SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Application of Monitoring to Inform Policy and Achieve Water Quality Goals

•
•
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Soil and Water Conservation Society

This document discusses considerations for water quality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices. It addresses questions that different types of monitoring can answer, as well as challenges such as linking observed water quality changes to specific land management practices. The document emphasizes that monitoring alone cannot demonstrate conservation practice effectiveness and that monitoring needs to be strategically designed and combined with explanatory data on practices implemented. It provides examples of how monitoring could be used by various stakeholders and highlights the importance of a watershed planning approach to target conservation.

Related slideshows

Farmer Motivation and Decision Making - Radatz
Farmer Motivation and Decision Making - RadatzFarmer Motivation and Decision Making - Radatz
Farmer Motivation and Decision Making - Radatz
 
Tomer - Monitoring Choices Affect our Discernment of Watershed Processes
Tomer - Monitoring Choices Affect our Discernment of Watershed Processes Tomer - Monitoring Choices Affect our Discernment of Watershed Processes
Tomer - Monitoring Choices Affect our Discernment of Watershed Processes
 
Smith - Technical Challenges to Meeting Goals
Smith - Technical Challenges to Meeting Goals Smith - Technical Challenges to Meeting Goals
Smith - Technical Challenges to Meeting Goals
 
1 of 19
Download to read offline
1USDA-NRCS, 2USEPA, 3NC State University Edge of Field Monitoring Conference Memphis, TN L. Duriancik1, Katie Flahive2, D. Osmond3
Application of Monitoring to Inform Policy and Achieve Water Quality Goals
Water Quality Monitoring Decisions Determine What Questions Can Be Answered `
Questions to be Addressed Through Different Types of Monitoring  Identify water quality or resource problems  Assess permit compliance  Develop TMDLs and pollutant load allocations  Analyze national or statewide trends  Assess water quality impacts of management practices and implementation strategies  Calibrate or validate water quality models, including water quality trading  Understand pollutant sources and transport 4 YEAR 2001 Dry Year Adj R² = 0.79 Year 2003 Wet Year Adj R² = 0.75 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 25 50 TNLoad(kg/ha/yr) Ag Land Area/Total Watershed Area (%)
Water Quality Monitoring Decisions Setting goals and objectives • Experimental design/monitoring design • Scale of monitoring • Frequency and duration of monitoring • Lag times • Response variables • Technical needs related to sampling and analysis Rock Creek, OH
Most conservation implementation projects should NOT conduct water quality monitoring to demonstrate the effectiveness of conservation practices because monitoring is technically very challenging and expensive. Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Water Quality Monitoring is Difficult
 Data on farming systems (e.g., split application of herbicides) needed to explain monitoring results  In long-term monitoring, installed practices may degrade, be modified, or be abandoned – this must be known to understand monitoring results. This information, however is rarely obtained.  Need to extend oversight activity beyond initial installation period. This can only be accomplished at a reasonable scale. Water Quality Monitoring: Cause and Effect No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring, it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment without equally rigorous land treatment and management monitoring.
Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions: Neuse River Estuary 8 -60% -45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45% 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 TotalNRelativeLoad(%) Year NO3/NO2 TKN TN Target 1991-1995 From DRAFT DWQ MTU Memorandum on Neuse Trends, 1/2/2013
Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions : Chesapeake Bay 9 Flow - billions of gallons per day – green line Total P load (millions lbs/ year) – green tipped bar Average P load – 19 mil-lbs/yr
Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions: Neuse River Estuary 10 -60% -45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45% 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 TotalNRelativeLoad(%) Year NO3/NO2 TKN TN Target 1991-1995 From DRAFT DWQ MTU Memorandum on Neuse Trends, 1/2/2013
Water Quality Monitoring Is a Tool CANNOT  Conduct watershed planning  Determine appropriate conservation practices  Determine critical source areas  Identify watershed farmers’ attitudes toward conservation practices  Maintain conservation practice  Provide economic and technical assistance CAN  Help Identifying pollutant(s) of concern, sources, and hydrologic transport  Help identify conservation practice effectiveness  Inform future management decisions  Provide information for outreach and adaptive management Photo by Deanna Osmond, Georgia CEAP, 2009
Who Needs Data and Why? Producers, farm managers, advisors • Feedback on particular practices, concerns • Support adaptive management, conservation planning Conservationists, watershed planners, managers • Identify constituents of concern and sources • Track implementation of watershed plan or conservation needs/plan • GIS approaches • Watershed monitoring for outcomes Program Managers • Is current design achieving or addressing expectations? Yes or why not? • Adjust program design or implementation • Enhance projects and evaluation criteria Agencies, scientists Research – understanding Official reporting • Accountability • Different scales of reporting expectations • National/ large regional • Small watershed with implementation • Value of benchmarks MRBI NWQI GLRI ! Percent Perennial = 1.7% Percent Perennial = 58.5% Map from Phil Heilman, USDA ARS
How Can NRCS Use EOF Data  Conservation Planning  Practice effectiveness (need under a range of conditions)  Practice interactions and systems, where we can test that, at field scale  Practice Standards  Modeling  algorithm development  need a range of weather, soils, hydrologic conditions  calibration, validation Photo by Lisa Duriancik. EOF monitoring in Indiana.
How Can NRCS Use Watershed Data  Primary constituents, sources and flow paths for planning  Outcome reporting  Align with conservation implementation  Feedback into watershed conservation plan  Explanatory variables  Why or why not?  Be explicit about conclusions  Articulate the nuances  EOF within helps  Modeling to help understand and attribute effects  Combined approach necessary Lizotte et al., 2014, JSWC, 69 (2): 160-170. Beasley Lake CEAP Watershed, MS
Considerations for Greater Utility of Water Quality Monitoring Data • EOF, within watershed and at watershed outlet • Combine locations regionally • Model to evaluate broader effects Comprehe nsive scales and watershed designs more useful • Inform program design • Shape program delivery • Guide evaluation criteria and ranking • Inform outcome assessment strategies, approaches Synthesize lessons learned • Targeted conservation implementation with monitoring and assessment at scales • Requires stakeholder/partner collaboration • Prioritize alignment? • Include groundwater where appropriate and feasible Strategically align resources
Reducing Nonpoint Sources Needs a Watershed Planning Focus  To reduce impacts from agricultural lands, focus on implementation in targeted watersheds with critical areas identified  At the watershed scale, 319 Nonpoint Source Program 9-element watershed plans allow for locally led efforts to drive nutrient load reductions  Holistic plans to clean up entire (typically small) watersheds  Identifies critical areas, pollutant sources, loads, potential management practices, etc.  Roadmap for project implementation most likely to deliver water quality results  USDA CEAP, EPA & other science confirm: targeting systems of conservation practices in the right places is essential to water quality results and effective return for investment  www2.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution 16
USEPA: Addressing Challenges in Nonpoint Source Monitoring  Discerning water quality changes from conservation practices is feasible with care in site selection, tracking, and monitoring design  Monitoring design must incorporate explanatory variables – weather data, stream bank assessment, nature and extent of adopted conservation practices, other changes in watershed  Scale, type and location of monitoring will vary based on many factors including:  layout and characteristics of watershed  location of fixed monitoring stations  amount and distribution of conservation practices, including relative to other sources of pollution and management measures in watershed  critical source areas in watershed 17
USEPA: Example Assessment  Assessment goal: track progress at multiple HUC12 watersheds to assess water quality impacts of agricultural conservation practices  Instream Water Quality Monitoring  Monitoring design based on watershed circumstances, critical areas and practice implementation in those areas.  Leverage existing/planned monitoring where it coincides with NWQI watersheds  Edge of Field Monitoring and Assessment Tools  Edge of Field Monitoring in a subset of these watersheds  Use this monitoring data to develop stronger assessment models  Modeling watersheds to track intended progress  Long term trend tracking  Assess monitoring trends over time  Water quality progress through accelerated implementation of conservation practices  Delistings  Long-term coordination and effective partnerships Watersheds meeting conservation treatment need documented by NRCS state offices 18
In Memory of a Friend to Agriculture and the Environment A profound thank you to Roberta Parry who made us all better and challenged us to do more.

More Related Content

Application of Monitoring to Inform Policy and Achieve Water Quality Goals

  • 1. 1USDA-NRCS, 2USEPA, 3NC State University Edge of Field Monitoring Conference Memphis, TN L. Duriancik1, Katie Flahive2, D. Osmond3
  • 3. Water Quality Monitoring Decisions Determine What Questions Can Be Answered `
  • 4. Questions to be Addressed Through Different Types of Monitoring  Identify water quality or resource problems  Assess permit compliance  Develop TMDLs and pollutant load allocations  Analyze national or statewide trends  Assess water quality impacts of management practices and implementation strategies  Calibrate or validate water quality models, including water quality trading  Understand pollutant sources and transport 4 YEAR 2001 Dry Year Adj R² = 0.79 Year 2003 Wet Year Adj R² = 0.75 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 25 50 TNLoad(kg/ha/yr) Ag Land Area/Total Watershed Area (%)
  • 5. Water Quality Monitoring Decisions Setting goals and objectives • Experimental design/monitoring design • Scale of monitoring • Frequency and duration of monitoring • Lag times • Response variables • Technical needs related to sampling and analysis Rock Creek, OH
  • 6. Most conservation implementation projects should NOT conduct water quality monitoring to demonstrate the effectiveness of conservation practices because monitoring is technically very challenging and expensive. Lessons Learned from NIFA-CEAP: Water Quality Monitoring is Difficult
  • 7.  Data on farming systems (e.g., split application of herbicides) needed to explain monitoring results  In long-term monitoring, installed practices may degrade, be modified, or be abandoned – this must be known to understand monitoring results. This information, however is rarely obtained.  Need to extend oversight activity beyond initial installation period. This can only be accomplished at a reasonable scale. Water Quality Monitoring: Cause and Effect No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring, it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment without equally rigorous land treatment and management monitoring.
  • 8. Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions: Neuse River Estuary 8 -60% -45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45% 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 TotalNRelativeLoad(%) Year NO3/NO2 TKN TN Target 1991-1995 From DRAFT DWQ MTU Memorandum on Neuse Trends, 1/2/2013
  • 9. Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions : Chesapeake Bay 9 Flow - billions of gallons per day – green line Total P load (millions lbs/ year) – green tipped bar Average P load – 19 mil-lbs/yr
  • 10. Linking Practice Implementation and Land Use to Load Reductions: Neuse River Estuary 10 -60% -45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45% 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 TotalNRelativeLoad(%) Year NO3/NO2 TKN TN Target 1991-1995 From DRAFT DWQ MTU Memorandum on Neuse Trends, 1/2/2013
  • 11. Water Quality Monitoring Is a Tool CANNOT  Conduct watershed planning  Determine appropriate conservation practices  Determine critical source areas  Identify watershed farmers’ attitudes toward conservation practices  Maintain conservation practice  Provide economic and technical assistance CAN  Help Identifying pollutant(s) of concern, sources, and hydrologic transport  Help identify conservation practice effectiveness  Inform future management decisions  Provide information for outreach and adaptive management Photo by Deanna Osmond, Georgia CEAP, 2009
  • 12. Who Needs Data and Why? Producers, farm managers, advisors • Feedback on particular practices, concerns • Support adaptive management, conservation planning Conservationists, watershed planners, managers • Identify constituents of concern and sources • Track implementation of watershed plan or conservation needs/plan • GIS approaches • Watershed monitoring for outcomes Program Managers • Is current design achieving or addressing expectations? Yes or why not? • Adjust program design or implementation • Enhance projects and evaluation criteria Agencies, scientists Research – understanding Official reporting • Accountability • Different scales of reporting expectations • National/ large regional • Small watershed with implementation • Value of benchmarks MRBI NWQI GLRI ! Percent Perennial = 1.7% Percent Perennial = 58.5% Map from Phil Heilman, USDA ARS
  • 13. How Can NRCS Use EOF Data  Conservation Planning  Practice effectiveness (need under a range of conditions)  Practice interactions and systems, where we can test that, at field scale  Practice Standards  Modeling  algorithm development  need a range of weather, soils, hydrologic conditions  calibration, validation Photo by Lisa Duriancik. EOF monitoring in Indiana.
  • 14. How Can NRCS Use Watershed Data  Primary constituents, sources and flow paths for planning  Outcome reporting  Align with conservation implementation  Feedback into watershed conservation plan  Explanatory variables  Why or why not?  Be explicit about conclusions  Articulate the nuances  EOF within helps  Modeling to help understand and attribute effects  Combined approach necessary Lizotte et al., 2014, JSWC, 69 (2): 160-170. Beasley Lake CEAP Watershed, MS
  • 15. Considerations for Greater Utility of Water Quality Monitoring Data • EOF, within watershed and at watershed outlet • Combine locations regionally • Model to evaluate broader effects Comprehe nsive scales and watershed designs more useful • Inform program design • Shape program delivery • Guide evaluation criteria and ranking • Inform outcome assessment strategies, approaches Synthesize lessons learned • Targeted conservation implementation with monitoring and assessment at scales • Requires stakeholder/partner collaboration • Prioritize alignment? • Include groundwater where appropriate and feasible Strategically align resources
  • 16. Reducing Nonpoint Sources Needs a Watershed Planning Focus  To reduce impacts from agricultural lands, focus on implementation in targeted watersheds with critical areas identified  At the watershed scale, 319 Nonpoint Source Program 9-element watershed plans allow for locally led efforts to drive nutrient load reductions  Holistic plans to clean up entire (typically small) watersheds  Identifies critical areas, pollutant sources, loads, potential management practices, etc.  Roadmap for project implementation most likely to deliver water quality results  USDA CEAP, EPA & other science confirm: targeting systems of conservation practices in the right places is essential to water quality results and effective return for investment  www2.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution 16
  • 17. USEPA: Addressing Challenges in Nonpoint Source Monitoring  Discerning water quality changes from conservation practices is feasible with care in site selection, tracking, and monitoring design  Monitoring design must incorporate explanatory variables – weather data, stream bank assessment, nature and extent of adopted conservation practices, other changes in watershed  Scale, type and location of monitoring will vary based on many factors including:  layout and characteristics of watershed  location of fixed monitoring stations  amount and distribution of conservation practices, including relative to other sources of pollution and management measures in watershed  critical source areas in watershed 17
  • 18. USEPA: Example Assessment  Assessment goal: track progress at multiple HUC12 watersheds to assess water quality impacts of agricultural conservation practices  Instream Water Quality Monitoring  Monitoring design based on watershed circumstances, critical areas and practice implementation in those areas.  Leverage existing/planned monitoring where it coincides with NWQI watersheds  Edge of Field Monitoring and Assessment Tools  Edge of Field Monitoring in a subset of these watersheds  Use this monitoring data to develop stronger assessment models  Modeling watersheds to track intended progress  Long term trend tracking  Assess monitoring trends over time  Water quality progress through accelerated implementation of conservation practices  Delistings  Long-term coordination and effective partnerships Watersheds meeting conservation treatment need documented by NRCS state offices 18
  • 19. In Memory of a Friend to Agriculture and the Environment A profound thank you to Roberta Parry who made us all better and challenged us to do more.