watershed evaluation of bmps (webs) beneficial management practices and water quality brook harker...
TRANSCRIPT
Watershed EvaluationWatershed Evaluation of BMPs of BMPs (WEBs) (WEBs)
Beneficial Management PracticesBeneficial Management Practicesand Water Qualityand Water Quality
Brook Harker Brook Harker WEBs Project ManagerWEBs Project Manager
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC),Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC),DUC, & other partner agenciesDUC, & other partner agencies
http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/greencover-verdir/
March 2005
Does Conservation Programming Work?Does Conservation Programming Work?
ActivityActivity YearYear ExtentExtent $ Spent$ Spent
Permanent Permanent CoverCover
’’89-’9489-’94 .5 M ha.5 M ha 70.0 M70.0 M75-160/ha75-160/ha
ShelterbeltsShelterbelts ’’81-’0181-’01 34 K km34 K km 50.0 M50.0 M
Zero TillageZero Tillage 2001 2001 censuscensus
9 M ha9 M ha __
GreenCoverGreenCover ‘‘04-’0804-’08 ~ 280 K ha~ 280 K ha(land conversion)(land conversion)
$110 M$110 M
Total cult land (2001): 40 M ha (30 M seeded, 5 M fallow, 6 M pasture)
Five major programs 1984-2004 (20 yrs), 4-5 yrs each, total = $180 M
WEBsWEBs oobjectivesbjectives:: Envt. and econ. performance BMPsEnvt. and econ. performance BMPs
Begin the process. . .Begin the process. . . Micro-watershed scale (~ 300 ha)Micro-watershed scale (~ 300 ha) 7 7 regionalregional sites Canada-wide sites Canada-wide
Water quality as primary indicatorWater quality as primary indicator Predict, apply BMPs, validatePredict, apply BMPs, validate
Correlate other agenciesCorrelate other agencies, projects and studies, projects and studies Fed/Prov; Ag Industry; HC/MST (microbial sources); Fed/Prov; Ag Industry; HC/MST (microbial sources); EC/NAESI (envt stds.); NAHARP (agri-envt indicators).EC/NAESI (envt stds.); NAHARP (agri-envt indicators). USDA/CEAPUSDA/CEAP (Conservation Effects Assessment) (Conservation Effects Assessment)
WEBs CommitteesWEBs Committees Management CommitteeManagement Committee
PFRA, Research Branch, EC, Fed/Prov Working PFRA, Research Branch, EC, Fed/Prov Working Grp, Policy Br., DUCGrp, Policy Br., DUC
Technical CommitteeTechnical Committee Watershed Leads, DUC, subcommittee reps, Watershed Leads, DUC, subcommittee reps,
NAHARP, WEBs MgtNAHARP, WEBs Mgt
Subcommitees:Subcommitees: • EconomicsEconomics• ModelingModeling• CommunicationsCommunications
Watershed Selection CriteriaWatershed Selection Criteria
AAFC-led teamAAFC-led team Key regional, multi-agency partnersKey regional, multi-agency partners
Existing long-term sitesExisting long-term sites Where practicalWhere practical
Small sub-watershedsSmall sub-watersheds Known data setsKnown data sets
Runoff proneRunoff prone To drive the processTo drive the process
In-Field MethodologyIn-Field Methodology
Verify environmental effect:Verify environmental effect: Benchmark, paired w-sheds, edge-of-fieldBenchmark, paired w-sheds, edge-of-field
Verify economic effect:Verify economic effect: On-farm benefit:cost; net benefit to societyOn-farm benefit:cost; net benefit to society
Integrate environmental andIntegrate environmental and
economic impact:economic impact: Modeling within project sitesModeling within project sites Scaling-up as appropriateScaling-up as appropriate
Pu
bli
shin
g
Inte
gra
ted
Mo
de
ling
Wa
ters
hed
BM
PR
ese
arc
h
Hydraulic Model
Non-Market
Behaviour
On-Farm
WatershedData
WatershedData
Economic Model
Two Parallel Paths
WEBs BudgetWEBs Budget Site establish.Site establish. (BMPs, monitoring) (BMPs, monitoring) 10 % 10 % ($ .80 M)($ .80 M)
Operate expensesOperate expenses (access, data)(access, data) 40 % 40 % ($2.90 M)($2.90 M)
Sci. staffingSci. staffing (summer, modelers)(summer, modelers) 30 % 30 % ($2.30 M)($2.30 M)
ModelingModeling 06 % 06 % ($ .50 M)($ .50 M)
EconomicsEconomics 05 % 05 % ($ .35 M)($ .35 M)
CommunicationsCommunications 04 % 04 % ($ .20 M)($ .20 M)
Tech. Comm, annual reviewTech. Comm, annual review 04 % 04 % (($ .25 M)$ .25 M)
Grand TotalGrand Total $7.30 M$7.30 M
APF 60% ($4.41 M); DUC 17% ($1.25 M); Others 23% ($1.65 M)
Approvals ProcessApprovals Process
Spring ‘03Spring ‘03 - ‘Terms of Reference’ - ‘Terms of Reference’ circulated federal, provincial & NGO agenciescirculated federal, provincial & NGO agencies
Summer ’03 -Summer ’03 - explored watershed interest explored watershed interest encouraged specific proposal developmentencouraged specific proposal development
Dec ’03Dec ’03 - AAFC-wide call for proposals - AAFC-wide call for proposals Full internal & peer reviewFull internal & peer review
March ’04March ’04 13 letters of intent13 letters of intent 7 projects approved7 projects approved
WEBs - BMP FocusWEBs - BMP Focusby Watershedby Watershed
LocationLocation Key IssuesKey Issues BMPs BMPs ApproachApproach
Lwr Ltl Bow Lwr Ltl Bow (Alberta)(Alberta)
N, P & bact. N, P & bact. loadingloading
Off-str water, Off-str water, buff., mnr-mgtbuff., mnr-mgt
Edge-of-fld, Edge-of-fld, up/dn streamup/dn stream
So. Tobacco So. Tobacco (Manitoba)(Manitoba)
N & soluble P N & soluble P loadingloading
Zero till, small Zero till, small dams, ripariandams, riparian
Edge-of-field, Edge-of-field, cumul w-shedcumul w-shed
Bras d’Henri Bras d’Henri (Quebec)(Quebec)
Nutr, bactr & Nutr, bactr & herbic loadingherbic loading
Herb use, Herb use, buff, slury mgtbuff, slury mgt
2 test, 2 cntl 2 test, 2 cntl edge-of-fieldedge-of-field
Project StatusProject Status Sites are at various stages of implementationSites are at various stages of implementation
- $$ difficulties; BMP application is well underway- $$ difficulties; BMP application is well underway
- ongoing monitoring & evaluation- ongoing monitoring & evaluation
Setting economics and modeling protocolsSetting economics and modeling protocols- significant development still required!- significant development still required!
Continue to liaise with other APF projectsContinue to liaise with other APF projects CooperationCooperation
- Encourage multi-agency,- Encourage multi-agency,
multi-disciplinary work.multi-disciplinary work.
www.agr.gc.ca/env/greencover-verdir/
dbh