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 – 7 WEBs – 7 RegionalRegional Project Sites Project Sites

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