Chapter 8 Synthesizing the Experience of the 13 National Institute of Food and Agriculture – Conservation Effects Assessment Project Watershed Studies : Present and Future

T he Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) watershed studies were intended to quantify the measurable effects of agricultural conservation practices on water quality patterns and trends at the watershed scale using a retrospective design (Duriancik et al. 2008). Specifically, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) CEAP studies were charged with answering four key questions about how timing, location, interactions, and socioeconomic factors affect the optimal implementation of conservation practices in a watershed to achieve water quality goals: 1. Within the hydrologic and geomorphic setting of a watershed, how do the timing, location, and suite of implemented agricultural conservation practices affect surface and/or groundwater quality at the watershed scale? 2. What are the relationships among conservation practices implemented in a given watershed with respect to their impact on water quality? Are the effects additive, contradictory, or independent? 3. What social and economic factors within the study watershed either facilitate or impede implementation or proper maintenance of conservation practices? 4. What is the optimal set or suite of conservation practices and what is their optimal placement within the watershed in order to achieve water quality goals or to provide acceptable reductions in water quality impairments? Most projects were unable to answer all of these questions because of limitations in water quality data, land treatment information, and/or other data or technical constraints. This was due in part to the retrospective nature of the projects and the current state of science. Nevertheless, much can be learned from these projects. Assembling the lessons learned from these efforts was the charge of this project—Synthesizing and Extending Lessons Learned from the 13 NIFA– CEAP Watersheds, which will be referred to as this synthesis project. Many gaps that could not be filled by any single project were addressed using supplemental information gathered through this synthesis, including site visits with the research teams, review of project documents, key informant interviews, and the merging of all of these information sources from multiple projects.