1. USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) USDA Agricultural Research Service E. John Sadler, Coordinator M. A. Weltz, National Program Leader

2. Congressional Directive  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been providing assistance to farmers in implementing conservation practices for more than 60 years.  The effects of these practices have not been quantified.  Congress and OMB directed USDA to conduct an assessment of the effects of conservation practices.  NRCS was identified as the lead agency.  NRCS requested assistance from ARS in quantifying the environmental effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale.

3.  CEAP was established to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices implemented under the 2002 Farm Bill.  The initial focus is on cropland.  Future plans include assessments for wildlife, grazing lands, and wetlands. Conservation Effects Assessment Project

4. CEAP Has Two Major Components National Assessment  Provides estimates of conservation benefits at the national scale. Watershed Assessment Studies  Provides more detailed information on conservation effects in selected watersheds.  Designed to support the National Assessment.

5. The Watershed Assessment Studies Categories Three Watershed Categories  Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Benchmark Watersheds  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Special Emphasis Watersheds  CSREES Competitive Grants Watersheds

6. The ARS Watershed Assessment Study Research Approach  14 Benchmark Watersheds  Six multi-location teams  Focus on rainfed cropland watersheds  Collaboration with NRCS and other agencies

7. The ARS Watershed Assessment Study S. Fork Iowa River Walnut Creek Mark Twain U. Washita River U. Leon River Town Brook St. Joseph River U. Big Walnut Creek Yalobusha River Little River Goodwin Creek Beasley Lake

8. Scope  68 ARS Scientists  25 Projects  14 Locations The ARS Watershed Assessment Study

9. Anticipated Products 1.Water, soil, management, and economic data system. 2.Quantification of effects of conservation practices on environmental quality. 3.Validation of models and quantification of uncertainties of model predictions. 4.Evaluation of cost effectiveness of selection and placement of conservation practices. 5.Development of regional watershed models.

10. Missouri’s project – Mark Twain Lake / Salt River basin CEAP focuses on larger watersheds Historical data is on a smaller watershed – Goodwater Creek Scaling up is a significant part of our research in CEAP Some watersheds have very different land uses, which gives us some leverage

11. The NRCS Special Emphasis Watersheds  Funding by NRCS thru state offices  8 selected in 2004  Focus on specific resource concerns  Locations add diversity to other CEAP watershed studies  Technical collaboration with others

12. CSREES Competitive Grants Watersheds  4 projects funded in 2004, 4 more in 2005  3 year duration  Maximum award - $660K/project  $3 million (CSREES 2M, NRCS 1M)  Competitive external review

14. CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel  Established to provide external review and guidance to CEAP.  Composed of representatives from the communities that will use CEAP output.  Recommendations: USDA should use CEAP resources to provide assessments that will inform the 2007 farm bill debate. CEAP should provide rigorous assessments of options for implementing future conservation programs.

15. SUMMARY  CEAP is mandated by Congress and OMB.  ARS-CEAP is a large multi-location project involving 14 watersheds.  NRCS Special Emphasis Watersheds involve 8 watersheds focused on specific resource concerns.  CSREES Competitive Grants watersheds include 4 projects funded in 2004 and 4 additional projects funded in 2005.  All three watershed programs support the CEAP National Assessment.  An external panel is providing guidance to CEAP direction.

16. CEAP Web site http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap Web site contains  Overview of CEAP  Fact sheet for each watershed  ARS Watershed Assessment Study project plan  Work plan for National Assessment

17. Local Issues - Atrazine What appears to reduce Atrazine lost in runoff? ARS local research results –Applying less of it –Incorporating after applying it –Having no runoff until it dissipates Two of these are management compromises The other is unpredictable, and approaches unmanageable

18. Planting and Runoff Timing Year19901991199219931994199519961997 1998199920002001200220032004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 90100110120130140150160170180 %

19. Planting and Runoff Timing Corn planting progress, 1990, MO NE District Percent planted 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Day of year 90 100110120130140150160170180190200210220 Flow, cfs 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

20. Planting and Runoff Timing Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE District year=1991 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 doy 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1991 Day of year 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 Percent planted Flow, cfs

21. Planting and Runoff Timing Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE District year=1995 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 doy 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 1995 Day of year 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 Percent planted Flow, cfs

22. Planting and Runoff Timing Corn planting progress, 1990-2004, MO NE District year=2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 doy 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 0 1000 2000 3000 2000 Day of year 90100110120130140150160170180190200210220 Percent planted Flow, cfs

23. Big Questions Given the dominant effect of time since application… –Is dry weather the only thing that can prevent loss? –Is recent improvement mostly caused by weather? –Will future years disappoint us? –What would happen if they do?

24. E. John Sadler sadlerj@missouri.edu John.Sadler@ars.usda.gov Cropping Systems & Water Quality Research Unit Columbia, MO