69th SWCS International Annual Conference July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL

1. Opportunities for cleaner water thru MRBI and
RCPP targeted watershed projects
MICHELLE PEREZ | Senior Associate | July 28, 2014
Presentation for Soil and Water Conservation Society | Lombard, IL
MRBI Design Lessons

2. 3 papers on improving water quality
through better targeting of U.S. farm conservation funds
www.wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting

3. What is Targeting?
• 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 #s, dollars spent, acres treated
- Environmental outcomes: Water quality indicators at edge of
field, in-stream, watershed outlet

4. Benefits to
Business-As-Usual Conservation
Solves individual water quality problems on individual farms

5. BAU v. Targeting

6. Targeted Watershed Project Successes
• Rural Clean Water Program (’80 – ’90)
- 12/21 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements
• 319 Projects (on-going)
- 1/3 of 488 “Success Stories” thanks to ag conservation programs
• NIFA-CEAP Watershed Projects (2013)
- 6/13 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements
• Iowa’s Watershed Councils
- Extension + farm leaders + farmers = water quality improvements

7. Mississippi
River Basin
Healthy
Watersheds
Initiative

8. Projects
Reviewed by
State

9. Methods
• Conducted a literature review
- Identified likely factors important to targeting success (measurable
improvements in water quality) & selected 6 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

10. 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

11. Stakeholder &
Producer Buy-in
SMART-
Q Goals
Geographic
Targeting
Monitoring
& Evaluation
Cost-
Effective-
ness
Adaptive
Mgt

12. STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS

13. STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS
It takes a skilled &
resource-rich village!
• Projects had 2 - 30 partners; Median: 9.5
- 98% had producer connections
- 100% had conservation technical assistance 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.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Make sure all the right stakeholders are involved in
developing the targeted watershed projects (TWP)
including farm producers and landowners
•
Prioritize awards to future projects that leverage
and formalize significant resources from non-USDA
sources

15. GOALS: 4 types
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

16. 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

17. 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

18. RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Write clear, SMART-Q goal
statements for both the
program & projects
• Prioritize funds for projects
that aim to achieve already
existing landscape-scale
policy goals

19. 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.

20. 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

21. RECOMMENDATION:
• Provide “targeting narratives” for the
targeted watershed projects
 Tell the public about it on an MRBI and an
RCPP state information clearing house
website

22. 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%

23. # Projects
monitoring
each major
water quality
indicator
category

24. Actual water quality indicators
mentioned

25. 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?

26. 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

27. 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

28. RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Ensure leadership & accountability for landscape-
scale outcomes
 Establish MRBI & RCPP HQ & State Coordinators to collect
results data & tell the public about it on the websites
• 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

29. 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 reduced)

30. RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Require a narrative
discussion (at least) of cost
effectiveness & invest in
tools or provide methods to
calculate cost effectiveness
• Formalize adaptive
management

31. Thank You!
Michelle Perez, PhD
202-729-7908
mperez@wri.org
wri.org/publication/MRBI
wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting