Table Of ContentHistoric, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
aTD223
S97
.
1992
Ml States Assessing Physical
irtment of
culture
Impacts Water
of
ervation
ce
Quality Projects
&
Strategic Planning Policy Analysis
Report
Staff
Assessment Team: John D. Sutton, (SCS - Team Leader);
Ray H. Griggs (Texas A&M); Donald W. Meals (University of
Vermont)
May 1992
Document Delivery Services Branch
USDA, National Agricultural Library
Nal Bldg.
10301 Baltimore Blvd.
Beitsville, MD 20705-2351
National Agricultural Library
T3>223
i
d
qqf
/fte-
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Evaluation mandate
Evaluation components 1
Key Aspects ofthe Assessment 2
Annual project reports 2
Technical assistance 2
Baseline conditions 2
Otherprograms/projects 3
Differences between Hydrologic Unit Areas and
DemonstrationProjects 3
Sixteen Projects Selected 3
AssessmentTeam Activities and Plans 4
Major activities in FY 1991 4
Training and technical assistance: monitoring water
quality and land management 6
Training and technical assistance: simulation models 8
Training andtechnical assistance: data management 8
Outline ofMarch 1993 Interim Report 8
Project Summaries 9
Group
I
Sand Mountain/Lake Guntersville HUA, Alabama 9
UpperTippecanoe RiverWatershed HUA, Indiana 11
Sycamore CreekWatershed HUA, Michigan 12
East Sidney Lake Watershed HUA, New York 13
Little BearRiverHUA, U'ah 14
Monocacy RiverWatershed Demonstration, Maryland 15
Herrings Marsh RunDemonstration, North Carolina 17
East RiverWatershed Demonstration, Wisconsin 18
Group II
InlandBays HUA, Delaware 19
Illinois RiverSands HUA, Illinois 21
Ontario HUA, Oregon 21
Lake Manatee Demonstration, Florida 23
AnokaSandPlainDemonstration, Minnesota 24
Mid-Nebraska WaterQuality Demonstration, Nebraska 25
Group III
Seco CreekDemonstration, Texas 26
Group IV
Rice Pesticide Demonstration, California 27
References 28
Appendix A: AssessmentMandate 29
Appendix B: Acronyms 30
3*10"31 A9riou,tura
NAL Bldg ' Library
10301 Baltimore Blvd
MD
Beltsville, 20705-2351
'
Abstract were the maindatasource. The final report was published
inJanuary 1992.
Thisreport presents the approachbeing followedto assess
the ability ofUSDAprojects toprotect orimprove water II Producer Adoption: ES is taking leadership in the
quality from agricultural nonpoint source pollution andto second component: Evaluation of ProducerAdoption of
document thatprotection orimprovement. The approach Water Quality Measures inthe first eight Demonstration
emphasizestraining project staffsintheuse ofmonitoring Projects. PeterNowak, Department ofRural Sociology,
andphysical process simulation techniques tobetter University ofWisconsin, is the principal investigator.
documentprogress. The 16projects selected forthe Producers in 15 areas (each oftheeightprojects and seven
Assessment suggest the variety ofagricultural nonpoint control areas) will be surveyed in 1992 and 1994 by mail
source pollutants affecting the Nation's waters, major types questionnaire. The purpose is to: a) make astatistically
ofmanagement andlandtreatmentpractices being validestimate ofthe acceleration ofadoptionofmeasures to
promotedtoprotect orimprovewaterquality, and the protect orimprove waterquality; and b) determine the
analytic tools being used todocumentprogress. influence ofthe demonstration and ofother factors to rates
ofadoption.
Introduction HI Physical Impact Assessment: SCS is taking
leadershipin the third component: Physical Impact
Evaluation Mandate Assessment (Assessment). The purpose is to assess the
ability ofthe firsteight DemonstrationProjects andeight
The USDAWaterQuality Program Plan requires an selectedHydrologic Unit Areas to protect orimprove water
evaluationoftheperformance ofthis FY 1990-94 Program. quality from agricultural nonpoint source pollution and to
To implement the Program Plan, the Education, Technical, document those effects. Assessmentdata will be provided
and FinancialAssistance Committee (ET&FA) ofthe toERS forComponent IV.
USDA Working Group on Water Quality developed the
conceptual evaluation framework. Three USDA agencies — Members ofthe Assessment team are
Economic Research Service (ERS), Extension Service (ES),
and Soil Conservation Service (SCS)— are responsible for - Ray H. Griggs, Agricultural Engineer, Blackland
evaluating the ET&FAprogram from a national Research Center, Texas A & M University, Temple,
perspective. Thisevaluationhas fourmajorcomponents: Texas. Ray is responsible for: a) assistingproject
I - Initial Organization andImplementation; II - Producer staffs select and use physicalprocess simulation
Adoption; in - Physical Impact Assessment; and, models; and b) assessingprogress in use ofsimulation
IV- Economic Assessment. models.
This reportpresentsthe approachbeingtakenin Component - Donald W. Meals, Research Associate, School of
III - the Physical ImpactAssessment (Assessment). The Natural Resources, University ofVermont, Burlington,
report gives abriefoverview ofthe full ET&FAevaluation, Vermont. Donis responsible for: a) helpingproject
the Assessment approach, adescription ofthe 16projects staffs understandthe complexities ofmonitoringwater
participatinginthe Assessment, technical assistance plans quality and agrichemical management; b)relating
oftheAssessment team forFY 1992, and anoutline ofthe changes inthatmanagementto waterquality; andc)
Interim Report (March 1993). assessingprogress inuse ofmonitoring.
- JohnD. Sutton, Agricultural Economist, SCS,
Evaluation Components
Strategic Planning andPolicy Analysis Staff,
Washington, D.C. Johnhas overall responsibility for
I Organization andInitialImplementation: ES took the Assessment. Among otherthings, this involves
leadership inthe first component: Assessment ofthe helpingproject staffs automate datamanagement and
Organization and InitialImplementation ofthe Eight coordinating activities ofuniversity cooperators with
DemonstrationProjects ApprovedinFY 1990. Kay on-going USDAtechnical assistance andprogram
Rockwell andDeLynnHay, Cooperative Extension, activities.
University ofNebraska, acted as co-principalinvestigators.
The Nebraskateam visitedeachprojectto assessproject IV Economic Cost-Effectiveness and Benefits: ERS is
plans, coordination andcooperation amonglocal-state- takingleadership inthe fourthcomponent: Economic Cost-
federal agencies, andearly implementation. Agency staff Effectiveness andBenefits. Thepurpose is to measure
economic net benefits ofreasonable alternative water These methods and tools include those for: a) data
quality activities. The projects to be studied will be among management; b)establishing baseline waterquality and
the 16participating in the Physical Impact Assessment. agrichemical use and management; c) monitoring change in
waterquality or waterquality indicators and in agrichemical
use and management; and d) simulatingpotential change in
Key Aspects of the Assessment waterquality indicators. Ofcourse, project staffs remain
responsible for helping producers to implement effective
The Assessment team will analyze annual reports from 16 practices orsystems that protect waterquality and for
projects approved in FY 1990, examine the data and documentingprojectprogress in achieving goals.
methods used by project staffs to documentprogress in their
annual reports, and draw implications for future USDA
waterqualityprograms. The approach conforms to the Baseline Conditions
conceptual framework outlinedinthe USDAProgram Plan
and inthe ET&FA Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (see Pre-project conditions from which project staffs will
Appendix). measure progress towardproject goals are "baseline"
conditions. Project staffs will estimate baseline conditions
forwaterquality, orwaterquality indicator, and for the
Annual Project Reports nonpoint agricultural sources contributing to the water
quality problem. Staffs will also state project goals for
The Assessment team will base its reports onthe data and improvement overthe baseline conditions.
analyses developed by project staffs. Thisis possible since
the ET&FA Strategy requires all projects to monitorand In assessing ability toprotect orimprove waterquality, the
evaluate theirownperformance intheirAnnual Project Assessment team will take into consideration that
Reports. The team played asignificant role indesigning the establishing quantitative, objective estimates ofbaseline
required format and content ofthese Reports. conditions is possible but not necessarily easy or
straightforward. Several reasons are suggested:
All reports are todocument one ormore ofthree major
types ofphysical impacts. They are: 1) Lack ofstandards forwhat constitutes a water
quality problem orunacceptably high level fora water
o Changes in use and application ofagrichemicals quality indicator;
andanimal waste relative toproject goals; and
2) Insufficient time-seriesdata on waterquality or
oPredicted(from physicalprocess simulation indicators and/oronlocal weather,
models)reductions in agrichemicallosses
beyondthe edge ofthe farm field orthe 3) Anincomplete understanding ofcausality overtime
bottom ofthe croproot zone relative toproject and space between application ofagrichemicals and
goals; and/or waterquality;
oMonitored change in groundwaterand/orsurface 4) Lack oftime-series dataon agrichemical use and
waterquality resulting from treatment activities management.
relative toproject goals.
In spite ofsuch factors, it is possible and/ornecessary to:
Technical Assistance a) Develop objective baseline estimates from multiple
sources ofvarying quality andto cite these sources;
Inlarge degree, the credibility ofthe Assessment will
depend uponthe quality ofthe workdone by the selected b) Revise theseestimates during the course ofthe
projects. Toensure ahighlevel ofobjectivity and projects as knowledge is gainedby working with
credibility in Annual Reportspreparedby project staffs, the producers and interpreting data from monitoring and
team will offertraining and/ortechnical assistance in the simulationmodels;
selection anduse ofthe appropriate analytical methods and
tools fordocumentingperformance. c)Documentquantitative progress from the baseline
conditionsusing data from monitoring (waterquality
2
and agrichemical management) activities and/or itpossible to generalize some DP-wide physical impacts.
physical process simulationmodels. The ProducerAdoptionstudy should also indicate the
reasons forand against adoption ofpractices in the eight
DPs.
Other Programs/Projects
Sixteen Projects Selected
Isolating the effect ofaproject onchange inwaterquality is
confoundedby the ongoing presence in many projects of
significant waterquality programs ofotherFederal and The process usedto selectprojects involved:
A
State agencies. Funds andstaffare oftenco-mingled.
satisfactory means to resolution ofthis problem has not yet o Accepting the USDA Program Plan requirement
beendeveloped. The Producer Adoptionsurvey to evaluate the eight DPs approvedinFY 1990.
(Component II)is expectedto cast some light by
determining the statistically important factors causing o Developing criteria forselecting HUAs with
adoptionofmeasures in the eightDemonstrationProjects. ASCS, ES, ERS, and SCS staffand requesting
input from the USDAWater Quality Working
Group's DataBase andEvaluation Committee.
Differences Between HUAs and DPs The criteria were:
o Type ofgroundwater and/orsurface water
Annual Project Reports vary between Demonstration
Projects (DP) and Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) due to body threatenedby agricultural nonpoint
conceptual differences between the two types ofprojects. sources ofpollution.
HUAs must be located only in areasthat States have
identified, undersection 319 ofthe WaterQuality Act, as o Project focus onimproving nutrient (organic
having significant impairment ofwaterquality by as well as inorganic) management and/or
pesticide management.
agricultural nonpoint sources. While nonpoint source
problems are potentially important in aDP, they need not
o Presence ofeithermajor agricultural
have beenidentified as ahighpriority problem by the State.
Whereas HUAs are, by definition, awatershed oraquifer- commodities and/orlivestock (poultry, dairy,
recharge area, a DP may ormay not be a hydrologic unit. beefcattle, hogs) operations.
IntheHUAs, SCS, ES, and cooperating agencies emphasize o Non-irrigated as well as irrigatedcropland.
planning andimplementing practices andsystems already
knowntoprotect orimprove waterquality. In contrast, DPs o Presence ofwaterquality monitoring.
demonstrate the effectiveness ofoftenrelatively new
practices andinsodoingpromote practice adoption. o Knowledge oforreceptivity to usingphysical
process simulationmodels.
Projectstaffs concentrate theirefforts on the demonstration
sites and activities.
HUA HUA
o Requesting nominations from Program
DP staffmay estimate physical effects only on managers and SCS National Technical Centers.
demonstrationsites. DP staffmay have only limited data
onpractice adoption by producerswho do not receive direct o Reviewingprojectproposals andFY 1990plans of
assistance but who may adopt based onknowledge gained operation for nominatedprojects, discussing the
from attending field days, farm tours, and other Assessmentwithproject coordinators, making an
demonstration activities. Data on total acreage receiving initial selection, reviewing andrevising the selection
HUA
improved agrichemicalmanagementmay thus be less with Program managers, andpresenting the
complete forDPs than forHUAs. final listto the ET&FA Committee.
The Assessment willrely onthe ProducerAdoption In terms ofagricultural activities and nonpoint source
(ComponentII) to estimate the extent ofadoptionofthe pollutants, the 16projects fall into two majorgroups and
most importantpracticesinthe eightDPprojects. Those two othergroups.
results, whichwill also be available toproject staffs,
togetherwithmonitoring and simulationresults may make The first group has eightprojects. See table 1. Itis
characterizedprimarily by concernovercontaminationof
3
surface waterby runoffofnutrients from cropland(non-
irrigated) andlivestockproduction. Project staffs expect to Table 1 — Projects selected
achieve improvementsby causing adoption ofimproved
HydrologicUnit Areas DemonstrationProjects
management ofnutrients, pesticides, andsediment.
Improvements willbe measured from baseline conditions
establishedeitherby special surveys (insix ofthe eight GroupI
projects), recent studies, andbyjudgement ofCES, SCS, AL - SandMountain/Lake MD - MonocacyRiver
and State agency stafffamiliarwiththe project area. Guntersville NC- Herrings Marsh
IN - UpperTippecanoe Run
The second group has sixprojects. Itis characterized MI - Sycamore Creek WI - EastRiver
primarily by concern overcontamination ofshallow NY - East Sidney Lake
groundwaterand associatedsurface waters by leaching of UT- Little BearRiver
nitrates andpesticides from irrigatedcropland. Livestock
andpoultry operations are significant nonpointnutrient
sourcesinthree projects. Project staffsexpect to achieve GroupII
improvements by causing adoption ofimproved
management ofirrigationwater, nitrogen, pesticides and DE - InlandBays* MFLN- Lake Manatee
animalwastes. Improvementswill be measured from IL - Illinois RiverSand - AnokaSandPlain
baseline conditions established by special surveys (in five OR - Ontario NE- Mid-Nebraska
ofthesixprojects), previous andrecent studies, and
judgement ofagency staffs.
Groupffl
Twoprojects do not fit well into eithergroup. The Texas TX - Seco Creek
projecthas both asurface waterand groundwaterconcern,
agriculture isprimarily rangeland, andnutrients and GroupIV
pesticides are theprimary pollutants. The Californiaproject CA
- Rice Herbicide
has asurface waterquality problem, agriculture is solely
ihrerribgiactiedde.rice, andthe pollutantofconcernis arice The InlandBays HUAmay also fitinGroupI
Table two summarizes theprojectsinterms ofwaterbodies
ofconcern, type ofagricultural nonpoint source pollutants,
and type ofwaterquality monitoring. The table shows that Assessment Team Activities and
ofthe 16projects, Plans
o Surface waterqualityis actually orpotentially
impairedin ariveror stream ineightprojects, in a Major Activities in FY 1991
lake (six), in anestuary (one);
Establish Cooperative Agreementsbetween SCS andTexas
o Groundwaterquality is actually orpotentially A&MUniversity andbetween SCS andthe University of
impairedin ashallow aquiferinnineprojects, in a
Vermont.
deep aquifer (four);
Design andimplement aprocessto selectDemonstration
o Eightprojects have irrigatedcropland, eighthave
Projects andHydrologicUnit Areas forthe Assessment.
dairy orbeefcattle operations, six have poultry or
hog operations;
Work withnationalheadquarters SCS and Extension
Service stafftodevelop anAnnual ProjectReport format
o Nitrates are cited as an actual orpotentialproblem in
thatemphasizes: a) statement ofspecific, measurablewater
13 projects, phosphates in9, sediment in 10,
quality goals; b)presentation ofbaseline conditions for
pesticides in 12, and animal waste in 11 projects.
(Among all45 FY 1990projects, about 30projects agrichemicalmanagement andwaterquality; c)
development ofastrategy to monitor andevaluateprogress;
listednutrients, pesticides, andsediment as a
d) usedefinitions andmeasurementunits that are consistent
pollutant ofconcern and about20listed animal waste.
across differentprojects.
4
