Watershed scale conservation
•
0 likes•282 views
This document summarizes a presentation about watershed-scale conservation efforts in the Great Lakes region. It discusses several phases of research and modeling that were conducted to determine: 1) the link between fish health and water quality; 2) the link between water quality and agricultural best management practices (BMPs); and 3) the development of decision tools to target BMPs and track progress. It also describes several pilot projects that aim to test innovative strategies for implementing BMPs and achieving watershed goals through partnerships with farmers and agribusinesses. The overall goal is to use science-based tools and new funding models to implement conservation at a large enough scale to improve conditions in watersheds and the Great Lakes.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Watershed scale conservation
Similar to Watershed scale conservation (20)
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Watershed scale conservation
- 7. How Much Conservation is Enough? Mary Fales, Saginaw Bay Watershed Project Director, The Nature Conservancy
- 8. How Much Conservation is Enough? Important take home points: • We need a goal and plan!
- 9. How Much Conservation is Enough? 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
- 10. How Much is Enough?
- 11. How Much Is Enough?
- 13. It Depends on Your Goal Acres of BMPs Total $$ Spent
- 14. 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
- 15. 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
- 16. 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
- 17. 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
- 18. • Over 300 actual data points Phase 1 – Link fish health to WQ • SWAT model gave us predicted WQ at each point
- 19. Phase 1: Link fish health to WQ –At what point are water quality variables no longer limiting? –Other factors still play a role
- 20. Which Variables Are Limiting and Where? PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN SEDIMENT/FLOW
- 21. 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
- 22. • 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
- 23. Sub‐watershed Comparison: Fish Community Health Current Condition 25% BMP Implementation
- 24. Sub‐watershed Comparison: Fish Community Health Current Condition 50% BMP Implementation
- 26. 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?
- 27. 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
- 29. Sediment and Nutrient Calculators www.iwr.msu.edu/glwms/
- 30. Jeremiah Asher, GIS Project Manager Laura Young, Research Assistant Michigan State University Institute of Water Research 69th Soil Water Conservation Society International Annual Conference Making Waves in Conservation July 29, Lombard, Illinois Great Lakes Watershed Management System Walkthrough Watershed Scale Conservation: How much is Enough?
- 31. Outline • Underlying Models – HIT – L‐THIA • Types of Analyses • Walkthrough Example
- 33. 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
- 34. HIT Model
- 35. HIT: Field Evaluations 35 Results: 70% of the time HIT maps correctly characterized the landscape.
- 48. View Baseline NPS • Estimates baseline nonpoint source pollutant loadings
- 49. Calculate a Baseline Change • Estimates the change in runoff and NPS pollutant loadings based on a land cover change or best management practice
- 50. 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?do cid=9372 Photo courtesy of USDA ARS
- 63. 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
- 64. 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
- 66. 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)
- 67. 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
- 70. 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
- 71. Saginaw Bay Watershed RCPP LEADS: – 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
- 72. 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!
- 73. © Scott Warren Achieving Conservation at Scale with Industry in Western Lake Erie Basin The Nature Conservancy www.nature.org/wleb SWCS Conference, Lombard, IL Lauren Lindemann llindemann@tnc.org
- 74. © Scott Warren
- 78. Continually Developing 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification
- 79. Building Relationships can Scale Conservation & Profits
- 81. Year 1 Onsite Audit Year 2 Onsite Audit in the first certification cycle, possible Desk Audit in later certification cycles Year 3 Desk Audit for NSPs that have performed well in previous years. $600 Annual Registration Fee + Audit Costs (estimated from $900-$1100/year paid to auditor)
- 82. Grower Customers
- 84. Society
- 86. Triple Bottom Line Evaluation
- 87. Lake Erie - 2014
- 88. Who has funded the development of the 4R Certification Program?
- 89. © Scott Warren www.4Rcertified.org Lauren Lindemann www.nature.org/wleb
- 91. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends
- 92. We pursue non- confrontational, pragmatic solutions to conservation challenges. Patagonia grasslands, Argentina ©Bridget Besaw
- 93. 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
- 94. 94
- 95. A Title 95
- 96. A Title 96
- 99. Dead Zones of the World 99 Major known eutrophic and hypoxic areas. Reprinted from Selman et al.
- 100. 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 billionbushelscornandmilliontonsnutrient(N,P2O5,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
- 104. 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
- 107. A Closer Look Soybean 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
- 108. Top Down Bottom Up Supply Chain Alignment Supply chain engagements, growing region/ watershed scale Field scale metrics, tools & pilots 4R