An article summarizing an interim evaluation of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) water quality projects was published in the March 1994 issue of NWQEP NOTES (No. 64). The following article is based on a final report published in July of 1996 by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of Vermont and Texas A&M University. The final report presents the authors' analysis of the extent to which a case study group of water quality projects approved under the USDA Water Quality Program made progress toward improving and protecting water quality from agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

Assessment of Progress of USDS Water Quality Projects

Donald W. Meals, University of Vermont
John D. Sutton, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
Ray H. Griggs, Texas A&M University

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Water Quality Program was implemented in FY 1990 in response to national concern over the declining quality of ground and surface waters. The principal objective of the Water Quality Program was to provide farmers and ranchers with the assistance they need to respond independently and voluntarily to address environmental concerns and help meet state water quality requirements. The Program required an evaluation by the Education, Technical Assistance, and Financial Assistance (ET&FA) Committee of the USDA Working Group on Water Quality. The report on which this article is based presents an analysis of the extent to which a case study group of 16 projects made progress toward improving and protecting water quality from agricultural nonpoint source pollution during FY 1991-94.

During 1990-91, the ET&FA Committee oversaw the initiation of 90 Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) and Demonstration (DP) projects, each designed to improve or protect water quality cost-effectively by reducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Primary contaminants addressed in the projects included nitrate and phosphorus from inorganic and organic sources, sediment, and pesticides. Reduced pollution was to be achieved through voluntary adoption of 1) improved nutrient and pesticide management in crop and livestock enterprises, 2) erosion and sediment control practices, and 3) improved irrigation water management.

HUA projects focused on remediation of documented water quality problems in watersheds by providing educational, technical, and financial assistance to support widespread implementation of USDA-tested practices to protect water quality. DPs were located in broad areas of actual or potential water quality impairment, not necessarily in whole watersheds, and demonstrated innovative practices at specific sites, combined with education efforts to accelerate wider adoption of new practices by producers.

A case study group of eight DPs and eight HUAs, encompassing a wide range of geographic settings, agriculture types, and water quality problems, was used to document the extent to which the projects made progress toward improving or protecting water quality. Progress was evaluated through three types of indicators:

• Producer adoption of conservation practices and documented changes in agrichemical management,

• Project staff competency in use of models to simulate reductions in sediment, nutrient, and pesticide losses from the edge-of-field or bottom-of-root zone, and

• Monitored changes in water quality in impaired or threatened water bodies.

The authors conducted their assessment from 1991 through 1995 via site visits with project staff, analysis of project annual reports, a computerized land treatment data base, and a variety of workshops and meetings. Highlights of the report are presented below.

Indicator Type I: Adoption of Practices and Changes in Agrichemical Management

There was substantial adoption of conservation practices and improved management among the case study projects, including 134 practices: 66 practices with national standards and specifications and 68 practices that included both state-approved components of nationally defined practices and new or innovative practices that were demonstrated in the DPs. The most widely adopted national practices included nutrient management, irrigation water management, conservation cropping, cover/green manure crop, conservation tillage, pesticide management, and animal waste utilization.

Most of the projects initially lacked formal, detailed land treatment tracking or agricultural management monitoring. However, by FY 1994 all of the projects were doing an adequate job of tracking basic land treatment and several undertook more intensive efforts to track actual management changes, including use of a geographic information system (GIS) to spatially reference these changes.

The projects reported substantial improvements in agrichemical management. Estimated reductions in annual nitrogen application rates averaged across participating acreage in each project ranged from 14 to 129 pounds per acre; estimated reductions in phosphorus ranged from 3 to 106 pounds per acre. Total annual reductions as of FY 1994 were a reported 22.3 million pounds of nitrogen and 10.3 million pounds of phosphorus. Assessment of overall change in pesticide applications was much more complex because changes involved not only rates of application, but also timing, formulation, and method. However, several projects reported significant improvements in pest management and more effective targeting of pesticide management practices to problem soils.

Indicator Type II: Simulated Reductions in Pollutant Loadings

Project staff in several projects raised capabilities to use very complex physical process simulation models to project changes in pollutant losses from agricultural land due to changes in conservation practices and agrichemical management. While few individuals among project staffs had experience with models at project initiation, six project annual reports showed that staff had acquired a high degree of competence in field-scale model calibration, clear documentation of modeled results, and proper and logical discussion of results in terms of the water quality objectives of their project. Field-scale model use in the remaining 10 project reports was poorly documented or not reported. The field-scale model used most frequently was EPIC. Only three projects demonstrated clear skill in using watershed-scale models; AGNPS was the most widely used watershed-scale model.

Indicator Type III: Monitored Water Quality Changes

Water quality monitoring was not designed specifically into any of the projects, but most projects did engage in some form of monitoring, generally added after project inception.

Four projects were able to provide solid evidence, through monitoring, of project impact on water quality. However, most of the projects were unable to document impacts through monitoring due to inadequate monitoring design or resources, lack of control for spatial and temporal variability, long hydrologic lag time, or other limitations. Direct assessment of project-level impacts through water quality monitoring during the lifetime of the projects was probably not feasible given the late start on monitoring in many projects, the absence of close coordination between implementation of treatment and the design of monitoring, the time needed to implement many practices, and the response time of natural systems. While many progress reports claimed significant impacts on water quality, such statements were rarely supported by solid monitoring data. The most obvious cause of this was the short project period; many projects correctly stated that five years was too short a time to demonstrate water quality improvements. Major difficulties also stemmed from the failure to give water quality monitoring and evaluation adequate priority at the program level when project plans were formulated. As a consequence, many of the monitoring activities that were undertaken or adapted from external ongoing programs had goals and capabilities poorly suited to project operation and evaluation. Monitoring was not well integrated into total project management and operation.

Many projects were successful in using water quality monitoring to 1) document the effectiveness of specific management practices or of demonstration sites in improving water quality, 2) establish a baseline water quality data set potentially useful in documenting future changes in water quality, or 3) initiate well-designed, long-term monitoring efforts that can eventually detect response to treatment.

Recommendations

Program and Project Planning

• Selection criteria for land treatment/water quality projects should include probability of project cooperation with strong existing state or federal nonpoint source monitoring and evaluation programs.

• Future land treatment/water quality projects should be located in hydrologically favorable areas and in areas where the relationship between pollutant source areas and impaired water bodies is known. Areas with extremely long ground water travel times, where the project area contributes only a small proportion of the water or pollutant load, or where pollutant movement pathways are poorly understood, should be avoided because the probability of successful documentation of water quality response to land treatment is very low.

• A systematic, objective, and credible means of targeting treatment to critical problem areas is needed in all water quality projects. Identification and prioritization of pollutant source areas, based on local staff knowledge, quantitative pollutant loss screening tools, physical process simulation models, and land management and water quality data, should be initiated in the early stages of project planning.

• To be used effectively in evaluation of land treatment project impacts, water quality monitoring must focus specifically on the project area and be designed into the project from the start. Integration of monitoring into the project mainstream can foster important feedback loops between land treatment and monitoring efforts that can improve targeting of land treatment, as well as overall project management and operation.

• Future land treatment/water quality programs should provide guidance on the use of specific performance measures to evaluate project performance.

• Land treatment/water quality projects should establish quantitative goals for adoption of land treatment measures and improvements in agrichemical management, based on best available estimates of changes required to protect or improve water quality.

• USDA efforts to establish a conservation practice and management improvement tracking and accounting system need to continue receiving high priority. Staff in all projects could use such a system to record the amounts, landscape locations, physical, and financial effects of practice adoption; technical and financial assistance from project sponsors; and other characteristics of all producer actions that can affect subsequent water quality conditions. The ADSWQ software developed for this assessment and the Natural Resource Conservation Service Field Office Computing System (FOCS) now being developed should be considered in this regard. Project staff should be trained in the capabilities and use of the system during project planning.

• USDA agencies should design and implement non-intrusive procedures to track a) practice adoption and agrichemical management improvements by producers within a water quality project area who do not directly receive technical, financial, or educational assistance; and b) general watershed trends in land and water management.

• USDA agencies should develop and implement a system capable of assessing the level of operation and maintenance of implemented structural and adopted non-structural conservation practices in a project area after that project has been terminated. Anticipated water quality benefits will not occur if producers do not continue to apply annual project-promoted practices, such as nutrient or pesticide management, or if local sponsors do not maintain structural measures.

Staff Training

• USDA agencies should continue to place high priority on the development of and training in the use of analytical screening tools for nutrient and pesticide leaching and runoff and sediment production to assist in identifying potential pollutant source areas and areas to target management improvements.

• USDA agencies should continue to emphasize development of staff capabilities to choose appropriate simulation models, both field-scale and watershed-scale, acquire reliable input data at least cost, and use selected models properly, including output interpretation and sensitivity analysis. Given the significant time required for an individual to become able to effectively use models in project planning and in simulation of future water quality effects, agencies should focus training on a cadre of individuals who could assist multiple projects.

• USDA agencies and their cooperators should continue to train water quality program leaders in key concepts of water quality monitoring in order to promote close coordination and interaction with water quality monitoring capabilities of other federal and state partners.

Project Assessment

• Assessment of project impacts on water quality through monitoring should be an important component of future USDA-sponsored land treatment/water quality programs. Clear documentation of water quality response to soil and water conservation practices and improved management practices at the project level should be a major goal. However, full documentation is not needed on every project. A few carefully designed projects should be selected for full project evaluation effort, in partnership with water quality monitoring agencies, both state and federal.

• In projects not selected for full evaluations, necessary evaluation should be based on land treatment tracking, documented changes in agrichemical application and management, and model projections as secondary indicators of impact.

• Even simple, inexpensive water quality monitoring should be considered in project design for impact assessment. Rudimentary monitoring comparing water quality upstream and downstream of a practice, for example, can 1) suggest the effectiveness of installed practices on in-stream water quality, 2) document water quality variables that may respond to the treatment program and should therefore be monitored at a watershed outlet to document overall program effects, and 3) provide evidence useful in enhancing producer and public acceptance of improved management. Involving project staff directly in monitoring and evaluation can establish vital cooperation, information sharing, and feedback between land treatment and water quality activities.

• Monitoring of water quality at the practice site may be necessary to document practice effectiveness, to predict which water quality variables are likely to respond to the land treatment program, or to promote producer adoption. Such monitoring should, however, be considered only an indirect measure of overall project impact because changes resulting from the adoption of individual practices may not result in watershed-level response.

• The evaluation period for water quality response to land treatment at watershed scales should be longer than the five-year duration of the projects in the assessment and ideally should be tied to the response time of the natural system.

• Opportunities to integrate water quality monitoring and simulation models for project planning and evaluation should continue to be explored. Modeling can project changes that are difficult, costly, or time-consuming to monitor. During project operation as well as during planning, appropriate modeling permits comparative estimation of pollutant loadings under different project scenarios. Monitoring can provide data essential for model validation and can address water quality dimensions not handled by currently available models.

• While producer adoption of soil and water conservation practices and initial management changes may be accomplished relatively rapidly, some provision for continued assessment of long-term management changes and project impacts on water quality should be considered, especially when a sophisticated monitoring and evaluation program is initiated. When assessment results are expected long after the completion of the land treatment program, a mechanism must be developed for tracking projects and incorporating understanding of their ultimate impacts into agency knowledge.

For Further Information

Copies of the report on which the above article is based, entitled Assessment of Progress of Selected Water Quality Projects of USDA and State Cooperators, may be requested (free) by contacting John Sutton, USDA - NRCS, Room 6175-S, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013, Fax: 202-720-9030.

Why Watersheds? is accessible on the World Wide Web at: http://www.epa.gov/OW/watershed/why.html.

EPA. 1996. Watershed Approach Framework. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 840-S-96-001.

The Watershed Approach Framework report explains what USEPA means by the watershed approach. Guiding principles, benefits, and how principles can be implemented at the state and tribal levels are discussed.

EPA. 1996. Watershed Progress: Rouge River Watershed, Michigan. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 840-F-96-001, 4p.

Watershed Progress: Rouge River Watershed, Michigan is the first document of a series designed to describe situations in which the watershed approach is making a difference.

EPA. 1995. Lakewalk Manual. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 910-B-95-007.

The Lakewalk Manual gives citizens the opportunity to learn about their lakes and how to collect observed information and data.

Merrimack River Initiative

Colorado BMPs for Agriculture

Nutrients in the Nation's Water

Based on findings from the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Nutrients in the Nation's Waters -- Too Much of a Good Thing? provides a concise, well-written, attractively illustrated summary of current knowledge about nutrients in the nation's waters. The publication is accessible on the World Wide Web at: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/CIR-1136.html.

The fact sheet Nitrate in Ground Waters of the United States -- Assessing the Risk provides a summary of nitrates in ground water. Using data compiled by the NAWQA Program, the authors evaluated the potential for nitrate contamination of ground waters in the United States. Soil drainage characteristics and the amount of nitrogen contributed by fertilizer, manure, and atmospheric sources were found to markedly influence the concentration of nitrate in ground water. These two characteristics were compiled in a national map that shows patterns of risk for nitrate contamination of ground water. The fact sheet is accessible on the World Wide Web at: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/FS-092-96.html.

Single copies of the two publications may be ordered (free) from USGS, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225, Tel: 1-800-435-7627, Fax: 303-202-4693.

Watershed Source Book

Innovative Planning and Design Strategies to Protect Urban Watersheds

Information describing the three publications is available on the Council of Governments' web site: http://www.cais.net/mwcog/ic/elpinfo.html. Copies of the publications (prices noted above) may be ordered from the Information Center, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 300, Washington, DC. 20002-4239, Tel: 202-962-3256. Fourth class mailing is included at no additional cost. For first class mailing, include $4 per item ($5 per item to Canada and $15 per item overseas). Make checks payable to MWCOG. Bulk order discounts are available.

Water Quality: A Catalog of Related Federal Programs

Single copies may be ordered (free) fromthe U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015, Tel: 202-512-6000, Fax: 301-258-4066. Additional copies cost $2 each. GAO reports are accessible on the World Wide Web at http://www.gao.gov.

4th International Conference on Computer Methods and Water Resources: June 16-18, 1997, Byblos, Lebanon. Abstracts and entry form due by Dec 30, 1996, to Sue Owen, Conference Secretariat, CMWR 97, Wessex Institute of Technology, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO40 7AA, Tel: +44 (01703) 293223, Fax: +44 (01703) 292853, email: sue@wessex.ac.uk, web site: http://venus.ce.jhu.edu/cmwr/

Meeting Announcements - 1996

Meeting Announcements - 1997

Internet Resources

There is a list of water-related calls for papers and meeting announcements on the World Wide Web at: http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/AgrEnv/Water/Water-Related_Events/ meetings.txt

Production of NWQEP NOTES is funded through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Grant No. X818397. Project Officer: Steven A. Dressing, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Office of Water, USEPA (4503F), 499 South Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20460, Tel: 202-260-7110, Fax: 202-260-1977, email: dressing.steven@epamail.epa.gov, Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS