation beyond currently planned Natural Resources Conservation Service funding levels alone.

1. Michelle Perez, PhD
July 27, 2017
SWCS Madison
Thanks to Walton Family
Foundation & McKnight
Foundation for support
Quantifying Outcomes
in an RCPP Project:
Developing a
Measurement and
Evaluation Plan (MEP)
Insert Kris’ photo of the
Macoupin Creek sign
on the bridge and/or a
photo of the Creek
itself swollen from the
rains
Upper Macoupin
Creek Watershed,
Illinois

2. AFT Team Members
Jen Filipiak,
Midwest Director
(Project leader since
2016 pre-proposal &
2014 MRBI projects)
Kris Reynolds,
Resource
Conservationist
(Project leader since
2017)
Michelle Perez,
Senior Policy
Specialist
(MEP lead since 2016)

3. Agenda
 Background & Policy Drivers
 RCPP Project
 Goals
 Desired Outcomes and
Methods
• Environmental
 Instream - Project Area
 Instream - 6 HUC12s
 Field Scale
• Social
• Economic
 Reality Check

4. Quantifying outcomes:
It’s really hard & messy

5. Why Quantifying Outcomes Matters
Farmers want to know what conservation gets
them and provides to others

6. Illinois residents enjoying
Carlinville Campground and Lake
Why Quantifying Outcomes Matters

7. Kris’ boys
enjoying a
Macoupin Creek
tributary
Why
Quantifying
Outcomes
Matters

8. Congress & the
public need
evidence that
their taxpayer
investments in
conservation
achieves results
Why
Quantifying
Outcomes
Matters

9. • Download a copy,
search:
“Perez AFT
success”
• Hear webinar with
former Chief
Dave White
• Read a blog
Replicate
existing
successes

10. Policy driver
• IL NLRS calls for a 25%
reduction in TP & a 15%
reduction in nitrate-N by
2025; Ultimate goal is 45%
reduction for both
• We may adopt the IL NRS
goals because IL does not
have nutrient water quality
standards for rivers (subject
to buy-in from UMC
Partnership)

11. Why this
watershed?
Macoupin Creek
(HUC8) Watershed:
- One of 3 highest P-yielding
watersheds in Illinois
- > 2 lb P/ac/yr average
watershed losses
- 617,000 acres
(Source: IL NRS report. Figure 6.1)

12. Why this
watershed?
Macoupin Creek
(HUC8) Watershed:
- Not rated as a major source
of nitrate-N by IL NRS
report
- 5 – 9.99 lb nitrate-N/ac/yr
average watershed losses
(Source: IL NRS report. Figure 6.1)

13. UMC Watershed RCPP Partners
City State Federal Nonprofit University For Profit Foundations
City of
Gillespie
Illinois
Department of
Agriculture
USDA Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
American
Farmland Trust
Blackburn
College
Illinois Corn
Growers
Association
McKnight
Foundation
City of
Carlinville
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
United States
Geological
Survey
Illinois
Stewardship
Alliance
Illinois Soybean
Association
The Mosaic
Company
Foundation
Macoupin
County Soil &
Water
Conservation
District
Macoupin
County Farm
Bureau
Walton Family
Foundation
Macoupin
County Pork
Producers
CHS-Shipman
Environmental
Tillage Systems
M&M Service
Company

14. Upper Macoupin Creek
Partnership
 17-member Steering
Committee:
• 8 farmers
• M&M ag retailer
• CHS ag retailer
• NRCS-Macoupin County
• SWCD-Macoupin County
• AFT

15. Project area: 6 HUC12s within
Macoupin Watershed (HUC8)

16. 2014 MRBI & 2017 RCPP

17. RCPP Project Area
 Within project area (six
HUC12s), there are
• ~138,000 acres
• 62% is cropland = 85,000
acres
• 650 to 700 farmers &
landowners
• Mostly corn-soybeans,
some hog confinement &
small pasture cattle
operations
50%
45%
2% 3%
Upper Macoupin Creek Watershed
2017 Cropland Use
Corn Soybeans
Small Grains Hay
Source: UMC 2017 Transect Survey

18. Mechanism
1. Outcome-based goal setting
2. Geographic targeting analysis
3. Adaptive management of practice
efficiency

19. Preliminary Goals
1. Improve awareness &
understanding of:
• water quality issues in the UMC
watershed,
• the IL Nutrient Loss Reduction
Strategy, and
• the benefits of improved soil
health and nutrient
management
2. Increase conservation
activity by 40% & improve
farmer profitability
3. Achieve a 25% reduction in P
loads and a 15% reduction
in N loads

20. Funding Availability
Funding Uses
PARTNER
FUNDS
CSP EQIP ALL ALL TOTAL
FA 504$ 347$ 851$ 162$ 1,013$
TA-NRCS use 40$ 62$ 102$ 102$
TA-Partners use 15$ 31$ 46$ 832$ 878$
In-kind 82$ 82$
Total 559$ 440$ 999$ 1,076$ 2,075$
NRCS FUNDS
• CSP goal: 31,000 acres: Surprise! About same as
“conservation activity participation goal” of 40% (of
85,000 cropland acres = 34,000 acres)
• To determine: How to quantify nutrient reductions
from CSP acres?

21. Preliminary Practice Priorities
For NRCS EQIP Funds
1. Cover crops
2. Nutrient management
3. No till / Strip till
4. Grassed waterway
5. Grade stabilization structure
6. Water & sediment control basin
“Conservation
Cropping
Systems”

22. Geographic Targeting
Analysis Options
1. Try out “Model My Watershed” Tool
(https://wikiwatershed.org/). Compare & rank 6 HUC12s by
P & sediment reduction benefits based on practice
scenarios to prioritize FA & TA.
2. LIDAR release in Fall 2017: Pursue more detailed analysis
of 1–2 prioritized watersheds to pursue priority farmers.
• Kris/April use LIDAR to do ACPF
• AFT hires Houston Engineering to use LIDAR to do PTMApp
3. Purse a 2018 319-Grant to hire a consulting firm to
develop a 9-element watershed based plan

23. Environmental Outcomes
Instream Project Scale
• Upstream/downstream
monitoring design
• USGS flow gages
• USGS weekly grab
sampling
• TP, dissolved P, Nitrate-N,
SS concentration samples
• Storm event grab sampling
by partners for “P flush”
• Estimate loads from
concentration & flow

24. Environmental Outcomes
Instream Project Scale
• Vision: Achieve project
goal of 25% P & 15% N
load reduction at
downstream site (minus
upstream site changes)
• Indicates improvements
due to project area
conservation activity rather
than weather variability
• Station installation
(Summer 2017 – 21) = 4
years of data

25. Environmental Outcomes
Instream HUC12 Scale
• Illinois EPA’s ambient
monitoring system in 3
MRBI watersheds (’15,
red dots) & 2 more
HUC12s (‘16) (blue dots)
• Blackburn College
students: monthly grab
samples & flow
• TP, TSS, & VSS samples
• Estimate load from
concentration & flow data
• Missing storms so may hire
consultants to extrapolate
b/w monthly data points

26. Environmental Outcomes
Instream HUC12 Scale
• Would like to see
achievement of project
goal of a 25% P reduction
in one or more of the five
HUC12 monitoring sites

27. Environmental Outcomes
Field Scale
Illinois Phosphorus Index
• Spreadsheet tool: Estimates 5
P loss risk categories for fields
• NRCS for livestock NMPs
• Idea is to use it with farmers in
one HUC12 to:
• Provide education & improve
decision-making
• Improve FA & TA prioritization
• Reporting vision:
• X% of farmers with Very High
P loss risk fields adopted
practices to reduce risks to
Medium or Low

28. Social Outcomes
• To achieve goal of “improving
understanding of watershed issues,
ILNRS, & benefits of improved soil
health”, quantify changes in 7 social
outcome categories before/after
conservation practice adoption using
SIDMA:
1. Capacity
2. Skills
3. Awareness
4. Knowledge
5. Values
6. Beliefs
7. Behaviors

29. Social Outcomes
Details to determine:
• Guidance from our “sociologist gurus” (Petrzelka,
Prokopy, & Carter) on using SIDMA for existing
questions & future questions
Data sources serving as our “baseline
metrics”:
1. Jan-Mar 2016 farmer interviews by SWCD
(n=X in 3 MRBI HUC12s)
2. July 2016 mailed surveys (n=96 in 3 MRBI
HUC12s)
3. May-July 2017 written survey in FSA office
(n=195 in project area)

30. Social Outcomes
• To achieve our goal of an “Increase in
conservation activity by 40%”
• Details to determine:
1. Acres: 40% of 85,000 acres of cropland =
34,000 acres adopting at least one of 8
priority practices?
CSP contracts goal = 31,084!
2. People: 40% of 650-700 farmers &
landowners = 260 people adopting practice
or attending events?
 Spring event (n=32); Summer event
(n=100?)!

31. Practice Adoption Goals
3. Each Practice: 40%
increase in ‘17 no-till acres
for corn?
 Baseline: 1% only so
can only go up!
 Is 40% no-till corn
realistic if state average is
12%?
1%
8%
16%
75%
Upper Macoupin Creek
2017 Tillage Data For Corn
No-Till Mulch-Till Reduced-Till Conventional

32. Practice Adoption Goals
3. Each Practice: 40%
increase in ‘17 no-till acres
for soybeans?
 Baseline: 15%
 State soybean no-till
average is 35%
 Maybe a combined goal
for a 40% increase in
no-till corn & soybean
acres is most realistic
15%
28%
33%
24%
Upper Macoupin Creek Watershed
2017 Tillage Data For Soybeans
No-Till Mulch-Till
Reduced-Till Conventional

33. Economic Outcomes
To achieve goal of “improving farmer
profitability through conservation adoption”,
quantify:
• Yield impacts of conservation (before/after)
• Profit impacts of conservation (before/after)
Details to determine:
• Metrics, methods to quantify this
• Aggregation of metrics to project level

34. Not Just NRCS Practices
Ag Retailer Partners Providing TA
CHS-Shipman & M&M FS
will share with us:
1. # acres with variable
rate (VRT) fertilizer
application
2. # acres of strip-till
3. # acres of nutrient
management planning

35. Reality Check
• How many pounds do we need to reduce by to meet the
project goals? Back of the envelope estimates:
TP & nitrate-N.
Average per
acre losses
Total
losses
Reductions
needed
Ac
cropland
~ lb
loss/ac/yr
Pounds
25% TP & 15%
nitrate-N goals
Total P 85,000 2 170,000 42,500
nitrate-N 85,000 7.5 637,500 95,625

36. Reality Check
Table 6.1 & 6.2 IL NRS
nitrate-N
Efficiencies
TP
Efficiencies
% %
Cover crops 30 30 - 50
Nutrient management 9 - 18 7
No till / Strip till 0 50
Grassed Waterway na na
Grade stabilization structure na na
Water & sediment control basin na na
• How far are preliminary practice targets going to get us to our
nutrient reduction goals?

37. We won’t achieve our goals
with NRCS funding alone
EQIP
targets
Nitrate-N
lb
reduction
potential
% of N
goal
progress
Total P lb
reduction
potential
% of P
goal
progress
2,315 ac
Cover crops 5,205 5.4% 2,315 5.4%
570 ac
Nutrient
Management 427 0.4% 100 0.2%
2,270 ac
NT/ST - 0 2,270 5.3%
5,632 6% 4,685 11%

38. To ease other RCPP projects’ pain
• AFT offering to assemble multi-disciplinary team of experts to:
• Establish definitions, methods & tools, & reporting criteria for
• RCPP partners & related NRCS staff who are interested in
• Quantifying environmental, social, & economic outcomes

39. Why it
Matters to
Me

40. Saving the Land that Sustains Us
www.farmland.org
mperez@farmland.org; 202-378-1205
Saving the Land and Water that Sustains Us