1 / 12

Watershed Evaluation of BMPs (WEBs) Beneficial Management Practices and Water Quality

Watershed Evaluation of BMPs (WEBs) Beneficial Management Practices and Water Quality. Brook Harker WEBs Project Manager Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), DUC, & other partner agencies http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/greencover-verdir/ March 2005. Does Conservation Programming Work?.

vevay
Download Presentation

Watershed Evaluation of BMPs (WEBs) Beneficial Management Practices and Water Quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Watershed Evaluation of BMPs (WEBs)Beneficial Management Practicesand Water Quality Brook Harker WEBs Project Manager Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), DUC, & other partner agencies http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/greencover-verdir/ March 2005

  2. Does Conservation Programming Work? Five major programs 1984-2004 (20 yrs), 4-5 yrs each, total = $180 M Total cult land (2001): 40 M ha (30 M seeded, 5 M fallow, 6 M pasture)

  3. WEBsobjectives: • Envt. and econ. performance BMPs • Begin the process. . . • Micro-watershed scale (~ 300 ha) • 7 regional sites Canada-wide • Water quality as primary indicator • Predict, apply BMPs, validate • Correlate other agencies, projects and studies • Fed/Prov; Ag Industry; HC/MST (microbial sources); EC/NAESI (envt stds.); NAHARP (agri-envt indicators). • USDA/CEAP (Conservation Effects Assessment)

  4. WEBs Committees • Management Committee • PFRA, Research Branch, EC, Fed/Prov Working Grp, Policy Br., DUC • Technical Committee • Watershed Leads, DUC, subcommittee reps, NAHARP, WEBs Mgt • Subcommitees: • Economics • Modeling • Communications

  5. Watershed Selection Criteria • AAFC-led team • Key regional, multi-agency partners • Existing long-term sites • Where practical • Small sub-watersheds • Known data sets • Runoff prone • To drive the process

  6. In-Field Methodology • Verify environmental effect: • Benchmark, paired w-sheds, edge-of-field • Verify economic effect: • On-farm benefit:cost; net benefit to society • Integrate environmental and economic impact: • Modeling within project sites • Scaling-up as appropriate

  7. Non-Market Economic Model Behaviour Publishing Integrated Modeling On-Farm Hydraulic Model Two Parallel Paths Watershed Data Watershed Data Watershed BMP Research

  8. WEBs Budget • Site establish.(BMPs, monitoring) 10 % ($ .80 M) • Operate expenses(access, data) 40 % ($2.90 M) • Sci. staffing(summer, modelers) 30 % ($2.30 M) • Modeling 06 % ($ .50 M) • Economics 05 % ($ .35 M) • Communications 04 % ($ .20 M) • Tech. Comm, annual review 04 % ($ .25 M) • Grand Total$7.30 M APF 60% ($4.41 M); DUC 17% ($1.25 M); Others 23% ($1.65 M)

  9. Approvals Process • Spring ‘03 - ‘Terms of Reference’ • circulated federal, provincial & NGO agencies • Summer ’03 - explored watershed interest • encouraged specific proposal development • Dec ’03 - AAFC-wide call for proposals • Full internal & peer review • March ’04 • 13 letters of intent • 7 projects approved

  10. WEBs – 7 Regional Project Sites

  11. WEBs - BMP Focusby Watershed

  12. Project Status • Sites are at various stages of implementation - $$ difficulties; BMP application is well underway - ongoing monitoring & evaluation • Setting economics and modeling protocols - significant development still required! • Continue to liaise with other APF projects • Cooperation - Encourage multi-agency, multi-disciplinary work. www.agr.gc.ca/env/greencover-verdir/ dbh

More Related