USDA water quality projects and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed studies

Osmond, Deanna L.

doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.142a

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A general finding of all these studies is that although water quality improvements resulting from BMP implementation can be reliably measured at the field scale, it has been difficult to measure improvements in water quality at the watershed scale (Osmond 2010;Cho et al 2010;Meals et al 2012). Possible explanations for this include that decades are required to overcome legacy effects of NPS pollution-especially sedimentation of streams and rivers, and that much of the investment in BMPs was widely distributed across the agricultural landscape and not concentrated in areas contributing the most to water quality problems or in areas most likely to respond to BMPs (Jang et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

Jang

Vellidis

Kurkalova

et al. 2014

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to apply and evaluate a recently developed prioritization model which uses the synoptic approach to geographically prioritize watersheds in which Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be implemented to reduce water quality problems resulting from erosion and sedimentation. The model uses a benefit-cost framework to rank candidate watersheds within an ecoregion or river basin so that BMP implementation within the highest ranked watersheds will result in the most water quality improvement per conservation dollar invested. The model was developed to prioritize BMP implementation efforts in ecoregions containing watersheds associated with the USDA-NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). We applied the model to HUC-8 watersheds within the southeastern Coastal Plain ecoregion (USA) because not only is it an important agricultural area but also because it contains a well-studied medium-sized CEAP watershed which is thought to be representative of the ecoregion. The results showed that the three HUC-8 watersheds with the highest rankings (most water quality improvement expected per conservation dollar invested) were located in the southern Alabama, northern Florida, and eastern Virginia. Within these watersheds, measures of community attitudes toward conservation practices were highly ranked, and these indicators seemed to push the watersheds to the top of the rankings above other similar watersheds. The results, visualized as maps, can be used to screen and reduce the number of watersheds that need further assessment by managers and decision-makers within the study area. We anticipate that this model will allow agencies like USDA-NRCS to geographically prioritize BMP implementation efforts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

Jang

Vellidis

Kurkalova

et al. 2014

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…al 2008). For example, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can be used to assess the benefits of applying a series of management practices across a watershed and what the total reduction in NO 3 leaching will be across the watershed (Osmond 2010). As another example, Brooks et al (2010) reported that there has been a decrease in sediment loads over the last 28 years in the Paradise Creek watershed, which can be attributed to a conversion from conventional tillage systems to minimum tillage and perennial grasses.…”

Section: Journal Of Soil and Water Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Lal¹,

Delgado²,

Groffman³

et al. 2011

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

299

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management decisions both at the field and off-site have the potential to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Climate change threatens to increase the potential for soil erosion, reduce soil quality, lower agricultural productivity and negatively impact food security and global sustainability, making it one of the most severe challenges we will face in the 21st century. This paper looks at the potential of management to help us, not only mitigate climate change, but also to help us adapt to a changing climate. Different aspects of carbon management, nitrogen management, manure management, management in low-input systems (sustainable agriculture), and grazing land management are discussed as examples. Management decisions regarding conservation practices, such as no-till, conservation agriculture, and returning crop residue to the field to increase nutrient cycling, can contribute to carbon sequestration and help us mitigate and adapt to climate change. Additionally, management of grasslands, restoration of degraded/desertified lands, nitrogen management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, precision conservation management at a field and/or watershed level, and other management alternatives can also help us mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. Management for climate change mitigation and adaptation is key for environmental conservation, sustainability of cropping systems, soil and water quality, and food security. This paper suggests, based on a review of the literature, that management decisions that reduce soil erosion, increase carbon sequestration to improve soil functions, soil quality, and soil health, and contribute to the resilience of soils and cropping systems will be needed to respond to climate change and related challenges such as food security. Our review suggests that without management decisions that increase soil and water conservation, food security for the world's growing population will be harder to achieve.

show abstract

“…Nutrient management involves both behavioral and biophysical contextual components, and crafting workable approaches requires information about both (Brant 2003;Nowak and Cabot 2004). There are clear benefits to conducting more intensive, on-farm research to identify operational challenges in implementing NM (e.g., Cabot et al 2006;Pierce et al 2007;Weld et al 2002), and findings from the USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project studies illustrate the importance of incorporating social dimensions into that research (see Osmond 2010). Yet, beyond formalized research and comparative methodological approaches for NMP development (e.g., Sharpley et al 2003;Weld et al 2002), there is a need for complementary and accessible methods and measurement tools that incorporate socioeconomic and behavioral changes into use of NM and related voluntary practices, as well as a commitment to use them as part of a natural resource protection effort (Robertson et al 2007;Genskow and Wood 2009;Prokopy 2011).…”

Section: Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Abstract: Adoption-behavior Change-evaluation-nutrient Manamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonpoint source pollution from rural and urban landscapes carries nutrients and other contaminants into surface water and groundwater and contributes to tainted drinking water supplies, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, and compromised recreational opportunities. For decades, numerous federal, state, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations have provided technical assistance, funding, oversight, and expertise to enable landowners to use practices aimed at minimizing the impact of NPS (Osmond 2010; Duriancik et al 2008).Despite those efforts, substantial challenges remain, and reducing agricultural nutrient loads is a central component for many water quality restoration and protection strategies (USEPA 2008;Thomas et al 2007;Diebel et al 2008;Jha et al 2010).Agricultural nutrient management plans (NMPs) provide a means for balancing crop nutrient needs with potential environmental quality impacts, and they are widely promoted. Plans vary in complexity, form, and level of detail.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking stock of voluntary nutrient management: Measuring and tracking change

Genskow¹

2012

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The importance of nutrient management plans (NMPs) in mitigating the impact of farm-based nutrient applications on the environment is widely acknowledged. However, despite years of promotion by agencies, most farmers still have not developed a NMP. Those plans that have been developed vary in quality and in the degree to which they are actually implemented. Although effective tools have emerged to aid plan development, the planning process remains time and resource intensive. In addition, information about NMPs and actual nutrient application rates generally is not available to resource managers who address water quality issues. This study examines changes in nutrient management behaviors and perceptions among 259 farmers, who participated in a multisession educational workshop series focused on understanding and developing NMPs. Based on structured interviews with farmers before and again one to three years after the workshops, the study finds that farmers are developing NMPs, understanding their plans, and also changing nutrient application rates (both increasing and decreasing). After implementing their NMPs, a strong majority (69%) of the participants believe that their plan has saved them money with no negative effect on yield. Three main findings hold implications for broader water quality and land conservation programs: (1) NMP education courses can lead to changes in farmer nutrient management behaviors, not always toward reducing nutrients; (2) farmers acknowledge challenges in fully implementing their plans, yet a high percentage (82%) indicate that they follow their plan on most (>76%) of their land; and (3) there is a need for accessible approaches to measure and track nutrient management behaviors separate from NMPs and in cases where they do not exist. Key words: adoption-behavior change-evaluation-nutrient management planningprogram evaluation-workshopsNonpoint source (NPS) pollution from agricultural nutrients is recognized as the largest contributor to poor water quality throughout many regions of the United States (USEPA 2009; USGS 2010). Nonpoint source pollution from rural and urban landscapes carries nutrients and other contaminants into surface water and groundwater and contributes to tainted drinking water supplies, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, and compromised recreational opportunities. For decades, numerous federal, state, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations have provided technical assistance, funding, oversight, and expertise to enable landowners to use practices aimed at minimizing the impact of NPS (Osmond 2010; Duriancik et al. 2008).Despite those efforts, substantial challenges remain, and reducing agricultural nutrient loads is a central component for many water quality restoration and protection strategies (USEPA 2008;Thomas et al. 2007;Diebel et al. 2008;Jha et al. 2010).Agricultural nutrient management plans (NMPs) provide a means for balancing crop nutrient needs with potential environmental quality impacts, and they are widely promoted. Plans v...

show abstract

USDA water quality projects and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed studies

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Taking stock of voluntary nutrient management: Measuring and tracking change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About